Cuba: Socialist or State Capitalist? [Archive]

Yehuda Stern

22nd July 2009, 08:05

Socialist obviously state capitalism means something completely different.

Really? What does it mean?

I voted state capitalist. Seeing as Cuba never had a workers' revolution, i.e. a revolution of the workers themselves led by a vanguard party, and seeing as Cuba has proven against and again that it is incapable of consistently opposing imperialism:

1. Its betrayal of the national liberation struggle in Eritrea when Ethiopian leader Mengistu became a supporter of the USSR;
2. Its refusal, along with the USSR, to challenge the control of oil companies in Angola in the war with SA;
3. Its double talk on the Gulf war in 1991:

"Cuba voted for the U.N.'s demand that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait (Resolution 660), and for the restoration of the "legitimate government" of the emirs (Resolution 662). It shamefully abstained on the key resolution (661) ordering an all-out economic boycott of Iraq, itself an act of war against the Iraqi people. It also abstained on Resolution 665 authorizing the use of naval force to halt shipping into and from Iraq. And in an August 25 speech, U.N. representative Ricardo Alarcón boasted that Cuba was cooperating with the boycott of Iraq even though it had abstained on the vote."

I see no reason to consider this regime or state socialist or progressive in any way, other than for the obvious fact that it is an oppressed country and should be defended against imperialism.

robbo203

22nd July 2009, 08:20

I get the impression that most of you guys who vote for state-capitalist, do so rather because Stalinist states are repressive regimes than the actual social, economic and property relations. With all do respect what would you guys say to that?

No we say it is state capitalist because it has all the primary hallmarks of capitalism - wage labour, commopdity production, capital accumulation etc etc

Oh, yes and because it has a state (and a repressive state at that) that means it is a class based based society and a class based society can only run in the interests of the ruling class which by defintion cannot be the exploited working class

BIG BROTHER

22nd July 2009, 08:22

Really? What does it mean?

I voted state capitalist. Seeing as Cuba never had a workers' revolution, i.e. a revolution of the workers themselves led by a vanguard party, and seeing as Cuba has proven against and again that it is incapable of consistently opposing imperialism:

1. Its betrayal of the national liberation struggle in Eritrea when Ethiopian leader Mengistu became a supporter of the USSR;
2. Its refusal, along with the USSR, to challenge the control of oil companies in Angola in the war with SA;
3. Its double talk on the Gulf war in 1991:

"Cuba voted for the U.N.'s demand that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait (Resolution 660), and for the restoration of the "legitimate government" of the emirs (Resolution 662). It shamefully abstained on the key resolution (661) ordering an all-out economic boycott of Iraq, itself an act of war against the Iraqi people. It also abstained on Resolution 665 authorizing the use of naval force to halt shipping into and from Iraq. And in an August 25 speech, U.N. representative Ricardo Alarcón boasted that Cuba was cooperating with the boycott of Iraq even though it had abstained on the vote."

I see no reason to consider this regime or state socialist or progressive in any way, other than for the obvious fact that it is an oppressed country and should be defended against imperialism.

Good points, but the fact that the Cuban bureaucracy has had reactionary positions doesn't make it "state-capitalist" Private property in its majority was expropriated in Cuba. The fact that Cuba holds reactionary positions is for the bureaucracy that rules over the workers. Take the bureaucrats away and you would have a workers state going towards socialism and world revolution.

BIG BROTHER

22nd July 2009, 08:27

No we say it is state capitalist because it has all the primary hallmarks of capitalism - wage labour, commopdity production, capital accumulation etc etc

Oh, yes and because it has a state (and a repressive state at that) that means it is a class based based society and a class based society can only run in the interests of the ruling class which by defintion cannot be the exploited working class

Wouldn't you say though that another of the primary hallmarks of Capitalism is private property of the means of production. Were as in Cuba they are public property (mismanaged by the bureaucracy of course). Now in the lower stage of Socialism on a workers state, wouldn't you except to be there wage labor too? Also as I understand it, commodities production will be done in socialism and communism, isn't the whole point to mass produce them in order to eliminate scarsity and enable for a gift economy?

robbo203

22nd July 2009, 10:45

Wouldn't you say though that another of the primary hallmarks of Capitalism is private property of the means of production. Were as in Cuba they are public property (mismanaged by the bureaucracy of course). Now in the lower stage of Socialism on a workers state, wouldn't you except to be there wage labor too? Also as I understand it, commodities production will be done in socialism and communism, isn't the whole point to mass produce them in order to eliminate scarsity and enable for a gift economy?

No, I wouldnt say de jure private ownership of the means of production is a primary feature of capitalism; class or sectional ownership of the means of production on the other hand is crucial and this can take the form of either de jure private ownership (as in the West) or de facto collective class ownership as in Cuba or the Soviet Union by a tiny elite by virtue of their absoute control of the state. In Medieval Europe the Chuch was massive landowner even though individual members of the clergy did not have legal entitlement to the land. It was institutional class ownership just as in the state capitalist countires

The distinction between socialism communism was an invention of Lenin; it did not exist in the Marxian tradition

DDR

22nd July 2009, 12:01

I've voted for Socialist, because as they say they are building socialism.

The Ungovernable Farce

22nd July 2009, 13:09

I don't think the either or option fits Cuba precisely. At present Cuba has a mixed economy. There is a welfare state, the government is a partner with foreign investors in the tourist industry, there is a market for agriculture products on a small scale, there are small businesses such as shoe repair shops and auto parts stores. Heavy industry is state owned and collective agriculture exists side by side with privately worked farms.
So, there's capitalism, but some of the capitalism is state-run? I certainly can't see how that could be described as state capitalism.

Blake's Baby

22nd July 2009, 13:25

You can't see how capitalism run by the state is state capitalism? Is that seriously what you're saying? What else could it possibly be?

What is this fixation with private capitalists? In the 1880s, Engels wrote about how joint-stock companies were eliminating old-fashioned private capitalists. That doesn't stop them being capitalist enterprises.

Also, the state being increasing the 'collective capitalist' would mean that the state seizing control of the economy is... state capitalism, wouldn't it? The fact that the collective capitalist is embodied by the state makes no difference to the basic class relations.

h9socialist

22nd July 2009, 13:48

Cuba is probably the most truly socialist state in the world right now -- although it's got a lot of flaws, and it needs increased trade with capitalist nations to stay afloat. It's one thing to sit on our asses at a computer screen and lecture the rest of the world about socialism . . . It's another thing to actually try to build it like Fidel did. My hat's off to Fidel!

Hoggy_RS

22nd July 2009, 13:49

I voted socialist.

Pogue

22nd July 2009, 14:12

Really? What does it mean?

I voted state capitalist. Seeing as Cuba never had a workers' revolution, i.e. a revolution of the workers themselves led by a vanguard party, and seeing as Cuba has proven against and again that it is incapable of consistently opposing imperialism:

1. Its betrayal of the national liberation struggle in Eritrea when Ethiopian leader Mengistu became a supporter of the USSR;
2. Its refusal, along with the USSR, to challenge the control of oil companies in Angola in the war with SA;
3. Its double talk on the Gulf war in 1991:

"Cuba voted for the U.N.'s demand that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait (Resolution 660), and for the restoration of the "legitimate government" of the emirs (Resolution 662). It shamefully abstained on the key resolution (661) ordering an all-out economic boycott of Iraq, itself an act of war against the Iraqi people. It also abstained on Resolution 665 authorizing the use of naval force to halt shipping into and from Iraq. And in an August 25 speech, U.N. representative Ricardo Alarcón boasted that Cuba was cooperating with the boycott of Iraq even though it had abstained on the vote."

I see no reason to consider this regime or state socialist or progressive in any way, other than for the obvious fact that it is an oppressed country and should be defended against imperialism.

There are no 'oppressed countries', only oppressed people. With all his wealth, I doon't think Fidel Castro is oppressed at all. Unless oppression these days means having a tennis court in your back garden.

Bandito

22nd July 2009, 14:45

Fidelist.
Which is, however, closer to "socialist" than "state capitalist".

x359594

22nd July 2009, 15:23

...Private property in its majority was expropriated in Cuba. The fact that Cuba holds reactionary positions is for the bureaucracy that rules over the workers. Take the bureaucrats away and you would have a workers state going towards socialism and world revolution.

The key word in your statement is WAS, past tense. Private property has since been re-introduced.

As I said before, Cuba at present has a mixed economy with small private holdings in business and agriculture, state owned heavy industry, collective farms and privately owned plots, and multi-national investment in the tourist industry (now Cuba's main source of hard currency and income, replacing sugar export.)

The tourist industry is jointly owned by the state and private off shore investors and is run for profit with differential wage scales for its employees, in other words, a capitalist enterprise through and through.

But there is also a social safety net including free medical care and free education from kindergarten to graduate and professional school.

manic expression

22nd July 2009, 15:33

The key word in your statement is WAS, past tense. Private property has since been re-introduced.

As I said before, Cuba at present has a mixed economy with small private holdings in business and agriculture, state owned heavy industry, collective farms and privately owned plots, and multi-national investment in the tourist industry (now Cuba's main source of hard currency and income, replacing sugar export.)

The "private property" that exists in Cuba isn't contradictory to socialism at all, really. The small businesses you're talking about can hardly be considered capitalist, they're families that run restaurants and farms through their own labor. It's not exploitative, and moreover it's under the auspices of the working class.

On the tourist industry, cooperation with multinational firms is necessary at this point because the industry requires airline travel from and to many different countries. The resort-style tourism that many favor deepens this necessity. Nevertheless, the real point is that the workers of Cuba democratically decided to cooperate with multinational firms in order to welcome more guests to their country. This underlines Cuba's socialist outlook, direction and condition.

Sarah Palin

22nd July 2009, 15:42

Just like every other post in this thread, I'll say it's "building socialism." And so, I voted socialist.

BIG BROTHER

22nd July 2009, 16:08

Pogue

22nd July 2009, 16:26

The question to those who say "State-Capitalist". If Cuba is indeed "state-capitalist" why has Cuba even under the reactionary rule of a privileged elite being at the center of anti-imperialist struggle many times? Why does Imperialism wanna do away with "State-Capitalism?" So if the Revolution was defeated and another "Democracy" (you guys know what this word stands for) was put in place, it wouldn't be a huge set-back for the Revolution and the workers movement?

They (the big Imperialist powers, USA, etc) hate it because it doesn't fall under their sphere of influence, much as how they don't like Iran, despite Iran not being a worker run society.

I don't think there is a revolution that could be defeated. No one here wants the Castro regime ot be overthrown by the USA, we want it to be overthrown by the working class. I find it funny the usual defence of state capitalist regimes is 'But it would be replaced wiht imperialist capitlaism, is that what you want? Uncle Sam riding Cuban workers around with bags of money strapped to his waist? The stars and stripes over revolution square? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT YOU ANIMALS!?!?!"

No, we want a worker run society in place of the breucratic state capitalist country that is there already. Cuba never had a socialist revolution.

manic expression

22nd July 2009, 16:46

No, we want a worker run society in place of the breucratic state capitalist country that is there already. Cuba never had a socialist revolution.

In order to have a worker run society, you need a state. Simple as that.

And Cuba has such a state. The democratic organs of working-class state power, the lack of private property, the socialistic character of Cuban society have all been posted here before.

Pogue

22nd July 2009, 16:56

In order to have a worker run society, you need a state. Simple as that.

And Cuba has such a state. The democratic organs of working-class state power, the lack of private property, the socialistic character of Cuban society have all been posted here before.

But its not simple as that. If it was simple as that, there wouldn't be anarchism. Also, definitions of a workers state vary.

How democratic these organs of 'working class state power' are has been disputed. Certainly there is a state beurecracy and heirachy. This is shown in the wealth of Fidel castro as compare dot that of your average working class person in Cuba. There is a beurecratic class of state officials, i.e. the state is not just the working class in power.

The lack of private property is debatable. Workplace sovereignty is in the hands of the state as opposed to the working class, hence the term state capitalism, where the state owns all private property.

What on earth does 'socialistic' mean? Your either socialist or your not. The lack of worker control in Cuba means its not. Thats why we call it state capitalist.

manic expression

22nd July 2009, 17:11

But its not simple as that. If it was simple as that, there wouldn't be anarchism.

I'm not sure how that changes the equation I set forth.

How democratic these organs of 'working class state power' are has been disputed. Certainly there is a state beurecracy and heirachy. This is shown in the wealth of Fidel castro as compare dot that of your average working class person in Cuba. There is a beurecratic class of state officials, i.e. the state is not just the working class in power.

Sure there's a bureaucracy, every state has a bureaucracy. The question is with whom decision-making rests, with whom power rests. Every real study of the Cuban state shows that both rest with the workers. Policy is set forth by the working class of Cuba. I've posted the necessary links many times before, as have others, so the proof is there.

The lack of private property is debatable. Workplace sovereignty is in the hands of the state as opposed to the working class, hence the term state capitalism, where the state owns all private property.

First, it's good that we've established that the state does control the means of production. Leading from this, the state is controlled by the working class, therefore the point is moot.

If it wasn't, then we'd go into the whole discussion of whether state capitalism could apply to a state bureaucracy that doesn't actually own property itself, but that's another discussion for another thread.

What on earth does 'socialistic' mean? Your either socialist or your not. The lack of worker control in Cuba means its not. Thats why we call it state capitalist.

Socialistic, meaning of socialism.

x359594

22nd July 2009, 18:18

...the real point is that the workers of Cuba democratically decided to cooperate with multinational firms in order to welcome more guests to their country. This underlines Cuba's socialist outlook, direction and condition.

If we're talking about Cuba's outlook and aspirations, there is no doubt that the direction is socialist, but if we're talking about empirical conditions as they now exist, the economy is a mixed economy, neither altogether socialist or nor altogether capitalist.

For this reason, an either/or question like the one that starts this thread side steps the actual conditions of Cuba. If the qusetion read, "Do you think Cuba is moving in the direction of socialism or state capitalism?" I would answer that it's moving in the direction of socialism but hasn't arrived yet.

RedSonRising

22nd July 2009, 18:55

I voted socialist.

While the bureaucratic network of the Cuban government is more structured and centrally powerful than we'd like, the input that elected Union leaders that represent teachers, farmers, and good-producing workers has major influence on the mode of production, in cooperation with the elected officials of the revolutionary state. Raul has recently moved agricultural planning from a centralized model (which was concluded to be inefficient) to a municipal model, further democratizing the production process.

Now, I am not going to pretend there is not an unwanted level of oppression and State control in Cuban society, but with constant imperialist terrorism and economic isolation in recent decades, it is remarkable to consider how socialist Cuba has really stayed (it makes my skin crawl to hear North Korea even used in the same sentence). I myself have been to Cuba and was able to talk to many citizens concerning their mostly mixed feelings of satisfaction with Cuban life, and under Raul, increases in ability to acquire personal property (such as cars, NOT capital) have made it easier for them. Also, careful behind-the-scenes dissent and propositions for increased freedom of speech and travel have affected the continuing policies of the government. One man there was complaining quite openly and loudly to me in a restaurant while we were having drinks and conversing, and there was certainly no big brother storming in with a nightstick. Of course that is not supposed to be a tell-all reflection of the entire political system, but it's certainly an incident many wouldn't imagine happening in Cuba at all.

Anyways, back to workers' control, a while ago I found a pretty objective study on the relation of Cuban workers to industry production and union representation over many years in a book called "Cuba: A different America." A good part of that section of the book is available in the preview. Anyone interested in the topic should give it a look.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9CJec-NWjS0C&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=workers%27+control+in+cuba&source=bl&ots=RnJtPOGstP&sig=rJZiGF8wydvvG7pX0zQNbFzDFYI#PPA67,M1

robbo203

22nd July 2009, 19:21

Just like every other post in this thread, I'll say it's "building socialism." And so, I voted socialist.
Actually quite a few of the threads say it is state capitalist and for the obvious reason that it exhibits all the primary characteristics of capitalism. Except that it is capitalism run mainly via the state. It is not "building socialism" and the Cuban state has no intention of introducing a stateless non market system of society

The Ungovernable Farce

22nd July 2009, 19:36

You can't see how capitalism run by the state is state capitalism? Is that seriously what you're saying? What else could it possibly be?

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I agree, of course it's state capitalist.

But there is also a social safety net including free medical care and free education from kindergarten to graduate and professional school.
This is your proof for it being socialist? Are Britain, Canada and France all socialist countries?

The question to those who say "State-Capitalist". If Cuba is indeed "state-capitalist" why has Cuba even under the reactionary rule of a privileged elite being at the center of anti-imperialist struggle many times? Why does Imperialism wanna do away with "State-Capitalism?"
We've been through this so many times. Imperialism also wanted to do away with Saddam Hussein, does that mean Iraq was socialist?

The democratic organs of working-class state power, the lack of private property, the socialistic character of Cuban society have all been posted here before.
And they were implausible then as well. Or did Raul Castro become President because the whole of the working class in Cuba liked him, and the fact that he was Castro's brother was just a pure coincidence?

Pogue

22nd July 2009, 19:38

I'm not sure how that changes the equation I set forth.

It does because it shows historically poeple have disagreed with you and put this disagreement into practice.

Sure there's a bureaucracy, every state has a bureaucracy. The question is with whom decision-making rests, with whom power rests. Every real study of the Cuban state shows that both rest with the workers. Policy is set forth by the working class of Cuba. I've posted the necessary links many times before, as have others, so the proof is there.

I'd argue this beurecracy is where power really rests. I don't think beurecracies of the sort that exists in Cuba need to exist, and I think they are merely an attempt to fool people such as yourself into thinking such a thing as worker's control exists in Cuba. I've met people from the UK Cuba truth group and they haven't convinced me - all their 'evidence' of socialism in action in Cuba comes from statist sources. I do intend to find out for myself though however.

First, it's good that we've established that the state does control the means of production. Leading from this, the state is controlled by the working class, therefore the point is moot.

I think the nature of the state means it can't be controlled by the working class. The power held by Castro and his clique of councillors around him shows this. They are not delegates.

If it wasn't, then we'd go into the whole discussion of whether state capitalism could apply to a state bureaucracy that doesn't actually own property itself, but that's another discussion for another thread.

Ok then.

Socialistic, meaning of socialism.

I don't think something can be 'socialistic', I think its either in a revolutionary period, or its socialism or capitalism. Cuba is capitalism because the working class are not in control.

I'd be interested if you posted your statistics and facts though.

gorillafuck

22nd July 2009, 21:13

all their 'evidence' of socialism in action in Cuba comes from statist sources.
Is it only possible for anarchist sources to tell the truth?

Pogue

22nd July 2009, 21:32

Is it only possible for anarchist sources to tell the truth?

I meant sources from the Cuban state.

But yeh, for the most part everyone but anarchists are dirty liars.

Radical

22nd July 2009, 21:38

Pogue

22nd July 2009, 21:43

Radical I think you should go start an armed struggle somewhere, if you lead i'll follow.

blake 3:17

22nd July 2009, 22:36

It is working towards socialism. I find the ability of the Cuban Revolution to correct itself is quite astonishing. I get dismayed when I think that it is the exception that proves the rule.

A New Era

22nd July 2009, 23:08

I don't think a socialist state would have such a powerful elite bureaucracy that in addition often takes advantage of their positions, of which these benefits the state has entitled them to. So I agree with this quote from big brother:

In other words it has a planned economy were the means of production have been expropiated from the capitalist, but a leech-full bureaucracy is in control of them and obstructs the path towards achieving socialism.

Madvillainy

22nd July 2009, 23:11

It was capitalist before Baptista and it was capitalist after him.

Blake's Baby

23rd July 2009, 00:06

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I agree, of course it's state capitalist...

My apologies: I took it at face value instead of taking a step back and considering whether you could possibly have meant it. Proof, if it be needed, that it is possible to fool an idiot in a hurry :oops:

But I will say in my defence, that it was such a good parody, it was difficult to spot!

n0thing

23rd July 2009, 00:32

You can only have socialism when the workers control production. Thus, you can only have state-socialism when the workers control the state. If you think the Cuban workers control the Cuban state, you're delusional. State-capitalism doesn't seem to fit either, but it certainly isn't socialist.

Blake's Baby

23rd July 2009, 00:38

What's state socialism? Wilhelm Leibknecht said in the 1880s (hey, I always quote Germans from 120 years ago) that "there is no 'state socialism', there is only state capitalism" and I see no reason to substantially (at all) revise that statement.

gorillafuck

23rd July 2009, 02:30

Raul has recently moved agricultural planning from a centralized model (which was concluded to be inefficient) to a municipal model, further democratizing the production process.
I didn't know that, link?

manic expression

23rd July 2009, 02:39

It does because it shows historically poeple have disagreed with you and put this disagreement into practice.

Many people disagree with socialism, but it doesn't change the fact that working-class state power inherently includes a state.

I'd argue this beurecracy is where power really rests. I don't think beurecracies of the sort that exists in Cuba need to exist, and I think they are merely an attempt to fool people such as yourself into thinking such a thing as worker's control exists in Cuba. I've met people from the UK Cuba truth group and they haven't convinced me - all their 'evidence' of socialism in action in Cuba comes from statist sources. I do intend to find out for myself though however.

You can argue that, but your argument here boils down to a mere aversion to states in general. That's essentially what your point is, and it has very little weight beyond that.

I think the nature of the state means it can't be controlled by the working class. The power held by Castro and his clique of councillors around him shows this. They are not delegates.

Then explain why "Castro and his clique" keep getting elected in legitimate elections by the working class.

I don't think something can be 'socialistic', I think its either in a revolutionary period, or its socialism or capitalism. Cuba is capitalism because the working class are not in control.

A socialist society would be socialistic, since it is of socialism.

I'd be interested if you posted your statistics and facts though.

Statistics don't apply as much here because we're talking about democratic organs of working-class state power. However, since you asked, I'll dig up some info that's already been posted in multiple forms:

The Communist Party in Cuba plays a very different role from that of political parties in the United States and other Western nations. It is not an electoral party; candidates for political office in Cuba do not run on party tickets, and one does not have to be a member of the Communist Party to run for office.
http://www.cubasolidarity.com/aboutcuba/faqs.htm#party

The Cuban political system is based on a foundation of local elections. Each urban neighborhood and rural village and area is organized into a "circumscription," consisting generally of 1000 to 1500 voters. The circumscription meets regularly to discuss neighborhood or village problems. Each three years, the circumscription conducts elections, in which from two to eight candidates compete. The nominees are not nominated by the Communist Party or any other organizations. The nominations are made by anyone in attendance at the meetings, which generally have a participation rate of 85% to 95%. Those nominated are candidates for office without party affiliation. They do not conduct campaigns as such. A one page biography of all the candidates is widely-distributed. The nominees are generally known by the voters, since the circumscription is generally not larger than 1500 voters. If no candidate receives 50% of the votes, a run-off election is held. Those elected serve as delegates to the Popular Councils, which are intermediary structures between the circumscription and the Municipal Assembly. Those elected also serve simultaneously as delegates to the Municipal Assembly. The delegates serve in the Popular Councils and the Municipal Assemblies on a voluntary basis without pay, above and beyond their regular employment.
http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html

On October 19, 1998 voting by secret ballot yielded 515 municipal delegates. The national assembly is also fully democratic but nominations are carried out by mass organizations and citizens committees. 1.6 million people were consulted by the citizens committee and 60,000 were put forward on the first electoral list. Cuba uses computers to allow review of the candidates and their records, including Fidel Castro himself who received 98% of the vote in the last election. Another sign of the popularity of socialism, despite the hardships imposed by imperialism, is that no more than 10 percent of the ballots were spoiled, a protest that anti-Communist groups urged.
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/democracy_in_cuba.htm (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/democracy_in_cuba.htm)

PRC-UTE

23rd July 2009, 04:24

I didn't know that, link?

Here's a previous discussion we had on here re this, and there's a few links in there for you as well: http://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-goes-capitalist-t110435/index.html

VILemon

23rd July 2009, 06:42

It's obviously state-capitalist, but I put socialist because fuck that poll. The situation there is one in which the state is playing the role of capitalist, but most indications are that the democratic structures (grass-roots on up) in Cuba do function and that (relative to the rest of the world) the control over capital (as in the MOP) are in the hands of workers, teachers, and farmers (even at the national assembly level). Given their situation, I just cannot begrudge them the "leadership role" the party maintains in the constitution.

chebol

23rd July 2009, 06:50

robbo203 wrote:

No we say it is state capitalist because it has all the primary hallmarks of capitalism - wage labour, commopdity production, capital accumulation etc etcAll of which existed in their own way under feudalism, as indeed did private ownership of the means of production, but feudalism wasn't capitalism. The question is, what is the *dominant* mode of production? And - sorry chums - in Cuba, capitalism ain't it.

The problem with ascertaining this in Cuba is that for too many people take a quick glance at a second-hand account of the first week of January 1959, and stop there. They see a guerrilla force, petty-bourgeois radicals and maybe some students or workers.

Such a view obscures:
1. the reality of the urban underground in Cuba - the real force, tens of thousands strong and including everything from students, to "petty bourgeois intellectuals" to the unions and workers' organisations - that brought about the overthrow of Batista (but not yet capitalism), and
2. the process of protests, street marches, political struggle, tit-for-tat nationalisations against US and other foreign Capital, and the worker-led factory occupations across the country which ensued over the following 18 months from Batista's overthrow - a process that pitted workers and their allies against the indigenous Cuban bourgeoisie and their foreign backers, and *did* lead to the overthrow of the rule of Capital in Cuba, opening up *the path to creating socialism*.

Cuba is a post-capitalist or post-revolutionary society, taken as a whole, but it is not socialist as such. It is a deformed workers state, with a bureaucratic elite that dominates sections of the state and government.

You cannot simply overthrow capitalism and say "Hey presto - socialism", and in a small third world country, hindered by local and foreign (soviet) bureaucracies, and Imperialist hostility (the blockade, etc) you can only go so far in building such a new society.

Despite all this, Cuba has made some incredible achievements. However, it is necessary to distinguish the reality from the trajectory:
The Cuban *revolution* is a socialist revolution.
The Cuban *state* is a bureaucratically deformed workers' state.
The Cuban *economy*, while it has elements of small private property (largely farms held on usufruct and small business like food stores and restaurants) "big" capital, the commanding heights of the economy, and most of the rest of it too, is held in state hands, and used primarily in the public interest. The bureaucracy exists like a parasite by feeding off the collective wealth of Cuba, but they do not - they can not - run the economy along capitalist lines.

If, like in the Soviet Union, the bureaucracy becomes strong enough that it no longer fears or is held accountable to the people, then it, or a section of it, will feel emboldened enough to seize assets for themselves, and return the economy to capitalism. The Cuban economy is too weak to undertake this process slowly (such as is underway in China, where those looking for "state-run capitalism" should really be turning their eyes), and it will collapse to a wretched third-world level very quickly indeed.

Cuba's future, therefore, depends on the fate of revolutions in neighbouring countries like Venezuela. If the Venezuelan revolution (a revolution which has itself taken on a socialist character, even though the state - as Chavez and others readily admit - remains capitalist) can succeed, Cuba's fortunes - and its struggle for scoialism - will improve. If not, then the double-strangulation of the blockade and the bureaucracy could kill the revolution, and lead to a political counter-revolution and the *return* of capitalist rule to Cuba.

chebol

23rd July 2009, 06:55

robbo203 also wrote:

Oh, yes and because it has a state (and a repressive state at that) that means it is a class based based society and a class based society can only run in the interests of the ruling class which by defintion cannot be the exploited working classNot quite true. The working class *can* be the ruling class, or "by definition", you can never achieve socialism. And with a bit of reading of the Moor, the General and good old Ulyanov, you'll find that there will need to be a "workers' state" (where the working class are the ruling class") for a brief time after the overthrow and destruction of the capitalist state, before that too withers away.

RedSonRising

23rd July 2009, 08:31

Here's a previous discussion we had on here re this, and there's a few links in there for you as well: http://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-goes-capitalist-t110435/index.html

Yea, that was a pivotal discussion on the matter.

As for the specific link you are talking about:

http://www.reuters.com/article/globalNews/idUSN1435806920080502

Yehuda Stern

23rd July 2009, 08:37

Good points, but the fact that the Cuban bureaucracy has had reactionary positions doesn't make it "state-capitalist" Private property in its majority was expropriated in Cuba.

The "no workers revolution" part takes care of that; I put the rest of those things in there to counter the arguments of those who claim that the Cuban state is revolutionary and internationalist, when it clearly isn't. Also, your second sentence is a common misconception among leftists that state ownership of production = socialism or workers' state. By that criterion, both Iran at least in the 1980s and early Israel were workers states.

There are no 'oppressed countries', only oppressed people.

That is of course false. The fact is that imperialist heads of state could get away with many things Castro couldn't. Bush wasn't elected in 2000, but I don't see Cuban state radio transmitting propaganda against him into the US. Israel murders and oppresses Palestinians daily, but none of the major media outlets in the imperialist states say that it is a cruel dictatorship. Clearly there is a double standard here even in regards to the ruling classes of the oppressed countries.

Though I believe in parts of Trotskyism, the Trotskyists I've ever witnessed are all so sectarian. "If your not a trotskyist, your not a communist".

Well, it breaks my heart that I cause you to distance yourself from Trotskyism, but I never said what you claim I said.

There was a workers revolution in Cuba. The Revolution was triggered by Armed Struggle, which then lead the workers to support the struggle. And so it became a Workers Revolution.

That you assert it doesn't mean it's true. To me, and to classic Marxism, a revolution isn't proletarian by virtue of the workers' participation at all; it must be led by a conscious working class, organized in a revolutionary party. Seeing as that did not happen, there was no workers revolution.

robbo203

23rd July 2009, 08:45

robbo203 wrote:
All of which existed in their own way under feudalism, as indeed did private ownership of the means of production, but feudalism wasn't capitalism. The question is, what is the *dominant* mode of production? And - sorry chums - in Cuba, capitalism ain't it..

Sure, wage labour , commodity production and so on existed in feudalism and indeed even earlier. What makes capitalism capitalism is the generalisation of these features. The opening sentence of Das Kapital talks of capitalism being characterised by an immense accumulation of commodites i.e. generalised commodity production.

In Cuba the economic basis of society is unquestionably capitalist. The Wage labour-capital is unquestionably the dominant socio-economic relation. The fact that the system is largely administered via the state is noiether here nor there. That merely makes it a system of state-run capitalism - or state capitalism

BIG BROTHER

23rd July 2009, 08:50

Sure, wage labour , commodity production and so on existed in feudalism and indeed even earlier. What makes capitalism capitalism is the generalisation of these features. The opening sentence of Das Kapital talks of capitalism being characterised by an immense accumulation of commodites i.e. generalised commodity production.

In Cuba the economic basis of society is unquestionably capitalist. The Wage labour-capital is unquestionably the dominant socio-economic relation. The fact that the system is largely administered via the state is noiether here nor there. That merely makes it a system of state-run capitalism - or state capitalism

sigh...

ok I give you this scenario. Lets assume after a general strike the CCP agrees to allow other parties etc. Workers choose their delegates and engage in democratically elected plans. Yet the structure of Cuba remains the same.

Would the said scenario prove that Cuba isn't capitalist? Rather the problem is political, but economically speaking Cuba isn't capitalist. There is no private property....remember how communism if it had to be simplified could be explain just as "the abolition of private property"

New Tet

23rd July 2009, 08:59

The "no workers revolution" part takes care of that; I put the rest of those things in there to counter the arguments of those who claim that the Cuban state is revolutionary and internationalist, when it clearly isn't [...]

I disagree. Cuba and its government were revolutionary and its people are still internationalist. What Cuba isn't is socialist.

New Tet

23rd July 2009, 09:06

robbo203

23rd July 2009, 09:35

Would the said scenario prove that Cuba isn't capitalist? Rather the problem is political, but economically speaking Cuba isn't capitalist. There is no private property....remember how communism if it had to be simplified could be explain just as "the abolition of private property"

But I have already dealt with this. Capitalism does not need to be based on de jure private ownership of the means of production by individuals. What it is based on is de facto class ownership and this can take many forms. In the Soviet Union for example it took the form of a small minority effectively owning and controlling the means of production via their absolute grip on the state in whose names the means of propduction were nominally owned - a legal fiction in other words. I earlier gave the example of the Catholic Church in Medieval Europe which was a huge landowner. No individual clergy had legal entitlement to the land but this didnt not prevent it as an insitituion from effectively owning all this land and disbursing the benefits of this ownership disporportionately in favour of those well placed in the Church's hierarchy. It was exactly the same in the Soviet Union. The capitalist class were those that collectively (not as private individuals) owned the means of production through their control of the state. In fact you cannot separate the concept of ownership from control. The one is an aspect of the other.

When Engels talked of the state increasingly taking over the means of production and increasingly becoming the "national capitalist" this is precisely what he had in mind. The more the state took over the productive forces argued Engels the more workers did it exploit (Socialism Utopian and Scientific). That sums up the situation in state capitalist Cuba

New Tet

23rd July 2009, 09:53

But I have already dealt with this. Capitalism does not need to be based on de jure private ownership of the means of production by individuals. What it is based on is de facto class ownership and this can take many forms. In the Soviet Union for example it took the form of a small minority effectively owning and controlling the means of production via their absolute grip on the state in whose names the means of propduction were nominally owned - a legal fiction in other words. I earlier gave the example of the Catholic Church in Medieval Europe which was a huge landowner. No individual clergy had legal entitlement to the land but this didnt not prevent it as an insitituion from effectively owning all this land and disbursing the benefits of this ownership disporportionately in favour of those well placed in the Church's hierarchy. It was exactly the same in the Soviet Union. The capitalist class were those that collectively (not as private individuals) owned the means of production through their control of the state. In fact you cannot separate the concept of ownership from control. The one is an aspect of the other.

When Engels talked of the state increasingly taking over the means of production and increasingly becoming the "national capitalist" this is precisely what he had in mind. The more the state took over the productive forces argued Engels the more workers did it exploit (Socialism Utopian and Scientific). That sums up the situation in state capitalist Cuba

I think that Cuba will become a state capitalist society soon (over Fidel's dead body). But I think that ever since Cuba joined the Comecon it has been something else, more akin to the type of economic system that existed in the USSR. And I'm not convinced that the USSR was ever state capitalist.

robbo203

23rd July 2009, 10:01

I think that Cuba will become a state capitalist society soon (over Fidel's dead body). But I think that ever since Cuba joined the Comecon it has been something else, more akin to the type of economic system that existed in the USSR. And I'm not convinced that the USSR was ever state capitalist.

But the so called USSR was state capitalist from start to finish in terms of the analysis I presented sop why do you think Cuba is any different. Youi dont present any arguments to support what you claim but merely present it as an opinion

robbo203

23rd July 2009, 10:10

robbo203 also wrote:
Not quite true. The working class *can* be the ruling class, or "by definition", you can never achieve socialism. And with a bit of reading of the Moor, the General and good old Ulyanov, you'll find that there will need to be a "workers' state" (where the working class are the ruling class") for a brief time after the overthrow and destruction of the capitalist state, before that too withers away.

Technically, yes, the working class becomes the ruling class having captured political power in the Marxian schema, But, and this is the point, in becoming the ruling class it abolishes classes and itself as a ruling class. Otherwise what have you got? Think about it. Youve got a working class which by defintion is exploited by the capitalist class supposedly "dictating" to said capitalist class. That is a totally absurd and ridiculous proposition and Lenin tied himsef up into knots trying to defend it. Any so called "workers state" that proposes to operate a society consisting of a working class and a capitalist class is thereby perpetuating capitalism. QED. And we know that if you try to administer capitalism there is only one class that is really going to be the beneficiaries of this system and it aint gonna be the working class. Thats for sure!!

OriginalGumby

23rd July 2009, 21:10

IF socialism is to mean anything their must be workers control of production. This has never occurred in Cuba. Whats more their has been an intense amount of LGBT oppression at the hands of the Cuban government. After the revolution there LGBT was made ILLEGAL!!! and people were sent to camps. Socialism is not possible in one country and it certainly is not in transition to socialism. There are no independent organizations of workers and a serious lack of political freedom so give it up, not socialist.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/51/cuba_image&reality.shtml
http://www.isreview.org/issues/51/cuba_race&sex.shtml

Radical

23rd July 2009, 23:17

What I think as Communists we need to understand is the fact that Fidel wants Cuba to be Socialist. Fidel isent some evil dictator that wants as much power as he can get. He loves his people, he wants the best for Cuba. If Cuba could currently be Socialist, Fidel would make it so.

People crititze Cuba(Mainly Trotskyists) because of the fact they believe its State Capitalist. Cuba is on a journey that wants to finnaly achieve Communism. Cuba is one of us. The reason Cuba isent Socialist is because of the fact Cubas currently not strong enough to achieve it.

People also crititze Cuba because of its tight regulation, for example.. Independent Trade Unions are banned in Cuba, but not because Fidel doesnt want things to get better. If we allow Independent trade unions, they could pose a great threat to the revolutionary process and then Cuba will probably never achieve Socialism.

x359594

24th July 2009, 00:00

...This is your proof for it being socialist?...

Absolutely not. Please read my post more carefully comrade. I've been arguing that Cuba is at present a mixed economy with a state capitalist sector (the tourist industry, the extractive industries, the state farms,) private enterprise in the form of small businesses and fee simple agricultural farms with a retail market for them. It also has a social safety net, which does not make it a socialist country.

That said, Cuba has a very strong potential to become a socialist country. There are signs that independent unions will be allowed, including unions modeled after the CNT. There are already clandestine formations affiliated to the AIT. There are changes taking place in Cuba today that could pave the way toward a truly socialist future for the island.

The Ungovernable Farce

24th July 2009, 00:42

People also crititze Cuba because of its tight regulation, for example.. Independent Trade Unions are banned in Cuba, but not because Fidel doesnt want things to get better. If we allow Independent trade unions, they could pose a great threat to the revolutionary process and then Cuba will probably never achieve Socialism.
If workers can't organise to achieve socialism, how can we get there? The point isn't whether Fidel is nice or nasty; the point is that socialism can't be handed down by a benevolent ruler, it has to be created from below. That's not happening in Cuba.

That said, Cuba has a very strong potential to become a socialist country. There are signs that independent unions will be allowed, including unions modeled after the CNT. There are already clandestine formations affiliated to the AIT. There are changes taking place in Cuba today that could pave the way toward a truly socialist future for the island.
What changes? Again, there are independent unions in Western Europe, including ones affiliated to the AIT, but Western Europe isn't socialist. Cuba can only become socialist if the existing regime is overthrown.

x359594

24th July 2009, 06:50

...the point is that socialism can't be handed down by a benevolent ruler, it has to be created from below. That's not happening in Cuba...

Says who? How do you know it's not happening there?

What changes? Again, there are independent unions in Western Europe, including ones affiliated to the AIT, but Western Europe isn't socialist. Cuba can only become socialist if the existing regime is overthrown.

Once again comrade, I did not say that Cuba was socialist, only that it has the potential to become socialist, but as a matter of fact there is an underground and ground level dissident press spreading propaganda; there are the aforementioned organizations and formations, indications that socialism is being created from below. I've talked to people who've visited Cuba and aver this to be true. This is also the feeling of left Cuban exiles I've talked to.

And how does the existence of independent socialist unions necessarily preclude the overthrow of the existing regime?

While I don't know you, I get the feeling that you may have suffered defeat in some action or cause and have adapted a pessimistic outlook because of it. My apologies if this isn't true.

peaccenicked

24th July 2009, 07:04

embryonic workers State under seige by declining US imperialism

Yehuda Stern

24th July 2009, 12:53

I disagree. Cuba and its government were revolutionary and its people are still internationalist. What Cuba isn't is socialist.

Well, seeing as I had given several examples to prove my argument and you have none to prove yours, I'm afraid I see no reason to believe you.

Radical

24th July 2009, 18:40

If workers can't organise to achieve socialism, how can we get there? The point isn't whether Fidel is nice or nasty; the point is that socialism can't be handed down by a benevolent ruler, it has to be created from below. That's not happening in Cuba.

What changes? Again, there are independent unions in Western Europe, including ones affiliated to the AIT, but Western Europe isn't socialist. Cuba can only become socialist if the existing regime is overthrown.

In order for Socialism to work in underdevoloped countries, you first need to progress through the Revolutionary stages of State Capitalism. Cuba cant just instantly change to Socialist. Its wouldent be strong enough to survive.

x359594

24th July 2009, 19:32

...you first need to progress through the Revolutionary stages of State Capitalism. Cuba cant just instantly change to Socialist. Its wouldent be strong enough to survive.

In practice, state capitalism leads to monopoly capitalism as in the former USSR and the present PRC. The process of Leninist revolution does not describe the transition from capitalism to socialism; it describes instead the transition from feudalism to state capitalism. In its historical context, the Leninist mode of production is the result of a tottering feudal system and a rising capitalist system which is too weak to take its place. Under these circumstances, if society is to continue to extract its means of life from its surroundings, a new mode of production must be introduced, but the capitalist mode which served this purpose in Europe cannot be constructed.

The "historical task" of the Leninist regime, therefore, is to complete the tasks of mechanization and industrialization of the means of production which had been accomplished by the bourgeoisie in the West, but which capitalism is unable to complete (or even begin) in the neo-colonies.
Leninist revolutions, then, despite the propaganda to the contrary, are not and cannot be internationalist revolts on behalf of the working class. They are in essence a variety of "revolutionary nationalism", a method of freeing the neo-colony from foreign domination. They are fought in the interests of the national petty bourgeoisie allied with the workers and the peasants.

The programs undertaken by the Leninist state quickly industrialize the economy and allow society to once again extract its living from existing surroundings. As this requirement is fulfilled a new system of social relationship becomes necessary. In other words, the Leninist mode of production begins to exhibit contradictions which indicate that it has outlived its usefulness and must be replaced.

The Leninist mode of production is perfectly suited to the needs of a neo-colony that is able to throw off the yoke of the imperialists and build an independent economy. But once this stage is arrived at, the development has not been directly to socialism but to monopoly capitalism, as in the PRC and the former USSR.

BIG BROTHER

24th July 2009, 19:45

In practice, state capitalism leads to monopoly capitalism as in the former USSR and the present PRC. The process of Leninist revolution does not describe the transition from capitalism to socialism; it describes instead the transition from feudalism to state capitalism. In its historical context, the Leninist mode of production is the result of a tottering feudal system and a rising capitalist system which is too weak to take its place. Under these circumstances, if society is to continue to extract its means of life from its surroundings, a new mode of production must be introduced, but the capitalist mode which served this purpose in Europe cannot be constructed.

The "historical task" of the Leninist regime, therefore, is to complete the tasks of mechanization and industrialization of the means of production which had been accomplished by the bourgeoisie in the West, but which capitalism is unable to complete (or even begin) in the neo-colonies.
Leninist revolutions, then, despite the propaganda to the contrary, are not and cannot be internationalist revolts on behalf of the working class. They are in essence a variety of "revolutionary nationalism", a method of freeing the neo-colony from foreign domination. They are fought in the interests of the national petty bourgeoisie allied with the workers and the peasants.

The programs undertaken by the Leninist state quickly industrialize the economy and allow society to once again extract its living from existing surroundings. As this requirement is fulfilled a new system of social relationship becomes necessary. In other words, the Leninist mode of production begins to exhibit contradictions which indicate that it has outlived its usefulness and must be replaced.

The Leninist mode of production is perfectly suited to the needs of a neo-colony that is able to throw off the yoke of the imperialists and build an independent economy. But once this stage is arrived at, the development has not been directly to socialism but to monopoly capitalism, as in the PRC and the former USSR.

I kinda agree with you. Except I would change "Leninist" with Stalinist. And all that monopoly, state-capitalism, for a planned economy/socialized even it its on a degenerated way.

SocialismOrBarbarism

24th July 2009, 22:21

In practice, state capitalism leads to monopoly capitalism as in the former USSR and the present PRC. The process of Leninist revolution does not describe the transition from capitalism to socialism; it describes instead the transition from feudalism to state capitalism. In its historical context, the Leninist mode of production is the result of a tottering feudal system and a rising capitalist system which is too weak to take its place. Under these circumstances, if society is to continue to extract its means of life from its surroundings, a new mode of production must be introduced, but the capitalist mode which served this purpose in Europe cannot be constructed.

The "historical task" of the Leninist regime, therefore, is to complete the tasks of mechanization and industrialization of the means of production which had been accomplished by the bourgeoisie in the West, but which capitalism is unable to complete (or even begin) in the neo-colonies.
Leninist revolutions, then, despite the propaganda to the contrary, are not and cannot be internationalist revolts on behalf of the working class. They are in essence a variety of "revolutionary nationalism", a method of freeing the neo-colony from foreign domination. They are fought in the interests of the national petty bourgeoisie allied with the workers and the peasants.

The programs undertaken by the Leninist state quickly industrialize the economy and allow society to once again extract its living from existing surroundings. As this requirement is fulfilled a new system of social relationship becomes necessary. In other words, the Leninist mode of production begins to exhibit contradictions which indicate that it has outlived its usefulness and must be replaced.

The Leninist mode of production is perfectly suited to the needs of a neo-colony that is able to throw off the yoke of the imperialists and build an independent economy. But once this stage is arrived at, the development has not been directly to socialism but to monopoly capitalism, as in the PRC and the former USSR.

I agree that these revolutions simply performed the role that bourgeois revolutions did in Western Europe...but state capitalism is still capitalism, not a separate mode of production.

I'm not sure this applies to Cuba however, and the arguments against the existence of workers control in Cuba have been extremely poor.

Radical

25th July 2009, 05:46

In practice, state capitalism leads to monopoly capitalism as in the former USSR and the present PRC. The process of Leninist revolution does not describe the transition from capitalism to socialism; it describes instead the transition from feudalism to state capitalism. In its historical context, the Leninist mode of production is the result of a tottering feudal system and a rising capitalist system which is too weak to take its place. Under these circumstances, if society is to continue to extract its means of life from its surroundings, a new mode of production must be introduced, but the capitalist mode which served this purpose in Europe cannot be constructed.

The "historical task" of the Leninist regime, therefore, is to complete the tasks of mechanization and industrialization of the means of production which had been accomplished by the bourgeoisie in the West, but which capitalism is unable to complete (or even begin) in the neo-colonies.
Leninist revolutions, then, despite the propaganda to the contrary, are not and cannot be internationalist revolts on behalf of the working class. They are in essence a variety of "revolutionary nationalism", a method of freeing the neo-colony from foreign domination. They are fought in the interests of the national petty bourgeoisie allied with the workers and the peasants.

The programs undertaken by the Leninist state quickly industrialize the economy and allow society to once again extract its living from existing surroundings. As this requirement is fulfilled a new system of social relationship becomes necessary. In other words, the Leninist mode of production begins to exhibit contradictions which indicate that it has outlived its usefulness and must be replaced.

The Leninist mode of production is perfectly suited to the needs of a neo-colony that is able to throw off the yoke of the imperialists and build an independent economy. But once this stage is arrived at, the development has not been directly to socialism but to monopoly capitalism, as in the PRC and the former USSR.

Without first going through a stage of State Capitalism, how do you expect the under-developed countries to achieve socialism?

mikelepore

25th July 2009, 05:50

"Do you consider Cuba State Capitalist or Socialist?"

As though those were the only two possibilities imaginable.

x359594

25th July 2009, 15:48

Without first going through a stage of State Capitalism, how do you expect the under-developed countries to achieve socialism?

Shouldn't the question be, "Without first going through a stage of State Capitalism, how do you expect the under-developed countries to achieve monopoly capitalism?"

If you subscribe to economic determinism, then under-developed countries must achieve monopoly capitalism before transitioning to socialism. In other words, capitalism must pre-empt every other form of production on a global scale before socialism becomes possible anywhere in the world.

On the other hand, so long as labor remains organized along narrow nationalist lines and views the workers of other countries as enemies, it will be unable to fight the international organizations of capital, with its vast financial networks and its multinational corporations. Given that capital is free to move its resources across national boundaries anytime it chooses, labor can only fight back if it is equally powerful internationally. In short, circumstances demand the establishment of an international labor movement, a multinational working class organization which can fight the international monopolists on any turf they choose. Until this is done, the monopolists will continue to enjoy the ability to utilize the colonials against the workers, and thus to increase their power over both.

BIG BROTHER

25th July 2009, 16:21

Pogue

25th July 2009, 16:28

Or maybe the means of production, and capital have been expropriated in Cuba. Maybe their economy is socialized and doesn't function based on profit. What is needed then is just to remove the bureaucrats and expand the revolution.

Removing the bureaucrats would be a revolution in itself, i.e. a workers revolution against state capitalism. I don't understand this desperate logic on this board of referring to countries that once had revolutions of still having them - the Cuban revolution is long over, the state has consolidated power. Just as how the Russian Revolution ended in 1918 (before the Third Revolution which failed), etc.

Monkey Riding Dragon

25th July 2009, 16:32

Cuba never abandoned capitalism. It is instead today a social-democratic sort of semi-colony. Cuba's development, including in the aftermath of the 1959 revolution, has been completely bound up with commodity relations. The true and ultimate rulers of Cuba are thus not even to be found within its national borders.

BIG BROTHER

25th July 2009, 16:36

Removing the bureaucrats would be a revolution in itself, i.e. a workers revolution against state capitalism. I don't understand this desperate logic on this board of referring to countries that once had revolutions of still having them - the Cuban revolution is long over, the state has consolidated power. Just as how the Russian Revolution ended in 1918 (before the Third Revolution which failed), etc.

The revolution wouldn't alter the social relations or change the mode of production. It would be a political Revolution.

And one question to those calling Cuba "state-capitalist"

How do you guys explain that "state-capitalism" doesn't seem to suffer from the same crisis "normal capitalism" does? How many crisis of overproduction have been in Cuba?

Pogue

25th July 2009, 16:41

The revolution wouldn't alter the social relations or change the mode of production. It would be a political Revolution.

And one question to those calling Cuba "state-capitalist"

How do you guys explain that "state-capitalism" doesn't seem to suffer from the same crisis "normal capitalism" does? How many crisis of overproduction have been in Cuba?

I think any analysis of Cuba's economy would be complex. I'm not denying that the economy might be planned and managed in a way meaning it wouldn't have a crisis of overproduction, but that still doesn't make it socialist.

BIG BROTHER

25th July 2009, 16:43

I think any analysis of Cuba's economy would be complex. I'm not denying that the economy might be planned and managed in a way meaning it wouldn't have a crisis of overproduction, but that still doesn't make it socialist.

That's why there's the "Deformed workers state" theory. I think is right to say that Cuba is not capitalist, yet like you say it isn't socialist. We do however see a planned economy, were the means of production have been expropriated from the capitalist. Yet a leech-full caste of privileged bureaucrats mismanage this economy, and are a road block to socialism and the revolution.

Pogue

25th July 2009, 16:45

That's why there's the "Deformed workers state" theory. I think is right to say that Cuba is not capitalist, yet like you say it isn't socialist. We do however see a planned economy, were the means of production have been expropriated from the capitalist. Yet a leech-full caste of privileged bureaucrats mismanage this economy, and are a road block to socialism and the revolution.

But I don't see what remains in Cuba that would mean it just needs a 'political' revolution. It just needs for the workers to seize control of the country just like in every other country.

BIG BROTHER

25th July 2009, 16:52

But I don't see what remains in Cuba that would mean it just needs a 'political' revolution. It just needs for the workers to seize control of the country just like in every other country.

The means of production have already been expropiated in Cuba. Unlike a capitalist country were they would have to go through the whole process of fighting the capitalist class, and organizing everything in a socialized way. In cuba all is needed is a political change. Unlikely that this would happen but in cuba if the ruling party steped down, and lets say this "real" (democratic, made up of workers all that stuff) got in power, thats all it would take so cuba would be a workers state.

This were are in a capitalist country a legimate socialist party can be in power yet that doesnt change the fact that the workers still have to expropiate the means of production.

In short both workers need a revolution, except in a deformed workers state the process is much easier since the biggest and hardest task. Expropiating the means of production from the capitalist has been done already.

Also a Deformed workers state menas that if capitalism is restored, is still a defeat for the workers. That's the biggest danger of the "state-capitalist" theory. It is ok for capitalism to be restored since said country was already "state-capitalist"

Pogue

25th July 2009, 16:53

The means of production have already been expropiated in Cuba. Unlike a capitalist country were they would have to go through the whole process of fighting the capitalist class, and organizing everything in a socialized way. In cuba all is needed is a political change. Unlikely that this would happen but in cuba if the ruling party steped down, and lets say this "real" (democratic, made up of workers all that stuff) got in power, thats all it would take so cuba would be a workers state.

This were are in a capitalist country a legimate socialist party can be in power yet that doesnt change the fact that the workers still have to expropiate the means of production.

In short both workers need a revolution, except in a deformed workers state the proces is much easier since the biggest and hardest task. Expropiating the means of production from the capitalist has been done already.

But the workers still need to expropriate the means of production from the state which currently holds them.

BIG BROTHER

25th July 2009, 16:55

But the workers still need to expropriate the means of production from the state which currently holds them.

They have been however collectivized already. They just need to change how they are managed.

Pogue

25th July 2009, 17:21

They have been however collectivized already. They just need to change how they are managed.

I don't really see things being that different from anywhere else then.

BIG BROTHER

25th July 2009, 17:56

I don't really see things being that different from anywhere else then.

You don't know see difference between private property or collective property?:confused:

Pogue

25th July 2009, 17:58

You don't know see difference between private property or collective property?:confused:

In both cases the working class are not in control and managing production according to need.

x359594

25th July 2009, 23:22

They have been however collectivized already. They just need to change how they are managed.

The biggest sector of the Cuban economy today is the tourist industry, and the tourist industry is co-owned by foreign capital. Along with the tourist industry, the sex industry has been revived although it has no legal status. Nevertheless it's tolerated because it's a source of hard currency. These two sectors of the economy have not been collectivized in any meaningful sense of the word.

Thus far Cuba has not re-introduced sweatshops as is the case in the PRC and Vietnam, but the trend in Cuba is toward creating an investor friendly economy. At this point Cuba could follow the Mexican Revolution and end up a neo-colonial dependency, or it could safeguard the positive gains of the revolution and move to workers' control. There are dissident groups in Cuba who want to see the country move in the direction of socialism, and their prospects are uncertain; there is an equal chance of success or failure as I see it.

robbo203

26th July 2009, 07:11

You don't know see difference between private property or collective property?:confused:

Yes there is a difference between private and collective property but not state property. State property fundamentally speaking is a form of private property. It cannot be collective becuase the relationship between workers and state property is no different really to that of de jure privately owned means of production. In both cases the workers are alienated from the means of production. But state property is still owned by someone or some group - i.e. the state. It follows therefore that those who control the state effectively own the means of production. In the USSR it was the class of apparatchiks - the political elite, state managers,and so on - who, as a class, collectively owned the means of production and distributed the proceeeds of exploiting the Russian working class internally in what became one of the most unequal capitalist societies on the face of the earth

So private ownership is fully compatible with collective class ownership insofar as the latter is actually a form of private ownership. Collective or common ownership in its proper sense, however - where everyone owns the means of production is incompatible with both de jure and de facto ownership of the means of production by a class