Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Luke Benjamin Weiger wrote:
>
> >Why should we think that its authoritarian character is
> >necessarily a consequence of US opposition?
>
> We don't. There are plenty of states that are authoritarian without
> inspiration from the U.S. That Cuba is "mildly authoritarian," as you
> put it, is a point greatly in its favor. But my argument is that any
> country taking a path that doesn't please the U.S. is shoved in an
> authoritarian direction because of the U.S.'s propensity to subvert
> and overthrow regimes it doesn't like. And I've yet to hear a
> credible nonauthoritarian way of defending a revolution against
> Langley.
>
Part of the problem stems from metaphysical definitions of "democracy" and "authoritarianism." The kneejerk definition of the latter is "any social system that does not conform to the description of U.S. democracy given in 7th grade 'civics' textbooks." From this it follows that all the authoritarian features of the U.S. (e.g., police-terror in the inner cities, lynching in the Jim Crow south, denial of easily provided medical care to large elements of the population) become "aberrations." All failures in Cuba to live up to the textbook image are seen as deliberate tyranny. All democratic features of Cuba are seen as illustory because not grounded in u.s.-style electoral hocus-pocus.
Which state, Cuba or the U.S., kills a higher proportion of its citizens each year? (Death penalty, domestic violence, prison conditions, deliberately withheld medical care, etc.)
Carrol