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.
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.