The Lies of the System: We are Touching fund

Because we live to blows, because scarcely if they leave us
to say that we are who we are,
ours you will sing there can no be without sin adornment.
We are touching the fund, are touching the fund.
Recent events happened to another side of the Atlantic Ocean, and that I personally feel, and this way I have shown it, because the death of a human being, at this point of my life, is not for me joy motive, they have put in question the democratic warmth of the born state of the revolution that impelled the Movement On July 26, and here it is not of more remembering that the Cuban communists organized in the Popular Socialistic Party (PSP), until 1958, in which the USSR, it expresses to Ernesto Che Guevara his unequivocal commitment with the Cuban Revolution, and, in colloquial terms, it puts the batteries to the orthodox ones, the Cuban communists, I repeat, they had thought the bearded ones a bourgeois opposition.
In too much occasions I have defended, and therefore I am not going to repeat it now, that the Cuban political system is, as for quality, more democratic than any of the countries of the capitalist economic ambience, well be a parliamentarian or presidencialista. I already know that autocitarse
it is not the best of the practices but sometimes it can serve on the one hand not to repeat arguments, for other not to be contradicted.
But whenever I have affirmed, and I affirm, and I will not get tired of doing it, that this constitutional arranging that we endure is scantly democratic I have affirmed, and now I begin getting tired of doing it, that the same arranging allows us, there allows me, a series of freedoms that, of well-known form, seem not to exist in the systems that aspire to construct the socialism. And so, opposite to the freedom of expression and association that they seem, and I insist in that thing about that they seem, consolidated in our country, in Cuba it seems complicated to be evident against the system and as alone political party exists the Communist Party. And I even have wondered in some occasion, doing parallelism with the majority, existing political system in the current economic system of the monopolistic capitalism of the state, which once we were calling a bourgeois democracy, if they, if we do not threaten with effective form his economic system because if we do it we can be with Chile 73 or Honduras 2009, allow us to collaborate as let's want and even to say what let's want: porqué cannot we, or the Cuban partners can, do the same? The question cade time I do it to myself less, every time I have more certainties, and sadly in the opposite direction of what I would like. Because I would like saying that yes, that there is absolute compatibility. That the advantages that, to the set of the citizens and much especially to the workpeople and wage earners, the socialism offers are so obvious that it does not import that the enemies of the socialism organize themselves and say what they should want. They will never be able to threaten with effective form the socialism. But I have to say that not, to my sorrow, but I have to say that not. First of all it is convenient to dismantle an urban legend: In our arranging, and with the logical exception of the insult, the infamy or the calumny and, of course, without resorting to the violence, one can say what he should want, express líbremente his ideas. It is a lie, radically he will lie. I am living through it in my people, in Alpedrete, with all his crudeness. We, the councilmen of the municipal group of IU, we are not able to say, with all the freedom that is demanded for the Cuban opponents, what we think. On us weight a criminal complaint that some of them will believe that it is pecata a menu but that, seen the precedents with the mayor of Seseña or the most recent of Marina Albiol, and although the complaint looks like a sinsentido we feel limited and threatened. And there is more, because the previous IU councilman was attacked for demanding the observance of the law, of his law, and they opened the head to him and the aggressor is walked by Alpedrete calmly after paying a fine of less than 3000 €. And without going out of Alpedrete: Is there freedom of expression, if what we express, is censured systematically by the mass media? Of all the means of the saw, many of them property of builders, the only one does echo of our positions to himself. And not even this way emphasizes the incontrovertible fact that is IU, and only IU who is loading with the weight, practically alone, of the denunciation of the PGOU. And if the scandal has gone out in a newspaper of national throw like THE COUNTRY it has been a coast of clear authorizations in this sense. I am not going to allude to the electoral law, because so bad-tempered system what it reveals is not democratic character, or better it abounds in him, and I what I question, or try to put in judgment cloth, it is the character, supposedly it guarantees of freedoms, of this system, I insist, undemocratically from the same root. The existence of a judicial power, one of three basic powers the system according to Charles Louis de Secondat baron of Montesquieu, of form extensively majority, conservative, when not openly reactionary, it puts in judgment cloth the balance that the nobleman proposes, because it belonged to the nobility, French thinker, who also was proposing, and this is ignored or one conceals deliberately, that the nobility, in this organization that the ideal consideraba of the state, had to have an exclusive representation in the Parliament. With a judicial power that collaboration with the fascism journeyed unscathed from his opened to the parliamentary diet, to speak about respect to the freedoms is a sarcasm. The pursuit of which object is Baltasar Garzón, is a good test of it. Because this judge is being prosecuted because it dared to process and was made them spend prostitutes to Augusto Pinochet, although there they could not do anything, and with the same arguments he has tried to process to the Franco period, and that his heirs, with toga and puñetas, they cannot withstand it. Because it is being processed for daring to investigate the Gürtel trapicheos and there some amiguito of the soul could fall down. Because it is not foreign, the hostility of some elements supposedly progressive like Margarita Robles, of whom the instruction that did in due time on the terrorism of the state, on the GAL, was ending with a X, which I identify, without asperity, up to the most idiotic. And there is not guarantor of any class of freedom a system that he imprisons for opinion crimes. And when Arnaldo Otegi joins prison for doing a homage a militant of ETA, already dead, is entering for an opinion crime. However much it is an opinion that I do not share by no means.
This system neither is democratic, he nor is a freedoms guarantor. And those who criticize the socialism that they do it, if they want, I do not share this criticism but that do not do it from the parameters of this system because they would be hypocrites. In that system cercenan basic freedoms? And in this one?
On the other hand the belligerent attitude of the Venezuelan mass media against the revolution bolivariana, all of them in hands of veteran oligarchical groups that during tens years have held the economic power and polítco of the country taking it, literally, to the ruin it reveals the need to put preserve to the poisonings and disinformation of these means. I do not have any more remedy to quote my favorite bald person when he asked some penpusher with conceits of progressive thinker: Liberate, why?. I in my modesty, would add: Liberate, for whom?