El Gobierno eliminará la lista de actividades permitidas para el sector privado en Cuba
La ministra de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, Marta Elena Feitó Cabrera, anunció este jueves que el Gobierno eliminará el…
The American Democrat Party and the Cuban Communist Party:
Two Marxist transvestites in the making.
It is said that today there are many Marxists in the United States who do not want to be called Marxists even though each of their ideas is perfectly in tune with all the core elements of the Marxist doctrine.
Such Marxists confess that when they take “a few things” from Marxism (Peter Joseph, the author of the Zeitgeist films) it is not really because they are Marxists, on the contrary, a whole “critique” of Marxism is part of their agendas.
Many of us know, however, that as the saying goes, when it comes to Marxism, all roads lead to Rome.
Bernie Sander and almost the entire troop of Democrats have followed and continue to shuffle the terminology cards to avoid the word socialism in a flat or strict sense. They insist on calling their socialism “social democracy”, or better, the Scandinavian model. They, without a doubt, as Fidel Castro affirmed on various occasions at the beginning of the Cuban revolution, do not want communism, but “social democracy.”
This almost sickly insistence on denying clear intentions to end up in socialism via a transition with social democracy in the United States today is contrasted with another equally sickly insistence on the part of outspoken and proud Marxists in a country like Cuba.
The Cuban communist elite plays the opposite game to the American Marxists who deny being Marxists, but in the end, both shake hands as was the case with Obama and Raul Castro.
For the Cuban communist elite, it is them and not the Cuban people who stipulate what can be with and within the communist line. For as long as that elite dictates the definition of communist or Marxist, such definition can be as elastic as the power so wishes.
When it is not endorsed by that elite and it is a common practice in capitalism, it makes it immediately illegal, criminal, and counterrevolutionary. If the same measure or policy is agreed by the elite, even if it is capitalist, it is still Marxist and communist.
This could erroneously force anyone to think that this is how socialism will win in America under the same name as capitalism and how capitalism will win in Cuba under the same name as socialism.
Such an idea, however, is a pure mirage on both sides, a mere transvestite that would never end in socialism or capitalism unless they affirmatively change their DNA on one side or the other. Such a change, however, will never happen through the underhanded lies that both have spun to achieve their goals.
A man who changes his sex to be a woman may say to himself that he has been a woman now originally and has always been a woman, but he cannot expect others to perceive him as if he has always been so.
Thus, the elite in power in Cuba could stretch the definition of communist and Marxist as much as they want, even extend them to “capitalist” practices carried out only by that elite to “help” the Cuban people. The elite can act as a “capitalist” to represent the people and as a representative of the people to have and enjoy those “capitalist” benefits much more than the ordinary Cuban.
In the same way, the Democratic elite in power in the United States could stretch the definition of a capitalist as much as they please, even extending it to “socialist” practices carried out only by that elite to “help” the American people. The elite can act as a “socialist” benefactor to represent the people and as well as a representative of the people to have and enjoy those “socialist” benefits far more than the ordinary American.
On the one hand, we would have in the United States a political transvestite that aspires to capitalism with “compassion” but in reality, only offers socialism that favors an elite that promises a lot to the ordinary American but ends up creating generalized poverty for all with a 1% “capitalist socialist” less rich but rich in the end.
On the other hand, we would have in Cuba a political transvestite that aspires to “competitive” socialism but in reality, only offers socialism that favors an elite that promises a lot to the ordinary Cuban but ends up creating generalized poverty for all with 1% more “socialist-capitalist” rich but a more corrupt and poor population.
These would be the consequences of the “capitalist” advances of the Cuban communist elite and would also be the consequences of the “social democratic” advances of the American Democratic elite.
It is not advisable to lose your footing or footfall on these two seemingly polarized transvestites of American and Cuban politics.