On the nature of "socialism", Cuban vs. Singaporean:
I think that the key to differentiating socialism as a political type is
to zero in on the role of the state in governance as well as in the
administration of the economy. I would distinguish two dimensions to
the roles that governments play: "administration" and "governance".
Classically (i.e., Engels, Lenin), the socialist state may administer/plan
the economy, but it does not govern, taking "to govern" to mean "to
exercise a directing or restraining influence over" (Portland House
Webster's, dfn. 2). It does not govern because there is no need for
governance once all class distinctions have been removed. The socialist
state is in this sense the polar opposite to the libreral state - strong
governance without administration - the "nightwatchman state".
Looking at it this way, Cuba and Singapore are (were recently) both
totalitarian - high governance / high administration. The issue of
nationalism - raised by Prof. Derluguian in comparing Castro to Brezhnev
and Honneker - is, I think, an issue of source of legitimation, not of
political structure. Thus, Castro's Cuba has been a nationalistically
legitimated totalitatian state, Peel's England was a traditionally- and
legally-legitimated somewhat-liberal state, Honneker's GDR was a force-
legitimated totalitarian state, etc.
Comments?
Salvatore Babones