What’s the difference between vetted and pre-approved?
The difference is one election has more than one candidate to choose from and the election must be vetted by the state, and one election has just one candidate whom the state has already selected, and your vote doesn’t matter because the winner has already been decided.
Requiring the party’s approval is only a small step from them selecting the candidates though. Since they can simply refuse to approve any competing candidates.
Or since Cuba has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, simply arrest them.
I’m an anarchist so there’s no such thing as a candidate that represents me, because any person who represents me well enough to do the job knows it’s a job each individual must do for themselves. Government is always a casino, and the house always wins, and it boggles my mind that no matter how many times the people lose they keep building more casinos.
I understand and sympathize with anarchist positions and hope a stateless society can be achieved someday. But I don’t think acknowledging that states are harmful means we need to accept that they are equally harmful. And the Cuban form of government is a particularly bad one.
I dunno. All my life, my kind have never been catered to by politicians. Minor concessions granted in our favor yes, but LGBTQ+ people have had to fight tooth and nail for everything we’ve ever gotten, and what did we really achieve if all of it can be taken away by one shitty administration in the span of two years? My government has been harmful to me all my life.
That said, I still went out and voted against Trump in the last election because I believed not doing so would be tantamount to approving fascism. So you’re right that some states are more harmful than others, even if some people have been given good reason to see them all as intrinsically harmful.
I get it and that sucks. But minor concessions are a lot better than being executed. In the west at least we can openly organize and agitate for better conditions. There is some repression but it could be a lot worse.
I don’t think Trump has completely succeeded in rolling back lgbtq rights nor will he any time soon. A few decades ago being trans meant being a virtual social outcast. Today lots of trans and other queer people are well integrated into society, even if prejudice still exists. It’s a bad time right now because things are backsliding but this will pass and people are still organizing and pushing things forward, and I believe that momentum will eventually overcome the current repression. Keep fighting the good fight. I think voting against fascism is wise but the anarchists are right that we need to do a lot more than that too.
I admit I’m not familiar with the process for selecting local candidates but in a totalitarian system it hardly matters since the national government has absolute control over almost everything anyway.
Define totalitarianism in a way that includes Cuba but excludes the United States or any European country. Keep in mind the Communist party in Cuba is not one political party or entity.
If your argument is that Cuba isn’t totalitarian, you’re making a very poor case of it. However, if your argument is that the US and several European countries are far more totalitarian than they’re pretending to be, then you’re doing a great job.
It’s a party but not a party? Now you’re not making sense.
Totalitarian means virtually all political power flows through a single entity, typically the national government. Other sources of independent organizing are harshly repressed to the extent that they must be organized in secret or maintain an appearance of being apolitical.
I would consider the US authoritarian but not totalitarian. Too many countries in Europe to speak to them.
So the US, by your definition, is totalitarian. There is not a single possible legal opposition to the federal government, what it decides wins. Ditto for European countries.
This is why adults do not use the term totalitarian, all states, by virtue of being a single entity are inherently totalitarian.
To hint at the answer for your first question so you can do some research while trying to prove me wrong, realize you’re wrong, and learn something;
No. Like China the ‘communist party’ is a conglomeration of several different parties that all have one single overarching ideology. Think of it like the US requirement to pledge allegiance to the US constitution. You legally cannot be in any political office without that pledge.
Similarly in Communist-focused people’s republics, you are a ‘member of the communist party’ by proving you have read the material of the party, its constitution, and pledge to uphold it and work towards communism. That’s all it is. It’s called ‘one party’ because the alternatives want to dissolve the state entirely and replace it with something the people objectively did not want.
Not really though. There are many political organizations who openly seek to overthrow the ruling class in the US. They do face some repression but they still exist and can organize openly and enact political actions, even illegal ones in some cases, though with Trump this is becoming more difficult. Organizing itself is not outright illegal the way they are in totalitarian states. However due the systematic forces that keep such alternatives from succeeding are what makes it authoritarian, among other things.
I’ll have to look more into what you’re saying about the party. I do not believe this is correct and I believe the party enforces far more ideological constraints on its members than the US government does but I will confirm this. If they all have the same ideology then they’re only different on paper.
In Cuba there are actual local elections between members of the local community. Those competing must be in good standing with the party, but that’s fairly standard.
In N Korea the party selects the candidate and they run unopposed.
Interesting. But requiring being in good standing with the party is already enough to make these elections illegitimate. And given the lack of dissent allowed and the subservient position local officials typically have to national leaders this seems like a very small difference to me.
Interesting. But requiring being in good standing with the party is already enough to make these elections illegitimate.
There are plenty of political parties across the world that require candidates to be in good standing with the party before running for them in an election.
It’s not like any political party is going to be happy if an infamous person is representing them in an election.
If anything your grievance should be with single party democracies. Then again, there are plenty of single party states that aren’t criticized anywhere close to Cuba.
Like I said, democracies need to be weighed on a scale. Plus, simply being a democracy doesn’t necessarily mean a country is going to be a more equitable or virtuous society.
Yes, the issue is with single party states because in such states, the party and the state are basically synonymous. Insofar as a party is a voluntary organization, it’s fine to set standards for ideological unity. But once those standards become a requirement to access political power, your state is functionally no longer democratic.
And sure, there are other one party states, and they’re also bad. But I’m criticizing the Cuban government specifically because it has more defenders on Lemmy than those states do. Just look at how many angry comments I got.
sure, there are other one party states, and they’re also bad.
Is there a metric in which you use to determine if a country is good or bad? Surely it’s not just democracy = good?
Cuba (when not being illegally embargoed) has much higher living conditions, education, and access to healthcare when compared to other “democratic” countries with similar demographics.
Respect for autonomy and worker’s rights is important. Cuba does well in some metrics and very poorly on others. For example, few people know that they have one of the highest rates of incarceration of any country on earth. That’s not a sign of some socialist paradise, whatever other achievements they might have.
But I would generally look at an array of metrics but political freedoms are an important component, especially when we’re discussing government since unlike other metrics it’s totally within their power to control.
What’s the difference between vetted and pre-approved?
I would also fail the US, true.
The difference is one election has more than one candidate to choose from and the election must be vetted by the state, and one election has just one candidate whom the state has already selected, and your vote doesn’t matter because the winner has already been decided.
My understanding was that Cuba also only had single candidate “elections”, chosen by the party. You’re saying that’s not correct?
I don’t know if that’s the case, I was just clarifying the notions put forth by the user you were replying to.
I see, I didn’t notice you weren’t OP.
Requiring the party’s approval is only a small step from them selecting the candidates though. Since they can simply refuse to approve any competing candidates.
Or since Cuba has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, simply arrest them.
I’m an anarchist so there’s no such thing as a candidate that represents me, because any person who represents me well enough to do the job knows it’s a job each individual must do for themselves. Government is always a casino, and the house always wins, and it boggles my mind that no matter how many times the people lose they keep building more casinos.
I understand and sympathize with anarchist positions and hope a stateless society can be achieved someday. But I don’t think acknowledging that states are harmful means we need to accept that they are equally harmful. And the Cuban form of government is a particularly bad one.
I dunno. All my life, my kind have never been catered to by politicians. Minor concessions granted in our favor yes, but LGBTQ+ people have had to fight tooth and nail for everything we’ve ever gotten, and what did we really achieve if all of it can be taken away by one shitty administration in the span of two years? My government has been harmful to me all my life.
That said, I still went out and voted against Trump in the last election because I believed not doing so would be tantamount to approving fascism. So you’re right that some states are more harmful than others, even if some people have been given good reason to see them all as intrinsically harmful.
I get it and that sucks. But minor concessions are a lot better than being executed. In the west at least we can openly organize and agitate for better conditions. There is some repression but it could be a lot worse.
I don’t think Trump has completely succeeded in rolling back lgbtq rights nor will he any time soon. A few decades ago being trans meant being a virtual social outcast. Today lots of trans and other queer people are well integrated into society, even if prejudice still exists. It’s a bad time right now because things are backsliding but this will pass and people are still organizing and pushing things forward, and I believe that momentum will eventually overcome the current repression. Keep fighting the good fight. I think voting against fascism is wise but the anarchists are right that we need to do a lot more than that too.
Do you have a single source for this belief or is it something you intuited from the aether?
https://lens.civicus.org/cuba-elections-without-choices/
I admit I’m not familiar with the process for selecting local candidates but in a totalitarian system it hardly matters since the national government has absolute control over almost everything anyway.
Define totalitarianism in a way that includes Cuba but excludes the United States or any European country. Keep in mind the Communist party in Cuba is not one political party or entity.
If your argument is that Cuba isn’t totalitarian, you’re making a very poor case of it. However, if your argument is that the US and several European countries are far more totalitarian than they’re pretending to be, then you’re doing a great job.
It’s a party but not a party? Now you’re not making sense.
Totalitarian means virtually all political power flows through a single entity, typically the national government. Other sources of independent organizing are harshly repressed to the extent that they must be organized in secret or maintain an appearance of being apolitical.
I would consider the US authoritarian but not totalitarian. Too many countries in Europe to speak to them.
So the US, by your definition, is totalitarian. There is not a single possible legal opposition to the federal government, what it decides wins. Ditto for European countries.
This is why adults do not use the term totalitarian, all states, by virtue of being a single entity are inherently totalitarian.
To hint at the answer for your first question so you can do some research while trying to prove me wrong, realize you’re wrong, and learn something;
No. Like China the ‘communist party’ is a conglomeration of several different parties that all have one single overarching ideology. Think of it like the US requirement to pledge allegiance to the US constitution. You legally cannot be in any political office without that pledge.
Similarly in Communist-focused people’s republics, you are a ‘member of the communist party’ by proving you have read the material of the party, its constitution, and pledge to uphold it and work towards communism. That’s all it is. It’s called ‘one party’ because the alternatives want to dissolve the state entirely and replace it with something the people objectively did not want.
Not really though. There are many political organizations who openly seek to overthrow the ruling class in the US. They do face some repression but they still exist and can organize openly and enact political actions, even illegal ones in some cases, though with Trump this is becoming more difficult. Organizing itself is not outright illegal the way they are in totalitarian states. However due the systematic forces that keep such alternatives from succeeding are what makes it authoritarian, among other things.
I’ll have to look more into what you’re saying about the party. I do not believe this is correct and I believe the party enforces far more ideological constraints on its members than the US government does but I will confirm this. If they all have the same ideology then they’re only different on paper.
In Cuba there are actual local elections between members of the local community. Those competing must be in good standing with the party, but that’s fairly standard.
In N Korea the party selects the candidate and they run unopposed.
Interesting. But requiring being in good standing with the party is already enough to make these elections illegitimate. And given the lack of dissent allowed and the subservient position local officials typically have to national leaders this seems like a very small difference to me.
There are plenty of political parties across the world that require candidates to be in good standing with the party before running for them in an election.
It’s not like any political party is going to be happy if an infamous person is representing them in an election.
If anything your grievance should be with single party democracies. Then again, there are plenty of single party states that aren’t criticized anywhere close to Cuba.
Like I said, democracies need to be weighed on a scale. Plus, simply being a democracy doesn’t necessarily mean a country is going to be a more equitable or virtuous society.
Yes, the issue is with single party states because in such states, the party and the state are basically synonymous. Insofar as a party is a voluntary organization, it’s fine to set standards for ideological unity. But once those standards become a requirement to access political power, your state is functionally no longer democratic.
And sure, there are other one party states, and they’re also bad. But I’m criticizing the Cuban government specifically because it has more defenders on Lemmy than those states do. Just look at how many angry comments I got.
Is there a metric in which you use to determine if a country is good or bad? Surely it’s not just democracy = good?
Cuba (when not being illegally embargoed) has much higher living conditions, education, and access to healthcare when compared to other “democratic” countries with similar demographics.
Respect for autonomy and worker’s rights is important. Cuba does well in some metrics and very poorly on others. For example, few people know that they have one of the highest rates of incarceration of any country on earth. That’s not a sign of some socialist paradise, whatever other achievements they might have.
But I would generally look at an array of metrics but political freedoms are an important component, especially when we’re discussing government since unlike other metrics it’s totally within their power to control.