Raul Castro meets with US Lawmakers [Archive]

Glorious Union

7th April 2009, 07:28

The meeting came as Fidel Castro (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/fidel_castro/index.html?inline=nyt-per) said Cuba is not afraid to talk directly to the United States and that the communist government does not thrive on confrontation as its detractors have long claimed.
Well that is good, he is trying to dispel the common beleif that communism = war, wich is not (always) true.

''But wouldn't it be so wonderful,'' he added, ''if we struck a dialogue and found the things that were mutually advantageous and mutually of interest to our two countries and stopped the historical divisions that have separated us (though we are) so close geographically?''

I would love that. A little communist paradise island right off the coast of its extreme opposite, and both sides living in peace (but secretly plotting againt eachother, obviously).

TheCultofAbeLincoln

7th April 2009, 08:39

As soon as he started wearing that business suit you knew they wanted to improve relations with the US. That is the sign of someone who is open to doing business.

Seriously though, Cuba has a lot to gain by opening up with the US.

Kassad

7th April 2009, 14:11

Fidel Castro's death will be an incredible shame. Regardless, it's good to see Raul Castro managing Cuba's affairs during such a critical time. Any step the Obama administration makes towards easing travel and trade restrictions on Cuba is something that we should be ecstatic for. These things could be a huge boost for Cuba's economy which has managed the principles of Marxism-Leninism incredibly efficiently and I believe will continue to do so; even moreso with economic shackles removed.

Yehuda Stern

7th April 2009, 14:31

Kassad

7th April 2009, 14:52

Good, so all the Cuba supporters have already found ways to rationalize this appeal to western imperialism by the Stalinist government. Hate to see something like this interrupt your Castro / Guevara worship.

Does your pedestal come with air conditioning, or do you have to purchase it separately?

Cuba has been plunged into a state of near-poverty due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was Cuba's prime trading partner and a supporter of the Cuban Revolution. Without this trading partner, along with the fact that the Soviet Union kept United States' imperialism in check, Cuba has never fully recovered. Regardless, Cuba provides quality healthcare, education, shelter and food to all its inhabitants. A workers democracy has been implemented where resources are used and maintained for the people, not for the profit of corporate entities and capitalist bureaucrats.

Here's the fucking kicker. You obviously don't have one grain of knowledge about Cuban history. Cuba was dominated from the moment it was discovered by Spanish and then American imperialism. Both of these imperialist states imposed harsh regulatory schemes that used Cuban resources for profit, leaving thousands to die and starve and leaving the rest incredibly uneducated and without proper shelter or healthcare. When the Cuban Revolution toppled the bourgeois democracy in Cuba, the people did not ask for elections. If anything, they feared elections that had brought multiple suppressive dictators to power. They turned to Marxism and supported a planned economy that has made Cuba prosperous, even in the face of constant threat and tyrannical sanctions. I'm sorry to hear that you aren't a fan of providing necessities for the people.

If analyzing facts and thinking rationally makes me a Stalinist, sign me up.

benhur

7th April 2009, 15:15

Communist Theory

7th April 2009, 15:20

I hope Cuba opens up and I can go visit! :D

teenagebricks

7th April 2009, 17:12

Relatively easy for United States citizens to visit Cuba anyway, just go through Mexico or Canada, the Cuban immigration officials won't stamp your passport to avoid trouble when you return home.

Anyway, this is great news, but could also potentially be bad, Cuba's isolation from the United States has protected socialism to a certain degree, I'm not condoning the embargo, I just hope Cuba can stay on track without cowering to the United States.

Das war einmal

7th April 2009, 17:52

Yehuda Stern

7th April 2009, 20:56

Does your pedestal come with air conditioning, or do you have to purchase it separately?I got it free with my "don't give a fuck about predictable Stalinist lectures" shirt.

Anyway, here is the kicker: I know quite enough about Cuban history, both recent and more distant. I've heard all the excuses about the poverty, the blockade, and so on. You, however, obviously don't know anything about Marxism. If you would, you would know that a revolution by petty-bourgeois guerillas cannot build a workers' state; you would know that an admittedly poor, isolated state cannot build socialism; and you would know that no matter what situation a revolutionary party finds itself in, it never builds illusions in imperialist politicians, like the Castros do when they talk about improving relations and say that they are not interested in a "confrontation." Brest-Litovsk style concessions are sometimes necessary - giving the illusion that the oppressed and exploited can have any sort of peace with the ruling class is criminal for anyone claiming to be a Marxist.

You also obviously don't know anything about my positions, otherwise you would feel pretty stupid to even suggest that the reason for my criticism of the Castro regime is the lack of bourgeois democracy or the limited democratic gains that the working class has won in the revolution.

So it is not your analyzing of facts or rational thinking that makes you a Stalinist; it's the lack of those things. It's your conception of a socialism granted by middle class heros, your conception of socialism in one country, and most of all, your disbelief in the working class, which is really what stands behind your, i.e., the PSL's endorsment of the Stalinist regime.

Ironic that you accuse others of being condescending and anti-worker.benhur, it is not at all surprising that you have nothing of substance to say - everyone has come to expect that. But sometimes, just sometimes, one would think that you would prefer to not say anything than give another example of how mindless your posts on this forum really are.

Yeah you would rather see something like the DPRK, we know Now this wins the award for most stupid comment on this thread. I am a Trotskyist, and therefore I don't support the DPRK, the Cuban regime, or any Stalinist regime out there - even if I do support the democratic gains won by the masses (which must be defended against the Stalinist regime) or if I support these countries against imperialism (something which stems not from the nature of the regime but from the nature of the state).

manic expression

7th April 2009, 23:18

Anyway, here is the kicker: I know quite enough about Cuban history, both recent and more distant. I've heard all the excuses about the poverty, the blockade, and so on. You, however, obviously don't know anything about Marxism. If you would, you would know that a revolution by petty-bourgeois guerillas cannot build a workers' state;

That's a misconception. The Cuban working class had a central role in building socialism, the guerrillas didn't do everything by themselves, and it's absurd and anti-historical to imply that they did.

http://www.themilitant.com/2007/7113/711359.html

Even during the revolution against Batista, urban operatives formed a key part of the movement. The activities of the July 26 Movement in Cuba's cities is quite well documented. Lastly, the guerrillas themselves had solid support throughout Cuba, even before they left from Mexico. Had they NOT had support, they would not have been able to survive, for their existence depended upon support from the masses in various forms.

you would know that an admittedly poor, isolated state cannot build socialism;

From Lenin:

They all call themselves Marxists, but their conception of Marxism is impossibly pedantic. They have completely failed to understand what is decisive in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics. They have even absolutely failed to understand Marx's plain statements that in times of revolution the utmost flexibility is demanded, and have even failed to notice, for instance, the statements Marx made in his letters — I think it was in 1856 — expressing the hope of combining the peasant war in Germany, which might create a revolutionary situation, with the working-class movement — they avoid even this plain statement and walk around and about it like a cat around a bowl of hot porridge.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm

and you would know that no matter what situation a revolutionary party finds itself in, it never builds illusions in imperialist politicians, like the Castros do when they talk about improving relations and say that they are not interested in a "confrontation." Brest-Litovsk style concessions are sometimes necessary - giving the illusion that the oppressed and exploited can have any sort of peace with the ruling class is criminal for anyone claiming to be a Marxist.

The Cuban government is doing no such thing, it's simply saying that they're open to opening relations with the US. Stating that it's better for states to talk to one another than give each other the cold shoulder is no denial of Marxism.

So it is not your analyzing of facts or rational thinking that makes you a Stalinist; it's the lack of those things. It's your conception of a socialism granted by middle class heros, your conception of socialism in one country, and most of all, your disbelief in the working class, which is really what stands behind your, i.e., the PSL's endorsment of the Stalinist regime.

Reading this, it seems clear that "rational thinking" DOES belong to the so-called "Stalinists". Sign me right up.

Kassad

8th April 2009, 00:09

The same Trotskyist bullshit over and over again. Lenin observed quite clearly that national struggles and the consistent fight for liberation are often intertwined, which was a central disagreement between Lenin's ideology and Luxemburg's philosophy. Militant class consciousness is incredibly relevant to class struggle. The 26th of July Movement marched throughout Cuba with minute numbers that stood no change against Batista's military forces. Though I hate to refute your pathetic argument so briefly, the workers and peasants joined with Castro's organization and mobilized in massive numbers. This was not some tiny guerilla movement with guns that held the government at gunpoint. It was an example of workers rallying with a militant movement. Do you disagree? It's laughable to try to defeat this fact, but let's continue. Kennedy's Bay of Pigs invasion was thwarted incredibly efficiently by organized militias of the Cuban people. The Central Intelligence Agency expected to march into Cuba and the "oppressed" peoples would rally behind the American flag of liberty. History shows us that this assertion was totally flawed, as the Cuban people were and are in support of Fidel Castro and socialist construction in Cuba.

Asserting I have 'disbelief' in the working class is fallacious. Cuba is an example of the working class rallying for socialism. As usual, Trotskyists totally skew the term 'socialism in one country' to assume that we, Stalinists, advocate this isolated state where all ties are broken off. How laughable. In truth, you are promoting surrealist fantasies, as anti-revisionists do not advocate isolation, but merely recognize that socialism has to start somewhere and liberation can be maintained in one country if properly maintained, but what we strive for is global class struggle and revolution. It's, again, surrealist to claim that Cuba should not attempt to ease the restrictions on it, as it is what is best for the working class in Cuba. Cuba is maintaining stability even with the blockade, but if the blockade were lifted, economic prosperity would become widespread in Cuba and socialist construction would be even more feasible.

The support of the Cuban people for the Cuban Revolution totally refutes your assertions. The Cuban Revolution, as logical thinkers realize, was not a few people with guns. It rallies peasants and workers in Cuba to take up arms and topple an oppressive puppet that suppressed the people. Cuba now manages its resources properly and the Cuban people's united struggle against the United States, notably in the Bay of Pigs, shows that this is not merely an oligarchy ruling over the majority. It is a workers democracy that strives for socialist construction, despite the bourgeois propaganda that your types consistently like to reiterate.

KurtFF8

8th April 2009, 04:12

Good, so all the Cuba supporters have already found ways to rationalize this appeal to western imperialism by the Stalinist government. Hate to see something like this interrupt your Castro / Guevara worship.

Since when did normal relations with a Western power equate to appealing to Western imperialism or even opening up markets to exploitation by American Capital?

The Lawmakers who went there were pretty progressive actually and on today's "All Things Considered" on NPR one even said: And I went around and met with many of the Cubans, and I just didn't see this repression that people talk about (I'm obviously paraphrasing a lot here).

He also rejected the idea that America should work with dissident groups as a bad way to have relations with a country like Cuba.

Obviously the American establishment doesn't want Cuba to remain as it is, but I hardly see how one can be opposed to the economic embargo on Cuba, but at the same time while Cuba is trying to talk to the USA, criticize Cuba for doing so. If you're against the embargo, and Cuba is in a position to talk to the US about the embargo, why not support that? Why instantly write it off as "giving into imperialism"? Unless of course you support the embargo.

Yehuda Stern

8th April 2009, 14:16

It's good that you hate to refute arguments, because you never really seem to. As usual for supporters of Castro, you build up a straw man to debate with that has nothing to do with what I said. Perhaps you just like hearing yourself speak or rather, reading what you write. That is your right, I suppose.

No one said that the working class and poor of Cuba did not participate in the revolution; if they hadn't, Castro could never have won. Leadership, however, always remained in the hands of Castro and co. The participation of the workers in the revolution expressed itself in many democratic gains that the regime had to extend to them, and they obviously were not going to let American imperialism invade and take these gains away. Still, it's laughable to try to use this fact to justify support for the regime which will in the future take them away, which already tries to make all sorts of deal with imperialism.

It's also laughable to say that the American blockade is the cause for Cuba's poverty, that if only it were lifted, Cuba would become at once a socialist paradise. Even though the blockade is a fact, Cuba has been in business with every imperialist power in the world in the last few decades, including Zionist imperialism.

In your third paragraph you repeat the lie from the first, that the support of the Cuban people for the revolution refutes my criticisms of it. It does nothing of the sort, and it takes a terrible Marxist to come to such a stupid conclusion. The sentiments of the masses alone are not enough. Otherwise, I would be a Zionist.

They all call themselves Marxists,...cat around a bowl of hot porridge.

I'm sure you're very proud of yourself for having learned a Lenin quote, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

The Cuban government is doing no such thing, it's simply saying that they're open to opening relations with the US. Stating that it's better for states to talk to one another than give each other the cold shoulder is no denial of Marxism.

When one of these states is an imperialist state and the other claims to be socialist, it is very much a denial of Marxism. You should look up some more Lenin - one quote is not enough to be a Leninist.

Reading this, it seems clear that "rational thinking" DOES belong to the so-called "Stalinists". Sign me right up.

Well, you're in the PSL, so there's really not much we need to do, is there?

Since when did normal relations with a Western power equate to appealing to Western imperialism or even opening up markets to exploitation by American Capital?

Since the western power is imperialist. Since about then, I think.

The Lawmakers who went there were pretty progressive actually

Oh really? Which American "lawmakers" are "progressive"? Please, enlighten me.

manic expression

8th April 2009, 17:17

No one said that the working class and poor of Cuba did not participate in the revolution; if they hadn't, Castro could never have won. Leadership, however, always remained in the hands of Castro and co.

Right. Because the Cuban workers and farmers supported his leadership every step of the way. More importantly, they took part in the process of forging a socialist state in Cuba, and you'd know this is you read the link I posted.

The participation of the workers in the revolution expressed itself in many democratic gains that the regime had to extend to them, and they obviously were not going to let American imperialism invade and take these gains away. Still, it's laughable to try to use this fact to justify support for the regime which will in the future take them away, which already tries to make all sorts of deal with imperialism.

More baseless claims. Nothing in here is backed up by historical reference, nothing in here corresponds to what actually happened. Almost as ridiculous is your firm belief, based on nothing but your personal suspicions, that the Cuban "regime" is secretly planning to take Cuba's gains away. I do think you just crossed the line between mere slander and conspiracy theory.

It's also laughable to say that the American blockade is the cause for Cuba's poverty, that if only it were lifted, Cuba would become at once a socialist paradise.

If you actually think the blockade has no effect on Cuba's productive capacity, you're not worth anyone's time, because you obviously know absolutely nothing about the situation. The blockade is extraterritorial, meaning any company which trades with Cuba cannot trade with the US. It is a crippling measure designed by American imperialists just for that purpose.

It's funny that when Cuba cannot trade with the US, you cast this aside as irrelevant, and when Cuba tries to open up to the US, you decry it as imperialist collaboration. You've already made up your mind, reality be damned.

Even though the blockade is a fact, Cuba has been in business with every imperialist power in the world in the last few decades, including Zionist imperialism.

Cuba has denounced Israeli aggression at every opportunity. In addition, trading with capitalist countries does not make a state un-socialist, for that depends on the control of the means of production. Try to be at least a little bit materialist here.

In your third paragraph you repeat the lie from the first, that the support of the Cuban people for the revolution refutes my criticisms of it. It does nothing of the sort, and it takes a terrible Marxist to come to such a stupid conclusion. The sentiments of the masses alone are not enough. Otherwise, I would be a Zionist.

It's not just the support of the Cuban masses, it's the undeniable PARTICIPATION of the Cuban workers in abolishing capitalism in Cuba. Please read the first link I posted, you're in dire need of facts.

I'm sure you're very proud of yourself for having learned a Lenin quote, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

Once again you deny the obvious. Lenin was answering the Social Democrats' claims that Russia was not ready for revolution, which he easily dismisses as anti-socialist. Your claims echo "the heroes of the Second International" when it comes to Cuba, and they are just as wrong today as they were then.

Once as tragedy, twice as farce.

When one of these states is an imperialist state and the other claims to be socialist, it is very much a denial of Marxism. You should look up some more Lenin - one quote is not enough to be a Leninist.

That makes absolutely no sense. Socialist countries CAN trade with capitalist countries, provided the workers of the socialist country firmly control the means of production and the products they produce. If the workers of a socialist country decide to send cigars to New York, that does not change their relationship to the means of production or their control of the state which allowed them to make that decision in the first place.

A little logic and a little materialism goes a long way.

Armand Iskra

8th April 2009, 18:14

That would be worse. Poor Raul, is he giving up being a socialist only to talk with US lawmakers?

DON'T BE DECEIVED by these people! We don't want another REVISIONISM and another PERESTROIKA!!!

punisa

8th April 2009, 23:24

Wait wait wait, I was told that Fidel died in December last year? Whats going on here? Alright, who used the reanimation spell on Fidel when we all really wanted Lenin?:lol:

No seriously, I thought he was dead, as do most people I live with. Whats going on here? :(

Haven't' you heard? Castro is actually Immortal and once he "dies" he'll just disappear for a couple of decades and live in the newly launched North Korean satellite :laugh:

KurtFF8

9th April 2009, 01:41

Yehuda, your argument so far seems to be: Thinking that it's okay for Cuba to talk to the US makes you a Stalinist because you're just being an apologist!

I would assume you're also opposed to the embargo, correct? If so, then why would you be opposed to actual steps to get rid of the embargo?

As for the "progressiveness" of the members of congress who went there, you ought to listen to/read what they had to say about their visit there to see how they are not trying to support bringing capitalism to the island.

The Author

9th April 2009, 02:30

Raul Castro meets with US LawmakersWell, this is going to be very interesting. We've seen the closing of Guantanamo Bay, and now this. Whether it actually results in building relations and finally ending the embargo, I'm not sure, it might merely be talk. But given the attitude of the U.S. government towards North Korea, I sincerely doubt that something as major as ending the embargo will ever materialize. The U.S. government and the American bourgeoisie simply despise communism to the bone, and would do anything to see it liquidated.

Mike Morin

9th April 2009, 02:38

It's just another attempt by the USA at economic colonization, and I think the Cubans and other Socialists are hip to that.

I was a bit disturbed by the Racist connotations of the Congressional Black Caucus being the representatives of the US. The Congressional Black Caucus is a racist organization.

Besides, these were lawmakers, politicians. I'm still of the firm belief that ALL politicians are whores and the Capitalists are their pimps.

MM
peu

Yehuda Stern

9th April 2009, 11:14

Right. Because the Cuban workers and farmers supported his leadership every step of the way.

Do you think it's clever to repeat what others have said? I quote myself: "No one said that the working class and poor of Cuba did not participate in the revolution; if they hadn't, Castro could never have won."

Cuba has denounced Israeli aggression at every opportunity. In addition, trading with capitalist countries does not make a state un-socialist, for that depends on the control of the means of production.

It has, in words. It has also denounced the Iraq War - but then, at times, it didn't ("we had the honor... to abstain") (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/CubaPR39.html). In the same way, Cuba has had many deals with Israeli businessman, most prominently right-winger and ex-GSS man Rafael Eitan.

So what makes Cuba capitalist is indeed the means of production - the fact that the workers do not control them, first and foremost (thanks for the advice on materialism: it means a lot coming from someone who calls every regime which is headed by a CP socialist). But what indicates it is not the fact that it trades with capitalist states, but that it does so opportunistically, building illusions in the possibility of peace with them, like it does now with the US.

Lenin was answering the Social Democrats' claims that Russia was not ready for revolution, which he easily dismisses as anti-socialist. Your claims echo "the heroes of the Second International" when it comes to Cuba, and they are just as wrong today as they were then.

Did I say at any point that Cuba was not ready for socialism? Can you quote that? You can't. You just lie and use straw men, like your PSL buddy. Says a lot about your "party."

I would assume you're also opposed to the embargo, correct? If so, then why would you be opposed to actual steps to get rid of the embargo?

Because as much as I would like for the embargo to be lifted, when that is done through building illusions in a peace with imperialism, it is damaging and demoralizing to the workers - and the historic damage that will do means much more than some trade agreement with the US.

As for the "progressiveness" of the members of congress who went there, you ought to listen to/read what they had to say about their visit there to see how they are not trying to support bringing capitalism to the island.

Great, now American capitalist politicians are supportive of socialism. How low you people will go to defend your idols.

KurtFF8

9th April 2009, 15:04

Because as much as I would like for the embargo to be lifted, when that is done through building illusions in a peace with imperialism, it is damaging and demoralizing to the workers - and the historic damage that will do means much more than some trade agreement with the US.

The state of "non-peace" comes from the US, not Cuba. Cuba threatens the US not via military power but by showing how and alternative to capitalism can be implemented, right off the US coast. The ending of this relationship hostile relationship (which originates in the US) needs to come from the US. Cuba ought to agree to this because it certainly isn't in the interest of the Cuban working class to have the US continue the embargo or to continue to be a military threat to the island.

I don't think that socialists in Cuba think that an end to the embargo or a more "peaceful" relationship means a return to capitulation to the US for Cuba, and that's because it doesn't automatically follow from that. Yugoslavia (whatever you may think of that country) until the 90s had decent relations with the West, including economic relations, which didn't make Yugoslavia a victim of imperialism (although this example may be weak as it eventually was).

But either way, the current status quo of US Cuba relations is not acceptable for the Cuban worker, and easing relations would be good for the worker. It doesn't follow from easing relations that Cuba returns to its pre-1959 state.

Great, now American capitalist politicians are supportive of socialism. How low you people will go to defend your idols.

When did I say they were socialists? I was simply bringing up the fact that they weren't there to promote "freedom and capitalism" but instead even highlighted the positive aspects of Cuba. Granted they're still politicans and they obviously still support Capitalism, but they're on the left side of the US political spectrum and thus they would be the ones to end the embargo, not the polticans who overtly call for military action in Cuba.

manic expression

9th April 2009, 18:13

Do you think it's clever to repeat what others have said?

I was agreeing with that one point you made and enumerating upon it.

It has, in words. It has also denounced the Iraq War - but then, at times, it didn't ("we had the honor... to abstain") (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/CubaPR39.html). In the same way, Cuba has had many deals with Israeli businessman, most prominently right-winger and ex-GSS man Rafael Eitan.

Yes, and words matter. What else do you expect Cubans to do? Deploy troops to Gaza? Run guns for Hamas? Bomb Tel Aviv? Your denunciation is mindless because it offers no alternatives.

That link doesn't mention Israel or Zionism once. Make an actual point.

So what makes Cuba capitalist is indeed the means of production - the fact that the workers do not control them, first and foremost (thanks for the advice on materialism: it means a lot coming from someone who calls every regime which is headed by a CP socialist). But what indicates it is not the fact that it trades with capitalist states, but that it does so opportunistically, building illusions in the possibility of peace with them, like it does now with the US.

The workers do control the means of production through the democratic processes that have been specified on this thread and others (see below). The leaders of Cuba were elected by the Cuban workers, no business interests directed the electoral system as in capitalist countries.

Socialist countries can and should trade with capitalist countries. Likewise, socialist countries can and should develop diplomatic relations with them. One key to stopping needless bloodshed is talking with the ruling classes of capitalist states, and making sure there is some avenue of exchange that can potentially limit tensions. Unfortunately, you seem unable to grasp this. Your talk of Cuba "building illusions" is pathetic, there isn't a single shred of materialist or scientific or working-class analysis here. It is abundantly clear that you have no arguments beyond your personal and subjective suspicions.

On your assertion that I "[call] every regime which is headed by a CP socialist", I don't recall any of my posts claiming Cyprus or Moldova to be socialist, but then again you don't let facts or reality get in the way of your arguments, do you?

Did I say at any point that Cuba was not ready for socialism? Can you quote that? You can't. You just lie and use straw men, like your PSL buddy. Says a lot about your "party."

You, however, obviously don't know anything about Marxism. If you would, you would know that a revolution by petty-bourgeois guerillas cannot build a workers' state; you would know that an admittedly poor, isolated state cannot build socialism;

Because as much as I would like for the embargo to be lifted, when that is done through building illusions in a peace with imperialism, it is damaging and demoralizing to the workers - and the historic damage that will do means much more than some trade agreement with the US.

Your own words condemn you. For the anti-socialists, if Cuba doesn't seek to lift the embargo, it is isolationist and has only itself to blame for economic stagnation. If Cuba DOES seek to lift the embargo, it is trying to collaborate with imperialism. Whatever the case, they condemn the Cuban Revolution. Obviously, the anti-socialists have already made up their minds about Cuba, regardless of how the facts say otherwise.

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html) (see the link on the left, "Democracy in Cuba")

Yehuda Stern

9th April 2009, 21:31

Kurt: Of course I blame the US and not Cuba for the hostile relations between the states, and of course I would prefer for the embargo to be lifted. My point is, however, that the ability of a capitalist state, or even a workers' state for that matter, to trade with imperialism is in no way a higher possibility than the interests of the working class. Having said that, lifting the embargo at the price of building illusions in peace with imperialism is something no revolutionary could support.

As for the "progressive" capitalist politicians - one would think that the fact that capitalist politicians support the lifting of the embargo would just indicate how such a "compromise" would be entirely in the interests of US imperialism.

That link doesn't mention Israel or Zionism once. Make an actual point.I have - it mentions the Stalinists' double talk on their opposition to Iraq. Learning to read is more important than learning to quote - you should work on it.

Your talk of Cuba "building illusions" is pathetic, there isn't a single shred of materialist or scientific or working-class analysis here.Oh really? Is the talk about wanting to improve relations and not being interested in confrontation not building illusions in peace with imperialism? Maybe now that the US is considering lifting the embargo, it's not imperialist anymore...

On your assertion that I "[call] every regime which is headed by a CP socialist", I don't recall any of my posts claiming Cyprus or Moldova to be socialist, but then again you don't let facts or reality get in the way of your arguments, do you?Oh, sorry. A terrible misread on my part. You just call every regime led by a CP one-party regime socialist.

As for Cuba not being ready for socialism: no country is ready to set up socialism right now, because socialism requires the victory of the revolution worldwide. I never said, however, that Cuba is not ready for a socialist revolution that will set a workers' state, which is a completely different thing (but then, Stalinists have also made a revision of that aspect of Marxism).

Andy Bowden

9th April 2009, 21:35

So Cuba have met with US lawmakers. Theres no evidence they're going to change any part of their political or economic programme to accomodate to the US. They could have done so a decade earlier like Vietnam.

And as for the link Yehuda posted Cuba was right to oppose Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, something which had nothing to do with progressive Arab nationalism against a pro-western emirate and much more to do with paying off debts for fighting a war against Iran on their behalf.

I'd also ask Yehuda if he thinks Hamas are accomodating to imperialism by demanding the imperialist powers of the US, EU etc recognise their government?

Mike Morin

9th April 2009, 22:32

Yehuda,

You are so full of what makes the grass grow green, with all this divisive factionalizing rhetoric.

You are without a doubt an agent of the 51st Capitalist Nazional State of America (i.e. Israel).

Take your obfuscation along with your American paid for gun and Institute for a Final Solution for the Palestinian people, somewhere else.

Oh, you poor oppressed chosen person Star of Goliath waving snake.

I'm a work kin for peace and cooperation.

With much (tough) love and care,

Mike Morin
peu

manic expression

9th April 2009, 22:34

I have - it mentions the Stalinists' double talk on their opposition to Iraq. Learning to read is more important than learning to quote - you should work on it.

Ah, so you're changing the subject. I was looking for how it related to what you and I were talking about at the time: Cuba and its opposition to Zionism. Good to know you're dodging that now.

Now on the link, you should cite something specific instead of a long essay that rambles from topic to topic. Calling Cuba "Stalinist" doesn't count as Marxist analysis, sorry.

Oh really? Is the talk about wanting to improve relations and not being interested in confrontation not building illusions in peace with imperialism? Maybe now that the US is considering lifting the embargo, it's not imperialist anymore...

The talk is about opening proper diplomatic relations, something which allows for dialogue. Cutting off diplomacy does nothing for Cuba and it does nothing for American workers. In addition, cutting off diplomacy decreases the ability for the Cuban socialist state to respond to the actions of the imperialists.

The same logic that led the Bolsheviks to negotiate with the German Empire in 1918 is the same logic that leads the Cuban revolutionaries to try to open up to the American capitalist state. Your misled rhetoric is opposed to both.

Oh, sorry. A terrible misread on my part. You just call every regime led by a CP one-party regime socialist.

Running away from your words again, I see. At any rate, your assertion is a patent misunderstanding (and likely an intentional one). I call countries socialist if they have abolished private property and the capitalist mode of production. You, lacking a Marxist outlook, would obviously try to simplify it in such a manner.

And for your information, Cuba does not have one party, and the PCC is not the only party in the Cuban government. Once again, the facts prove you wrong.

As for Cuba not being ready for socialism: no country is ready to set up socialism right now,

That's all we need to know about your ideas: unwilling or unable to support revolutionary movements. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:

because socialism requires the victory of the revolution worldwide. I never said, however, that Cuba is not ready for a socialist revolution that will set a workers' state, which is a completely different thing (but then, Stalinists have also made a revision of that aspect of Marxism).

Socialism does not require the victory of revolution worldwide, this is a silly belief. Marx called the Paris Commune a functioning dictatorship of the proletariat, and that was hardly "the victory of the revolution worldwide". Lenin recognized that the Soviet Union could build a proletarian worker state after the German Revolution had been defeated. In fact, the April Theses directly contradicts your proposed program of anti-socialism.

Mike Morin

9th April 2009, 22:37

And as for the link Yehuda posted Cuba was right to oppose Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, something which had nothing to do with progressive Arab nationalism against a pro-western emirate and much more to do with paying off debts for fighting a war against Iran on their behalf.

I spoke with one Kuwaiti, the first I've ever met, a couple of days ago. I asked him what he thought of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

He said that he "was in favor of it."

I said, "so you liked Saddam Hussein?"

He said, "Sadam Hussein, no..."

Yehuda Stern

10th April 2009, 10:16

And as for the link Yehuda posted Cuba was right to oppose Saddam Hussein's invasion of KuwaitAre you completely daft? Do you actually think that was the part I was referring to?

I'd also ask Yehuda if he thinks Hamas are accomodating to imperialism by demanding the imperialist powers of the US, EU etc recognise their government?I think Hamas is accommodating to Western imperialism for that and for many other reasons.

You are without a doubt an agent of the 51st Capitalist Nazional State of America (i.e. Israel)...
Oh, you poor oppressed chosen person Star of Goliath waving snake.Huh. You are as much of an idiot as you are an anti-Semite.

Marx called the Paris Commune a functioning dictatorship of the proletariat, and that was hardly "the victory of the revolution worldwide". Lenin recognized that the Soviet Union could build a proletarian worker state after the German Revolution had been defeated.

All of which are workers' states, not socialist states. Instead of learning all those nifty Lenin quotes, try reading State and Revolution. Would do you a lot of good.

Yazman

10th April 2009, 14:55

Huh. You are as much of an idiot as you are an anti-Semite.

I'm sick and fucking tired of people labelling anti-zionism as anti-semitic. Its fucking bullshit.

KurtFF8

10th April 2009, 15:39

Kurt: Of course I blame the US and not Cuba for the hostile relations between the states, and of course I would prefer for the embargo to be lifted. My point is, however, that the ability of a capitalist state, or even a workers' state for that matter, to trade with imperialism is in no way a higher possibility than the interests of the working class. Having said that, lifting the embargo at the price of building illusions in peace with imperialism is something no revolutionary could support.

You ought to change the last two words here to "should support" since you're making an argument that clearly not every revolutionary leftist agrees with. I'm also not sure about what "illusions" you're talking about. I'm sure that the revolutionary government of Cuba (or the workers in general) have no illusions about the US and its intentions towards Cuba, after all they are the ones who have experienced US attempts to overthrow their government since the revolution itself.

That doesn't mean that the US even changing its rhetoric wouldn't be a good thing, especially if it meant a move away from overtly trying to overthrow the revolution (which of course the US will continue to try to do whether it says it is or not). But the point is that lifting the embargo would be a positive thing for the working class in Cuba, and that won't happen if Cuba completely ignores the US as you appear to be claiming it ought to do (correct me if I'm wrong here of course).

As a matter of fact, what exactly do you think Cuba should do here?

As for the "progressive" capitalist politicians - one would think that the fact that capitalist politicians support the lifting of the embargo would just indicate how such a "compromise" would be entirely in the interests of US imperialism.

I think you're focusing on my comment here too much. It was more of an aside about how the congresspeople who did go to Cuba are the "left" of the American government. Of course capital would benefit from a lifting of the embargo. But it is simultaneously threatened by open relations with Cuba where US citizens can go and see what an alternative system can do to a country like Cuba (as compared to somewhere like the Bahamas for example).

But either way, don't think I was trying to be a cheerleader for US politicians here.

R_P_A_S

10th April 2009, 16:03

I hope Cuba opens up and I can go visit! :D

Cuba IS OPEN for you to visit. It's your government that is not open.

manic expression

10th April 2009, 16:14

All of which are workers' states, not socialist states. Instead of learning all those nifty Lenin quotes, try reading State and Revolution. Would do you a lot of good.

The two are intertwined quite closely, for socialism is not possible without a worker state. Socialism itself means the abolition of private property and the capitalist mode of production. Cuba has accomplished this. If you want to bring up something specific instead of blabbering aimlessly, you would do well to do so.

Cumannach

10th April 2009, 16:23

A workers state is a socialist state. To say that Socialism has not been constructed in a workers state is simply to say the state is still closer to capitalism than communism, not that it is not moving towards communism and that it is in the transition from capitalism to communism (Socialism).

Yehuda Stern

10th April 2009, 16:28

I'm sick and fucking tired of people labelling anti-zionism as anti-semitic. Its fucking bullshit.

Only he's an anti-Semite, and it's pretty clear. It's certainly stupid to suggest that I, a member of an anti-Zionist group operating in Israel, seek to confuse the two.

As a matter of fact, what exactly do you think Cuba should do here?Since Cuba is a capitalist state, it has no legitimacy in my eyes regardless of what it does. If it were a revolutionary state, it wouldn't rule out in principle trade with capitalist states, but would do so while making its opposition to their ruling class very clear.

The two are intertwined quite closely, for socialism is not possible without a worker state. Please, keep your ignorance re the Marxist theory of the state to yourself. You should actually read Lenin, not just quote him, as I have suggested already.

KurtFF8

10th April 2009, 16:30

Since Cuba is a capitalist state, it has no legitimacy in my eyes regardless of what it does. If it were a revolutionary state, it wouldn't rule out in principle trade with capitalist states, but would do so while making its opposition to their ruling class very clear.

But you also agree that Cuba is a victim of US imperialism don't you? So why not support measures to easy that pressure on the island, regardless of the social makeup of Cuba?

Yazman

10th April 2009, 17:00

Only he's an anti-Semite, and it's pretty clear. It's certainly stupid to suggest that I, a member of an anti-Zionist group operating in Israel, seek to confuse the two.

I really don't see anything he said as anti-semitic. Please point it out to me and explain how its anti-semitic as well.

Yehuda Stern

10th April 2009, 17:12

But you also agree that Cuba is a victim of US imperialism don't you? So why not support measures to easy that pressure on the island, regardless of the social makeup of Cuba?

As I said, that is something I support, but not at the cost of illusions in a peace with imperialism.

I really don't see anything he said as anti-semitic. Please point it out to me and explain how its anti-semitic as well.

OK.

You are without a doubt an agent of the 51st Capitalist Nazional State of America (i.e. Israel).

Here MM implies that I am an agent of the Zionists, even though my anti-Zionism is well known here. The only reason to still claim that I am an agent of Israel would be because to him, Jews are automatically Zionist reactionaries - at the very least, Jews who criticize Cuba. It is very reminiscent of the "rootless cosmopolitan" rhetoric of 30s Stalinism.

Take your obfuscation along with your American paid for gun and Institute for a Final Solution for the Palestinian people, somewhere else.

Again: MM implies that I support the genocide of all Palestinians, despite my well documented defense and advocacy of Palestinian liberation and the creation of a Palestinian workers' state to replace Israel, solely on the grounds that I am a Jew who disagrees with him.

Oh, you poor oppressed chosen person Star of Goliath waving snake.

Here MM
1. Implies that Jews aren't actually oppressed;
2. Calls me a "snake," which stinks of Antisemitism when combined with his former accusations;
3. "Chosen person," "star of Goliath" - obviously terms meant to insult me as a Jew.

Revy

10th April 2009, 17:26

Fidel Castro endorsed Obama back in 2008. He said that Obama was the "best candidate".

Castro may be getting more critical, but I still don't see him as particularly radical.

What exists in Cuba is more of a state-run social democracy. I'm just not all that excited about THAT.

Yazman

10th April 2009, 21:39

Here MM implies that I am an agent of the Zionists, even though my anti-Zionism is well known here. The only reason to still claim that I am an agent of Israel would be because to him, Jews are automatically Zionist reactionaries - at the very least, Jews who criticize Cuba. It is very reminiscent of the "rootless cosmopolitan" rhetoric of 30s Stalinism.

This conclusion seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Given he is new to RL he wouldn't know your reputation.

Again: MM implies that I support the genocide of all Palestinians, despite my well documented defense and advocacy of Palestinian liberation and the creation of a Palestinian workers' state to replace Israel, solely on the grounds that I am a Jew who disagrees with him.

Again, how would he know your reputation if he's new here?

Here MM
1. Implies that Jews aren't actually oppressed;
2. Calls me a "snake," which stinks of Antisemitism when combined with his former accusations;
3. "Chosen person," "star of Goliath" - obviously terms meant to insult me as a Jew.

I can see your point with this one though. Fair enough.

Hoxhaist

10th April 2009, 21:51

This act by Cuba seems dangerously close to revisionism and Khruschevite "Peaceful Co-Existence." Hopefully Raul and the younger cadres in Communist Party of Cuba ought to maintain pure Marxism-Leninism and steer clear of Revisionism and Dengist reform

Mike Morin

11th April 2009, 01:48

First of all, the term Semite refers to all the people of the "Middle East", not just Israelis...

Second of all, there has been a lot of great Americans of Jewish ascent in the last generation, and previously, including Jeremy Rifkin, Abbie Hoffman, and Howard Zinn.

I have had a few Jewish friends in my life, including the Labowitz sisters who were active in the Americans for Democratic Action organization during the Viet Nam War. I had a Jewish friend in undergraduate school, Fred Davis, who complained about that he felt persecuted as a Jew. I responded that the more you identify yourself as something, the more other people will identify you as such.

I have a friend, Gary Kutcher, who is of Jewish ascent here in Eugene.

I'll admit that I jumped to conclusions and some of my language was out of line, because of Yehuda's name.

However, my statements concerning the United States and Israeli Capitalist Fascist Militaries will not be detracted.

Also, I distrust Yehuda because of the propogandic nonsense that he espouses regarding Cuba.

I hold firm to my assertion that the flag of the 51st State should be called the Star of Goliath.

MM
peu