I was in Ho Chi Minh City
(locals continue to call it "Saigon") in
November 1994 when they held their elections.
It was compulsory for everyone to vote and,
of course, all the candidates were also selected and
approved by the Communist Party.
Good example of the sham "democracy"
of Leninist regimes.
P.S. By the way, I also saw entire families
sleeping on folding beds in the streets.
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 20:07:10 -0500
Reply-to: adkes@pipeline.com
From: Adam Kessler <adkes@pipeline.com>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: the Andrew thread & socialism vs capitalism
At 06:03 PM 1/25/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Adam,
>
>How would an "independent Cuban parliament" constitute popular
>participation in policy making? How is a parliament "independent"?
>Independent of what? Are you equating elections with democracy?
>
>I don't have much faith that you understand the structure of socialist
>governments in this century (or capitalist "democracies" for that
>matter). But socialist states have generally involved more worker and
>peasant participation than the polyarchic structures that exist in
>capitalist social formations.
>
>Andy
>
>
>Fine, so an independent parliament does not constitute popular
participation in polcy making. Then what does? I really would like to hear
some sort of description of the process of popular participation. Of course
I suspect that Austin simply means that in an "historically objective sense"
the "Vanguard Party" represents (no, constitutes) the proletariat and the
proletariat *is* the people so decisions by the party are ipso facto popular
decisions.
Its true though--I didn't know that there was a mystery about the "structure
of socialist governments in this century"--I thought there was simply a
corrupt nomenklatura at war with the people so they could hold on to their
privileges.