State sponsored Orthodox church opens in Cuba

[JKP]

Instead of feeding or educating people, they decided to build a church.

A new tolerant society indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50ebTO8tlPk

[Yazman]

This is fucking disgusting and a waste of money considering there is still much work to be done in feeding the people and repairing old neighbourhoods.

[Mather]

"The only church that illuminates is a burning church"

[SocialRealist]

The question I have is, did the people ask for this church to be built in the first place? If they indeed wanted this to be built, I see no problem at all, but if that is not the case I can see a giant problem.

I thought Castro was anti-religious as well. I quite honestly think this has to deal with how the Russian Federation and Cuba are bringing their ties closer, more than anything.

A question for the community on RevLeft, why is that the Russian Federation is tolerated by many on here where as the United States is known as the "capitalist beast"? It is shown that Russia in its modern age, is just as capitalist and imperialist as the United States.

[Rjevan]

Yeah, very sensible, lets built orthodox churches, I mean we've got money to burn. And who needs such nonsense like food or education anyway?

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I must say I don't quite understand this move.
i would allow the orthodox to build a church, but not with state money...

[BIG BROTHER]

Sigh...hey guys should we invest in expanding the revolution, creating democratic and independent trade unions, or putting all of the workplaces under workers control and de-bureaucratizing out workplaces?

nah lets just waist all of our superabundant resources and build a fucken church, i mean its not like people will think that they don't have to give a crap anymore about their lives since they all go to heaven once they die....

[Magdalen]

Don't forget that Cuba still has a community of several thousand Russians, consisting of those workers and members of the armed forces that elected to remain in socialist Cuba instead of returning to the new, capitalist Russia. The Russian community have as much right to a place of worship as anyone else. I'm sure the new Cathedral will also serve as a focal point for Cuba's Russian community, as well as symbolising continued co-operation between the Cuban and Russian peoples.

[Mather]

The question I have is, did the people ask for this church to be built in the first place?


I don't know.



If they indeed wanted this to be built, I see no problem at all, but if that is not the case I can see a giant problem.


No, there is still a problem.

The Cuban people, through their taxes, have had to pay for a religious building, the bill for this church falls upon atheist Cubans as much as the religious ones.

Why should any atheist have to pay for the religious to have their own churches/temples, schools and other buildings/institutions?

If the state uses it's own funds to build churches and religious schools, then why not use taxpayers money to construct buildings for the flat earth society and for sects that believe in witchcraft, vampires, werewolves, Santa Claus and zombies? All of these belief systems are based upon fantasy and myth, with no basis in scientific fact or grounded material analysis.


I thought Castro was anti-religious as well.

Much like his 'communism' and 'marxism', Castro's views on religion were formed by his opportunism and his conversion to atheism, much like his conversion to 'communism', was simply a way of solidifying his own power base and his policy of alignment with the former USSR.

Despite it's Marxist rhetoric, the Cuban regime is led by a group of people who started off not as marxists, communists or anarchists, but as petty bourgeois third worldist Cuban nationalists. The structure of Cuban society has a lot more in common with other national liberation regimes than it does with any geniune working class led and liberated society.


I quite honestly think this has to deal with how the Russian Federation and Cuba are bringing their ties closer, more than anything.

Most likely.


A question for the community on RevLeft, why is that the Russian Federation is tolerated by many on here where as the United States is known as the "capitalist beast"? It is shown that Russia in its modern age, is just as capitalist and imperialist as the United States.

I cannot answer for other RevLeft members, but I neither "tolerate" nor otherwise support the Russian state, it's ruling capitalist class or it's government.

Russian imperialism is a threat to the oppressed like any other imperialism.

I agree that the Russian state is as corrupt, as criminal, as bloodthristy and as parasitic as the US state or any other capitalist state such as India, China or Brazil for that matter.

Workers and the oppressed have no country, only their mutual class interests and their collective struggle for liberation and equality.

[JohnnyC]

Did Cuban government funded the church or just support it?

[Charles Xavier]

Communist are not anti-religion. They are anti-capitalist. Being a communist and being religious are not opposites. Communists see religion losing its influence as there is no class forcing it upon the people.


And Mather is a label machine, he should be put to use in a cannery factory. " petty bourgeois third worldist Cuban nationalists"? The Cuban revolution was a worker's and peasant's revolution, we can see this by who supported and lead the revolution regardless of your labels. Class forces were at work, not intellectuals debating societies.

[piet11111]

Communist are not anti-religion. They are anti-capitalist.

any communist that is pro-religion is not a comrade of mine.

[ZeroNowhere]

Communist are not anti-religion. They are anti-capitalist.
This is besides the point.

[Mather]

Communist are not anti-religion.


Most communists and anarchists (myself included) have no problem with people if they wish to waste their lives with religion. People can pray all they want, read all the 'holy' books they want and talk about Jesus/Moses/Mohammed/Bhudda all they want in their own homes.

But all communists and anarchists should have a problem with a state using tax money to promote a religion, and the state using money to build a church is just that. If the Russian community in Cuba is in such need of a church, then let them pay for it, build it and manage it, why should the rest of Cuban society, especially those Cubans who are free of any religion, have to foot the bill for some people and their superstitions.



They are anti-capitalist.


Yes they are, but all communists and anarchists also oppose all the social oppressions that exist and that are nurtured under capitalism and religion is one of them.



Communists see religion losing its influence as there is no class forcing it upon the people.


Sadly this is only the case in some countries, in other parts of the world religion is getting stronger and more entrenched and this must be fought.



And Mather is a label machine, he should be put to use in a cannery factory.


:rolleyes:



"petty bourgeois third worldist Cuban nationalists"? The Cuban revolution was a worker's and peasant's revolution, we can see this by who supported and lead the revolution regardless of your labels. Class forces were at work, not intellectuals debating societies.


Do you have any evidence for that claim, because if you look at the evidence and the numerous written accounts, including from people who were in Cuba during the 'revolution', you will be proven wrong.

I am not going to deny that peasants and workers took part in Castro's rise to power and the July 26th Movement (M-26), they did. But they did not lead the M-26 and they did not and they still don't hold leading positions within the Cuban state and society. Fidel Castro and his brother, Raul, along with Che Guevara and others were all from solidly middle class families and had little or no connection with the trade union movement and the day to day struggle of the Cuban working class.

And yes the movement that Castro founded, the M-26 was a third worldist, Cuban nationalist movement and not a working class one. Castro did not even declare himself a socialist until 1962, three years after assuming power. It is very telling that Castro's conversion to 'socialism' took place when the Americans shunned all offers of friendship from Cuba and it looked likely that the US was going to sponsor a regime change in Cuba, Castro had no one to turn to but the USSR and he did so knowing that it was the only means by which his regime could survive.

And today the working class and peasants in Cuba are ruled over by a party elite, they don't control the economic and political destiny of Cuba and they have been reduced to propaganda props and foot soldiers for the regime of the Castro brothers.

Like many other examples in Algeria, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Angola, Vietnam etc... national liberation masked itself in socialist/marxist rhetoric and phraseology in order to disguise it's cross class nature and it's complete inability to overturn the rule of capital and the liberation of the working class.

[Tzonteyotl]

I haven't been keeping up too much with the situation in Cuba, but a lot of people seem to be saying that whatever funds were used on this church should have gone to food production. Is there a shortage going on down there I haven't read about? I thought Cuba was the only place in the western hemisphere that didn't have malnutrition? Not to say more food's a bad thing, or improving the technology and efficiency of its production shouldn't be undertaken.

That aside, I wouldn't really like to know that my tax dollars were going to build churches, but I'm wondering how this construction project would have been gone about otherwise. Was it even necessary to construct an entirely new building? Were there no unoccupied buildings that could have been converted into a church for those who wanted one? Is there privately funded construction in Cuba? I mean, can private citizens get loans to start projects like these? I just don't know what other means these individuals would have had, so it's kind of hard to say.

And if it was just a political move (related to Russian relations), well then, it's pretty shallow, pretty fake. Definitely not a worthwhile allocation of funds.

[Charles Xavier]

Most communists and anarchists (myself included) have no problem with people if they wish to waste their lives with religion. People can pray all they want, read all the 'holy' books they want and talk about Jesus/Moses/Mohammed/Bhudda all they want in their own homes.

But all communists and anarchists should have a problem with a state using tax money to promote a religion, and the state using money to build a church is just that. If the Russian community in Cuba is in such need of a church, then let them pay for it, build it and manage it, why should the rest of Cuban society, especially those Cubans who are free of any religion, have to foot the bill for some people and their superstitions.



Yes they are, but all communists and anarchists also oppose all the social oppressions that exist and that are nurtured under capitalism and religion is one of them.



Sadly this is only the case in some countries, in other parts of the world religion is getting stronger and more entrenched and this must be fought.



:rolleyes:



Do you have any evidence for that claim, because if you look at the evidence and the numerous written accounts, including from people who were in Cuba during the 'revolution', you will be proven wrong.

I am not going to deny that peasants and workers took part in Castro's rise to power and the July 26th Movement (M-26), they did. But they did not lead the M-26 and they did not and they still don't hold leading positions within the Cuban state and society. Fidel Castro and his brother, Raul, along with Che Guevara and others were all from solidly middle class families and had little or no connection with the trade union movement and the day to day struggle of the Cuban working class.

And yes the movement that Castro founded, the M-26 was a third worldist, Cuban nationalist movement and not a working class one. Castro did not even declare himself a socialist until 1962, three years after assuming power. It is very telling that Castro's conversion to 'socialism' took place when the Americans shunned all offers of friendship from Cuba and it looked likely that the US was going to sponsor a regime change in Cuba, Castro had no one to turn to but the USSR and he did so knowing that it was the only means by which his regime could survive.

And today the working class and peasants in Cuba are ruled over by a party elite, they don't control the economic and political destiny of Cuba and they have been reduced to propaganda props and foot soldiers for the regime of the Castro brothers.

Like many other examples in Algeria, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Angola, Vietnam etc... national liberation masked itself in socialist/marxist rhetoric and phraseology in order to disguise it's cross class nature and it's complete inability to overturn the rule of capital and the liberation of the working class.


My proof is that the revolution was lead by workers and peasants for workers and peasants.

When I enter a political party, I am no longer a pesant or a worker? Am I a new class? What relation to the means of production do I have now, I myself am a communist party member? What relation do I have to the means of production? Please explain this new class.

Cuba is a worker's state, there is contradictions within the worker's state and in the working class movement. If a trade union in Canada declared that they should take concession, is my conclusion that all trade unions in Canada are bad and I should propagate against them? So if the Communist Party of Cuba makes a mistake, and builds an orthodox chruch, is our concussion socialism in Cuba is bad and we should propagate against Cuba?

Fidel Castro didn't have some hand of god that he could do whatever he wanted in Cuba. He had an obligation to serve the people and the revolution or the people and the revolution would sweep him aside. He choose to embrace the people and lead them to social construction rather than sabotage the people's desires. Your theory of Great Men is silly as if the only revolutionary in Cuba was Fidel Castro, and as if the people in Cuba weren't partisan for their country, and if the peasantry in Cuba would be content with Fidel Castro without furfilling the revolution's promise for land reform. Rather they would cast Fidel Castro to the sea.

Fidel became the leader of the revolution because he lead the revolution, he didn't abandon it and say ,well guys, really I think we should just not do anything. If he did that within 1 day there would be a replacement for him.

[Wanted Man]

I don't have a problem with people worshipping what they want, and where they want to. But I also don't think the state should pay for the pleasure. But it's kind of funny to write off the whole Cuban Revolution as soon as you read the headline. People who did that had likely had their minds made up already. :rolleyes:

It's probably as Magdalen said, to provide facilities for the Russian community (according to Wikipedia, 22,000 Russians live in Cuba). Has it ever occured to anyone that maybe that community is big enough to fill a big church, but doesn't have the clout to finance one? Also considering that there aren't big businesses who can finance mega-churches like reactionaries in the west. The Texan Republican sphere is surprising: "Not from mah tax dollahs!" I doubt it's that simple. Community money isn't necessarily from taxes, especially not in socialism (or "state capitalism" :rolleyes: ). Sometimes minority groups need facilities that they can't bring up on their own. It seems like a very right-wing position to say that minorities should not be accomodated by the community.

[Robespierre2.0]

If they built it, there was probably a demand for it. I don't see the big deal.

All this anti-religion BS is childish and drives away potential allies. If some comrades have religious beliefs, as long as they don't get it mixed up with their dialectical materialist philosophy, there is no harm done.

[SocialRealist]

I took a bit of time to think about this. I honestly see no problem with the Cuban state building an orthodox church to fit the needs of the community, it is only fair that they have the right to worship and have a place to worship.

Onto this, I was unaware that there was a russian community in Cuba. I think this is a good thing that is happening in Cuba, it comes to show a certain tolorance of others beliefs.

[RedScare]

If the people wanted it, thing it isn't a big deal. So much knee-jerk anti-religious stuff....

[JKP]

Abolition of religion is the historic mission of the working class. If you are going to adopt a Marxist analysis, it cannot be ruled otherwise.

[Seven Stars]

Good news, though personally I wish it was a Catholic church.

[RedSonRising]

Any problems that the people have with shortages has to do with production and not with investment. If the people consider their spiritual needs important, then doing so benefits the social landscape. The atheists must accept the deed because if some cultural part of their society suffers, the collective society suffers. The arguments about unfair taxing on unwanted policies contradict the principles of communism and is used by republicans about welfare... anti-religiousness isn't enough to say that something that matters to other people and not you is a waste for them. Many Cubans are religious, and Castro has said while he is not religious he does not see it as evil when used to promote values and comfort people, only when used to manipulate and provoke violent and self-interested acts.

[Charles Xavier]

You anti-theists are just as bad as any evangelical, saying that the working class must crush religion! This is a false line, the only people who say communists are out to abolish religion are the communists invented by the capitalists. So they can attack these strawmen communists so they can drive a wedge between working people.

Our objective as communists is to unite the working class, not saying, well you're religious so you can't be a communist, or your muslim I can't vote you as head of a trade union, or your religious, don't you know I want to kill your priest and bulldoze your place of worship? No that is silly, we are trying to destroy the class influence on religion, class society, not religion.

[Random Precision]

Abolition of religion is the historic mission of the working class. If you are going to adopt a Marxist analysis, it cannot be ruled otherwise.

LOL.

"The actual basis of the religious reflective activity therefore continues to exist, and with it the religious reflection itself... It is still true that man proposes and God (that is, the alien domination of the capitalist mode of production) disposes. Mere knowledge, even if it went much further and deeper than that of bourgeois economic science, is not enough to bring social forces under the domination of society. What is above all necessary for this, is a social act. And when this act has been accomplished, when society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force, when therefore man no longer merely proposes, but also disposes — only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect."

[Eros]

A complete waste of money. If people want a place to worship they should build it themselves.

[Ptah_Khnemu]

Attempting to abolish religion outright will do nothing but alienate us from the working class. Religion will disappear over time as science learns more, and trying to take it away from people can not end well. Also, governments have to no right to tell people what they should believe. Secularism, not atheism is the answer.

[Magdalen]

A complete waste of money. If people want a place to worship they should build it themselves.

This is a ludicrous argument. It discriminates against the Russian Orthodox community as, unlike the Catholic or Jewish communities, the Orthodox community does not have an established religious infrastructure from pre-revolutionary years.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't really mind much that this church was built (although I would have preferred that it wasn't.), but I do mind that state-funds are being used to find it.

Considering that the Orthodox Church, probably being a centralized church with many locations around the world and possibly with a centralized account of funds, why don't they fund their church in Cuba? (Or they could always use the "donations, tithes, etc" they collect)


Secularism, not atheism is the answer. You do know that one point of secularism (separation of church and state) is for the state/etc not to fund any religious institution?


Good news, though personally I wish it was a Catholic church.

I think they already have.

[Ptah_Khnemu]

You do know that one point of secularism (separation of church and state) is for the state/etc not to fund any religious institution?


I know. I wasn't refering to the thing in Cuba, I was just talking about how some communists insist on abolishing religion. I think the funding a church with state money is disgracefull when there are so many other things that country should be spending money on.

[skki]

I'm not an anti-theist, and my general stance on religion is that it has long ceased to be an oppressive tool of the upper class, so I don't care. But I see no reason why Cubans should be expected to fund the construction of a large temple, purely for the purpose of a rather eccentric group of people having a special place to read a book and talk to the sky. If you want to act like an idiot, go right ahead. But for fucks sake finance your own stupidity.

[Charles Xavier]

I know. I wasn't refering to the thing in Cuba, I was just talking about how some communists insist on abolishing religion. I think the funding a church with state money is disgracefull when there are so many other things that country should be spending money on.


Yes but this argument can go for restaurants and many other cultural activities. It isn't an either-or discussion.

When a group of people in a society are looking for a centre of cultural activities, in order to feel more included in society, I don't see the problem in that.

If a small community of rich cubans are able to afford a big chruch for their faith but a bigger community of poor cubans cannot afford, why should we allow more access in society for rich people? Our solgan should be inclusion.

[Pogue]

Don't really understand it all, but this church being built is an irrelevancy to be honest. Cubas a strange mixed up regime, with some great acheivments and a number of failings, both self-inflicted and forced upon them. Who knows why they did this, workings of the state are seldom clear.

[Charles Xavier]

Don't really understand it all, but this church being built is an irrelevancy to be honest. Cubas a strange mixed up regime, with some great acheivments and a number of failings, both self-inflicted and forced upon them. Who knows why they did this, workings of the state are seldom clear.

What did they fail at and self-inflict?

The workings of any state are usually clear, its called social classes.

[Pogue]

What did they fail at and self-inflict?

The workings of any state are usually clear, its called social classes.

One failings would be not giving more power directly to the working class, instead having a beurecratic state in control of things. States do odd things sometimes, in the name of international relations, or some other reason that is never really justified. The ultimate reason for these strange things is basically preservation of the ruling class, though.

[Charles Xavier]

One failings would be not giving more power directly to the working class, instead having a beurecratic state in control of things. States do odd things sometimes, in the name of international relations, or some other reason that is never really justified. The ultimate reason for these strange things is basically preservation of the ruling class, though.


Okay explain a practical example of workers in Cuba not having control and thus suffering from it. The workers own the state and thus also on the bureaucracy which isn't really that big at all. And the strange ruling class which it being the working class. IE they work for a living off their labour and they aren't exploiting a profit off their fellow workers.


I don't think you have enough faith in the Cuban working class to think if they were living under tyranny they would just accept it.

[Pogue]

Okay explain a practical example of workers in Cuba not having control and thus suffering from it. The workers own the state and thus also on the bureaucracy which isn't really that big at all. And the strange ruling class which it being the working class. IE they work for a living off their labour and they aren't exploiting a profit off their fellow workers.


I don't think you have enough faith in the Cuban working class to think if they were living under tyranny they would just accept it.

Wait, you're arguing that Cuba is some form of perfectly healthy worker run society?

[Charles Xavier]

Wait, you're arguing that Cuba is some form of perfectly healthy worker run society?

Yes, every society has its issues why can't Cuba? You can't expect everything to be perfect but it certainly is a good example of socialism.

If you have evidence else wise please present it. You are attacking Cuba with no evidence. Just sloganeering.

[Pogue]

Yes, every society has its issues why can't Cuba? You can't expect everything to be perfect but it certainly is a good example of socialism.

If you have evidence else wise please present it. You are attacking Cuba with no evidence. Just sloganeering.

But I mean, when you talk about socialism, post-revolutionary society, Cuba is what you envisage? Is Cuba an example of what you want to acheive?

[Charles Xavier]

But I mean, when you talk about socialism, post-revolutionary society, Cuba is what you envisage? Is Cuba an example of what you want to acheive?


Why not, Cuba is an example of an underdeveloped oppressed people taking power into their hands and creating a new society. What Cuba lacks is material, its the same that all third world countries lack, but its health, educational, physical and social progressive are an impressive example of what working people can do when they unite together.

[Yehuda Stern]

This is great! Well, no, it's actually a very bad thing, which shows how Cuba nears a reapproachment with the west and the rolling back of the few democratic reforms that the Cuban masses have won through the revolution. But it's great to see the pro-Castroists squirm in the face of reality.

[PRC-UTE]

This is great! Well, no, it's actually a very bad thing, which shows how Cuba nears a reapproachment with the west and the rolling back of the few democratic reforms that the Cuban masses have won through the revolution. But it's great to see the pro-Castroists squirm in the face of reality.

that doesn't make a lot of sense- they'd build a Russian Orthodox Church for a reapproachment with the west? :confused:

[Woland]

Russian Orthodox Church for a reapproachment with the west? :confused:

Hahaha! Now this is interesting- cooperation between Cuba and Russia has been growing quite a lot lately, and also with China. Whether these are some odd power games, a good will gesture, or some Soviet-style aid from Russia, because now it can more or less afford it, it's difficult to say. Still, it might be helpful- Cuba needs material and sooner some serious international pressure comes upon the U.S. to lift the blockade, the better it would be for Cuba.

Anyway, my opinion is that people are getting way too worked up about some small church, which hurts neither Cuba nor serious socialism is any way.

[BobKKKindle$]

As the previous poster suggests, this shouldn't be viewed as a threat to the division between church and state, or as capitulation to the west, but rather as a geopolitical ploy designed to improve economic and diplomatic links with the Russian government. Russia is now one of Cuba's most important trading partners and a key source of energy and other goods which Cuba cannot produce domestically, and there have even been suggestions that Cuba will be used as a military base for Russian aircraft and naval vessels at some point in the near future, in order to enhance Russia's influence in the region, and so, in the absence of other allies with the exception of Venezuela, it is understandable that the Cuban government would appeal to Russia even when doing so involves decisions which may be seen as ideologically problematic. If this improves conditions for the Cuban people and allows Cuba to defend itself against imperialism, then it's the right decision.