Raul: I wasn’t elected to Restore Capitalism in Cuba

[mosfeld]

Raul: I wasn’t elected to Restore Capitalism in Cuba

http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/images/personalid-cub/raulcastroruz8.jpg

HAVANA, Cuba, Aug 1 (acn) I wasn’t elected as President to restore capitalism in Cuba or to surrender the Revolution. I was elected to defend, maintain and continue perfecting socialism, not to destroy it, affirmed Cuban President Raul Castro on Saturday.

While closing the ordinary session of the National Assembly of the People’s Power (Parliament), the Cuban head of state responded to recent statements made by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, on the fact that the United States expected essential changes to take place on the Caribbean island.

He reiterated Cuba’s willingness to hold respectful talks with the United States, between equals, “without a single shadow for our independence, sovereignty and self-determination."

“We’re ready to talk about everything, I repeat, everything, but everything about Cuba and the United States, not to negotiate our political and social system. We don’t ask the United States to do that.

We must respect each other’s differences”, he added.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/2009/0802discursoraul.htm

[Radical]

Good

viva la Socialista Cuba!

I am confident that Socialism will remain in Cuba for atleast many many years after the passing of Castro.

[Misanthrope]

Best of luck to him. Should be interesting.

[Pogue]

Good

viva la Socialista Cuba!

I am confident that Socialism will remain in Cuba for atleast many many years after the passing of Castro.

How can something remain if it never was? :confused::confused::confused:

[Radical]

How can something remain if it never was? :confused::confused::confused:

Are you saying theres no aspects of Socialism in Cuba? There are many things in Cuba that are Socialist. Just because a Country uses Capitalist measures to provide better lives for its people, doesnt mean theres nothing about the country that is Socialist.

Theirs more Socialism in Cuba than anything else.

[Pogue]

Are you saying theres no aspects of Socialism in Cuba? There are many things in Cuba that are Socialist. Just because a Country uses Capitalist measures to provide better lives for its people, doesnt mean theres nothing about the country that is Socialist.

Theirs more Socialism in Cuba than anything else.

How can you have 'more socialism', but still have capitalism, given the definition of socialism? You don't really know what your talking about, do you?

[scarletghoul]

Stop spamming every thread about a socialist state with comments about it not being socialist. We know that you regard these states as state capitalist and not socialist, there's no need to tell us in every thread. It just disrupts the conversation. Try to accept that statist socialists have a differant definition of socialism to you without filling these threads with useless posts like this

[x359594]

...Just because a Country uses Capitalist measures to provide better lives for its people, doesnt mean theres nothing about the country that is Socialist...

You can say that about any nation, including the USA.

As for Cuba, it is at present functioning as a mixed economy with a healthy welfare safety net on a par with Denmark's. Of course it's a much poorer country than Denmark, so that its social safety net is all the more impressive.

I wouldn't describe Cuba as socialist in any meaningful sense of the word, if by socialism we're talking about public or common worker ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. At present salaries are differentiated, so that a hotel manager earns more than a hotel bellboy for example.

At this point Cuba appears to be on the road to socialism, but it could just as well find itself on the road to capitalism, and single party rule is no guarantor of which the way the country will go. Only popular grass roots organizations such as workers councils and producer-consumer co-operatives are capable of bringing the country to authentic socialism.

[Manifesto]

Raul does not look that young either. Who would handle Cuba after him? It could lead to another Gorbachev.

[scarletghoul]

From what I can tell socialism is pretty popular in Cuba and the foundations for a cuban Gorb are not there

[Radical]

You can say that about any nation, including the USA.

As for Cuba, it is at present functioning as a mixed economy with a healthy welfare safety net on a par with Denmark's. Of course it's a much poorer country than Denmark, so that its social safety net is all the more impressive.

I wouldn't describe Cuba as socialist in any meaningful sense of the word, if by socialism we're talking about public or common worker ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. At present salaries are differentiated, so that a hotel manager earns more than a hotel bellboy for example.

At this point Cuba appears to be on the road to socialism, but it could just as well find itself on the road to capitalism, and single party rule is no guarantor of which the way the country will go. Only popular grass roots organizations such as workers councils and producer-consumer co-operatives are capable of bringing the country to authentic socialism.

I dont describe Cuba as Socialist either.

Cuba is on the journey to Socialism. The left need to realise that the Revolution in Cuba is still on-going. Cuba needs our full support in achieving its goal, which is Socialism.

The reason Cuba isent Socialist is because it currently cant be Socialist. Fidel and Raul arent some power-hungry dictators. They truly want the best for Cuba.

[Revy]

Are you saying theres no aspects of Socialism in Cuba? There are many things in Cuba that are Socialist. Just because a Country uses Capitalist measures to provide better lives for its people, doesnt mean theres nothing about the country that is Socialist.

Theirs more Socialism in Cuba than anything else.

The logical path of this kind of argument would be to have to regard the "social democracies" of Europe as socialist as many do. That because Cuba provides things like universal healthcare and free college education it is "socialist".

The truth is there is no "revolution", it is a long period of state-driven reform, that's all it is. Cuba is reformist, not revolutionary.

[RHIZOMES]

How can you have 'more socialism', but still have capitalism, given the definition of socialism? You don't really know what your talking about, do you?

Coming from the person who in this entire thread has just made statement after statement after statement with no actual backing up with any sort of facts. Making one-liner posts about how "it isn't socialist" and leaving it at that isn't a valid argument.

[KurtFF8]

Stop spamming every thread about a socialist state with comments about it not being socialist. We know that you regard these states as state capitalist and not socialist, there's no need to tell us in every thread. It just disrupts the conversation. Try to accept that statist socialists have a differant definition of socialism to you without filling these threads with useless posts like this

Thank you! There's absolutely no need to bring up the "is Cuba really socialist" issue every time we talk about Cuba.

It's not that it isn't an important topic: of course it's quite important to discuss the issue. Just not every time we talk about Cuba!

Even if you don't like Cuba's system or think it's socialist, I don't see how this is a bad thing. Raul is expressing that he will not allow this kind of restoration that has happened in other former socialist countries thus avoiding a restoration of full US domination over the island. I would say that's quite a good thing.


The logical path of this kind of argument would be to have to regard the "social democracies" of Europe as socialist as many do. That because Cuba provides things like universal healthcare and free college education it is "socialist".

The truth is there is no "revolution", it is a long period of state-driven reform, that's all it is. Cuba is reformist, not revolutionary.

Cuba's entire system exists directly as a result of a socialist revolution. You may disagree that socialism still exists there but you can't disagree with the fact that Cuba is still a revolutionary nation.

And, the welfare state that Cuba has developed is quite different from that of the European/Western ones in that it is not the result of capitalist reforms and was instead derived from a completely alternate style (And of course as a result: different function).

Anyway, back on topic:

This is great news in my opinion. Raul knows that if he doesn't stand up to US imperialism/new forms of spreading US influence in the Americas that Cuba may soon fall victim to it. Cuba certainly should have dialogue with the US (yes, even though the US is an imperialist power) but in a sensible cautious way.

[F9]

Please don't post in this thread, no one cares about your shitty ultra-left and defeatist stance that countries developing socialism and fighting imperialism shouldn't be supported.

Please, dont make like you own this place or something.This is political forum and anyone can post and say his opinion.So stop trying to be the mods, that goes for you and taii..
Basically you are derailing this thread with this redundant posts.

Fuserg9:star:

[Kukulofori]

I like how that opening post doesn't mention cuts to the education and healthcare, or abolition of wage equality.

Any career politician can promise any vague-ass thing they want, but if we took that seriously we'd all be wanking off over Obama right now. We have to examine actions, not rhetoric.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Even as an anti-statist, I wish the best for Cuba's socialism. As I've said before, I will always condemn bad for bad and praise good for good, no matter the source. And no matter the flaws of Cuba, the not caving into imperialism or capitalism is something I can recognize as good.

[SubcomandanteJames]

I like how that opening post doesn't mention cuts to the education and healthcare, or abolition of wage equality.

Any career politician can promise any vague-ass thing they want, but if we took that seriously we'd all be wanking off over Obama right now. We have to examine actions, not rhetoric.


And I agree. Of course, the only "action" we have now is him "making promises". I will be excited for his promises of socialism, and in time I will either be pleased or disappointed. That's all we can do.

[x359594]

...We have to examine actions, not rhetoric.

While we all wish for socialism to develop in Cuba (I include Pogue too,) as you say, we must look past the rhetoric to actions, and I would add that we must look past our own particular ideological dispositions and examine the empirical evidence of actual conditions that presently obtain in Cuba.

Personally, I think the chances of socialist development in Cuba depend on the actions of the people, rank and file workers, campasinos, and students. The government can only obstruct or encourage the people in their struggle for socialism, it can't deliver socialism to them on a platter.

[Lolshevik]

Raul Castro can't save socialism in Cuba with his good feelings and intentions. Still, this statement is at least encouraging to those of us who appreciate the gains of the Cuban revolution, whatever their deficiencies may be, and who want to see the preservation & complete democratization of the planned economy, etc.

But at the end of the day, the only thing that can stop a capitalist restoration in Cuba is a revolution in a major industrial country.

[anticap]

Please don't post in this thread, no one cares about your shitty ultra-left and defeatist stance that countries developing socialism and fighting imperialism shouldn't be supported.

While my chest fills with pride at Raul's promise, and while I admire the resilience of the Cuban people in the face of intense pressure from the US, it's important to remember that words do have meanings. "Socialism" means democratic control over the means of production by the workers, or it means nothing at all. It's quite ridiculous to slur comrades as "ultra-leftists" when all they're doing is calling for the meaning of "socialism" to be upheld. In essence, "socialist" is being twisted into a slur, which is quite the clever trick!


Try to accept that statist socialists have a differant definition of socialism to you

Oh? It seems to me that the fundamental difference is that state-socialists advocate using the state, whereas anarchists don't. Both advocate democratic control over the means of production by the workers, however. Show me a state-socialist who doesn't desire that the state-controlled means of production be run democratically by the workers, and I'll show you an anti-socialist. It's not enough for the state to seize the means of production and run them in the interests of the workers. The workers are supposed to be running the show!

[Revy]

Cuba's entire system exists directly as a result of a socialist revolution. You may disagree that socialism still exists there but you can't disagree with the fact that Cuba is still a revolutionary nation.

And, the welfare state that Cuba has developed is quite different from that of the European/Western ones in that it is not the result of capitalist reforms and was instead derived from a completely alternate style (And of course as a result: different function).


I disagree that it ever existed as nothing has been shown to me to truly provide evidence of that. Cuba is not a revolutionary nation, as revolutionary rhetoric there by the leadership mostly consists of "Long live Fidel!" or "Homeland or death" (the Cuban national motto).

Where is the proletarian internationalism? The solidarity for the working class? No, the only struggle that is framed is a national struggle.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The truth is there is no "revolution", it is a long period of state-driven reform, that's all it is. Cuba is reformist, not revolutionary.

A workers state established after a revolution advancing towards socialism...what do you think a workers state, especially in a place like Cuba is supposed to do? :confused: Immediately establish socialism?


I like how that opening post doesn't mention cuts to the education and healthcare, or abolition of wage equality.

Any career politician can promise any vague-ass thing they want, but if we took that seriously we'd all be wanking off over Obama right now. We have to examine actions, not rhetoric.

Let's examine actions, then. In the past, during the Special Period, the same sort of things happened. Private businesses were allowed and ended up employing quite a large chunk of the labor force, services were cut... Then Cuba's economy recovered and began experiencing high growth. Funding was redirected back to those services. The state began to slowly diminish the role of the private sector again. Now the world is experiencing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and they're supposed to somehow continue with the same amount of funding to health care?


Where is the proletarian internationalism? The solidarity for the working class? No, the only struggle that is framed is a national struggle.

Yes, Cuba certainly is not internationalist. Who cares that they donate more medical aid than the entire World Health Organization combined?

[mosfeld]

While my chest fills with pride at Raul's promise, and while I admire the resilience of the Cuban people in the face of intense pressure from the US, it's important to remember that words do have meanings. "Socialism" means democratic control over the means of production by the workers, or it means nothing at all. It's quite ridiculous to slur comrades as "ultra-leftists" when all they're doing is calling for the meaning of "socialism" to be upheld. In essence, "socialist" is being twisted into a slur, which is quite the clever trick!

There have been certain rumors within the socialist movement, which you've most likely heard of at some point, that Raul was going to sell out the Cuban revolution and try and get Cuba to abandon the socialist road. What Raul is trying to do is debunking that rumor and reassuring everyone that Cuba will stay on the road towards socialism and not fall under US pressure to abandon its revolutionary gains, turn into a bourgeois democracy with multi-party elections etc.

[robbo203]

I dont describe Cuba as Socialist either.

Cuba is on the journey to Socialism. The left need to realise that the Revolution in Cuba is still on-going. Cuba needs our full support in achieving its goal, which is Socialism.

The reason Cuba isent Socialist is because it currently cant be Socialist. Fidel and Raul arent some power-hungry dictators. They truly want the best for Cuba.

Agreed. Cuba is not socialist nor can it be. If it is on the "road to socialism" this will inevitably involve the overthrow of the capitalist Castro government of Cuba in a genuine socialist revolution to establish a genuine socialist society - not state capitalism. I agree that Fidel and Raul probably arent some power-hungry dictators but that no more makes them genuine socialists than it does Obama. They must go along with all the other representatives of capitalist state power

[mosfeld]

Where is the proletarian internationalism? The solidarity for the working class? No, the only struggle that is framed is a national struggle. What a ridiculous, misinformed statement.

Cuba sent doctors to Algeria after their revolution, Cuba sent volunteers to help the PAIGC in their national liberation, Cuba sent troops to Angola to aid the MPLA (which was a stepping stone to ending apartheid in South Africa), Cuba sent weapons to Algeria to assist the revolution, Cuba sent volunteers to Congo to assist Kabila, Cuba assisted East Timor in 1999, Cuba sent troops to aid Algeria against Moroccan aggression in 1963. These and the Ethiopian intervention, which I fundamentally disagreed with, are all I can think of right now. They've done more internationalist work than I can count.

[Radical]

The logical path of this kind of argument would be to have to regard the "social democracies" of Europe as socialist as many do. That because Cuba provides things like universal healthcare and free college education it is "socialist".

The truth is there is no "revolution", it is a long period of state-driven reform, that's all it is. Cuba is reformist, not revolutionary.

Ofcourse its an on-going Revolution, its on the journey to Socialism which is a Revolutionary process.


Where is the proletarian internationalism? The solidarity for the working class? No, the only struggle that is framed is a national struggle.

It is Cubas National struggle that has kept Cuba united against the powers of America. Cuba's reasoning for their form of nationalism isent oppressive, its purpose is to keep unity so that Cuba can achieve its goal, which is Socialism.

[Forward Union]

This is the form of socialism where leadership is a family business?

All this aside, I respect the fact that under Castro, and the system Cuba has had over the last few decades, the country has enjoyed a high standard of living as far as third world nations are concerned.

I'd much rather live under the Cuban system than any other in Latin America. And if it were not for the poverty, I'd rather live under that political system than the one here in the UK.

It's still not socialism though.

[Radical]

How can you call Cuba a family buisness?

Both Fidel and Raul were elected in by the National assembly.

[robbo203]

How can you call Cuba a family buisness?

Both Fidel and Raul were elected in by the National assembly.

That reminds me of the statement by Henry Ford to the effect that you have your car in any colour you wanted so long as it was painted black. Anyone who thinks Cuba is anything other than an oppressive one party state capitalist regime are kidding themselves, frankly.

[KC]

I'm so disappointed that I read this thread.

[h9socialist]

I think it might do that some Comrades realize that just being "on the road to socialism" is a huge accomplishment. In the United States, just being "on the road" at mile marker 1 would be a tremendous improvement. Give Fidel and Raul their due!

[Pogue]

Thats a sound way to defend your position. All I did was ridicule the utterly ridiculous idea that anywhere can be 'more socialist than other places' and be socialist whilst also using capitalism.

[punisa]

How can something remain if it never was? :confused::confused::confused:
Please restrain yourself from making such comments. Cuba and its people remained determined while all other socialist countries surrendered to capitalism.
Cuba still stands as a bastion against western imperialism and thus deserves our respects.
Your remark does not make you more of a "real" socialist - although you may think so.

[Manzil]

Sidestepping the debate over whether Cuba is socialist, I think Raul Castro is, quite simply, aping the practices of our own political leaders - by denying their possibility over and over again, he is readying Cuba for 'free market' reforms.

What has characterised the major pillar of Raul's policy since the handover of power? Using the obvious hardships imposed by the recession as an excuse, he has been increasing private ownership of farmland and encouraging an agricultural market to boost productivity. Given Cuba's dependence on the countryside, this is incredibly dangerous. Whether he intends to or not, the creation of a new class of smallholders will eventually create an unstoppable impetus towards greater market reforms, regardless of the views of the government. Unless reforms are led, and emphasise democratic control by the people, they will inevitably be corrupted against the workers' interest.

[Pogue]

I'm sorry but I don't think 'You might offend the Cubans' is an argument as to why I should not criticise the Cuban system of government. This whole controversy arose from me saying its impossible for a country to be both socialist and capitalist at once, a logical fallacy, something Radical claimed. I think he is generally politically clueless though.

I don't care if Cuba stands as a bastion against western imperialism. What I care about is whether Cuba is run by the working class. Its not. That is the debate here.

[punisa]

Raul does not look that young either. Who would handle Cuba after him? It could lead to another Gorbachev.
Maybe Gorbachev himself :laugh:
No really, I believe must be able to learn from others mistakes.
Unfortunately Cuban socialism is still associated with a single name - Castro.

Raul seems like a very reasonable leader, I hope he understands that he must be on the lookout for his succeeder. Younger the better.
I really hope that Cuba does not experience the same misfortune Yugoslavia did after Tito died.

Naturally there is a option to make Castro immortal like Kim, but I doubt Cuban people would dig that :lol:

[Radical]

I'm sorry but I don't think 'You might offend the Cubans' is an argument as to why I should not criticise the Cuban system of government. This whole controversy arose from me saying its impossible for a country to be both socialist and capitalist at once, a logical fallacy, something Radical claimed. I think he is generally politically clueless though.

I don't care if Cuba stands as a bastion against western imperialism. What I care about is whether Cuba is run by the working class. Its not. That is the debate here.

I claimed they had aspects of Socialism dip shit. If you could actually read, you'd see me claiming Cuba's on the road to Socialism.

[Radical]

Oh yeah?

Socialist in the sense they are more Socialist than State Capitalist, which they are

[robbo203]

Socialist in the sense they are more Socialist than State Capitalist, which they are

And in precisely what sense is that, eh? I mean what exactly do you have in mind by socialism anyway? If what you call "socialism" has anything to do with the existence of a state , with commodity production and wage labour etc then I for one would completely oppose your "socialism". Its not so much the label on the bottle that matters; its what the bottle contains although in terms of the original understanding of the label "socialism" as a synonym for communism there is nothing to justify your claim that Cuba is more "socialist" than state capitalist". It is just plain state capitalist with elements of a mixed economy

[KC]

I think it might do that some Comrades realize that just being "on the road to socialism" is a huge accomplishment. In the United States, just being "on the road" at mile marker 1 would be a tremendous improvement. Give Fidel and Raul their due!

Because reformism can clearly accomplish that.:rolleyes:

BTW, what is the definition of "socialism" being applied here and how does Cuba fit it?

[Ovi]

Why argue every time? There's a simple solution to this: since anarchists don't believe there is any socialist country in this world, they'll keep the struggle alive. Those who believe that Cuba is socialist move to Cuba!

[robbo203]

Why argue every time? There's a simple solution to this: since anarchists don't believe there is any socialist country in this world, they'll keep the struggle alive. Those who believe that Cuba is socialist move to Cuba!
Its not just anarchists who believe this but many others too including libertarian Marxists

[n0thing]

"I wasn't elected to restore Capitalism in Cuba"
He certainly wasn't elected to restore capitalism. He wasn't elected to maintain socialism either. He wasn't elected.

[Communist]

Cuba has never had socialist allies anywhere near itself; it has been subjected to economic terrorism from the US for half a century; the fall of the USSR removed it's main source of outside aid. On and on. And Cuba is very small.

Considering all of that, it's remarkable that imperialist pressure hasn't killed all Cuban commitment to it's historic Revolution.

Cuba has managed to maintain it's dedication to the Revolution against overwhelming odds. Even if one disagrees with my position and firmly believes that socialism does not exist there, remember that Cuba still needs your unflinching support. As many have pointed out, the road they're on could go either way - further down the path of revolutionary progress or a u-turn back into capitalist hopelessness.

Discounting even the Cuban people themselves (although we can not of course), the Revolution remains a source of great hope and inspiration to the oppressed of the world (and particularly in Latin America), and if the Left doesn't stand in solidarity...who will?

[mosfeld]

"I wasn't elected to restore Capitalism in Cuba"
He certainly wasn't elected to restore capitalism. He wasn't elected to maintain socialism either. He wasn't elected.

"An indirect presidential election was held in Cuba on 24 February 2008, in which the National Assembly of People's Power elected a new President of Cuba and the members of the Council of State. The election followed the January 2008 parliamentary election. In the election, Raúl Castro, who had been Acting President since July 2006, was elected as President, succeeding his brother, Fidel Castro."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_presidential_election,_2008


[...]

I sincerely hope you'll be stripped off your modding powers.

[Pogue]

I stand in solidarity with the working class, not with nation states, which naturally includes a number of diverging class interests, in the case of Cuba the statist beurecracy against the working class. As a socialist it would be absurd for me to stand in solidarity with the managers of industry when they are opposed to the interests of the working class. So I don't think I should stand in solidarity with a nation-state, and I don't think its the role of all those who genuinely see themselves as socialist to do this either. I think such ideas belong with the absurd nationalism of Stalinism which substitutes the state and nation in place of the working class.

[KC]

Nobody wants to answer my question? It's kind of the krux of this entire issue...

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

He may have ultra left ideas, but at least is better than yours right ones


I just pointed out your way of feel superior as what you are really are ideologically


get of your high horses

:rolleyes:


Because reformism can clearly accomplish that.:rolleyes:

BTW, what is the definition of "socialism" being applied here and how does Cuba fit it?

Socialism is obviously being used interchangeably with workers state. Technically incorrect, yes. An excuse for the huge amounts of trolling we are seeing, no.

[KC]

Socialism is obviously being used interchangeably with workers state.If that is the case then I would like to hear those that think Cuba is socialist explain.


you don't do anything in the real world.Proof plz.

[Communist]

I would like to hear those that think Cuba is socialist explain.

The Revolution destroyed the bourgeois state. Abridging Marx on the Paris commune, one of the basic characteristics of a change of class structure is the destruction of the old state and its replacement by a new state based on the demand of the masses.

[robbo203]

"An indirect presidential election was held in Cuba on 24 February 2008, in which the National Assembly of People's Power elected a new President of Cuba and the members of the Council of State. The election followed the January 2008 parliamentary election. In the election, Raúl Castro, who had been Acting President since July 2006, was elected as President, succeeding his brother, Fidel Castro."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_presidential_election,_2008

.

But the people didnt "elect" Castro, did they? My understanding is that the people elect representatives to the National Assembly of People's Power (so called). They only have one candidate to chose from i.e. no choice at all. The candidate cannot express views opposed to the regime. Moreover just to make sure Castro and his state capitalist cronies keep their grip on power , something called National Candidature Commission screens all candidates taking into account criteria such as "candidates' merit, patriotism, ethical values and revolutionary history". In short ensuring that they toe the party line. It is these cronies, duly elected to the National Assembly, who then elected Castro not the people

To call this a democracy is a complete farce. Its a one-party dictatorship (the only recognised party is the pseudo"communist" party) which employs but an aspect of democracy - voting - to pass itself off as the democratically elected voice of the people. But its like I said about Henry Ford who reputedly remarked that the customers can have their Ford cars in any colour they wanted so long as it was painted black. Ditto the Castro regime

[MilitantWorker]

Before I add my comments, I just wanted to say. Are we all 5 years old? Can we not have a respectful discussion? If you don't have anything to add that helps the discussion...DON'T FUCKING ADD IT...stop the flaming, the name-calling, and the general immaturity! please!


I am confident that Socialism will remain in Cuba for at least many many years after the passing of Castro.

"Cuban socialism" is state capitalism. It will last as long as the ruling class of Cuba sees it as useful to their interests.


From what I can tell socialism is pretty popular in Cuba and the foundations for a cuban Gorb are not there

From what you can tell? Can you tell that the institutionalization of the revolutionary movement, the merging of the Party and State has led to the reorganization of a ruling class? Can you tell that anyone who speaks out against the CPC is an enemy of the state? and the Cuban ruling class? Can you tell that the once the already reconstituted Cuban bourgeoisie sees "Cuban socialism" as an obstacle to their interests that "Cuban socialism" will be done, just like in the USSR? I'd say the foundations for Cuba to "revert back to capitalism" are more then evident considering it has been capitalist since the beginning.


Cuba is on the journey to Socialism. The left need to realise that the Revolution in Cuba is still on-going. Cuba needs our full support in achieving its goal, which is Socialism.

How can Cuba be on the road to socialism? That is not how revolutionary working class movements work. The Cuban working class, along with all the other workers of the world need your full support in their goal, which is overthrowing capital and the bourgeoisie INTERNATIONALLY. Spend your efforts on helping and supporting the workers in your area, not fetishizing Cuba.


Are you saying theres no aspects of Socialism in Cuba? Theirs more Socialism in Cuba than anything else.

I couldn't disagree more. Workers around the world fight in struggles against capital everyday. There is more socialism with the international working class than anywhere else.

Beyond that, how do you define socialism? It would be helpful to the discussion.


[After listing Cuba's foreign adventures] They've done more internationalist work than I can count.

What is your definition of internationalism? When the Cuban ruling class gives material aid to nationalist movements? Give me a break.

Internationalism is when workers of one struggle call for spreading their struggle to the workers all over the world. Where was the material Cuban support to the workers and mass strikes that took place in the latter half of the 20th century? Nowhere to be found..

[F9]

Im splitting the bullshit out of this thread, end of story.. You got it too far!4 pages of a thread, half posts have nothing to do with the thread...

SoB if you have something to say, say it, dont use just emoticons, you can pm me with all your objections against me, and your ideas.Feel free, the same goes for anyone. What you tried to sarcasm anw, was just stupid, and what you tried to imply.
As for you mosfeld who you wish to i lost my mod power:lol: you see even if i do, big deal.. i instead of you, im not after the "power" and dont feel the need to have it.Im a mod just because i know i can help the forum with that possition.. So yeah, keep hoping like you hope its something bad..:lol:

Btw last warning, from now one administrative action will be taken on offtopic/derailment of this thread.This goes for me too..

Fuserg9:star:

[Communist]

>>Internationalism is when workers of one struggle call for spreading their struggle to the workers all over the world. Where was the material Cuban support to the workers and mass strikes that took place in the latter half of the 20th century? Nowhere to be found<<

Well, Cuba sent their troops to help Angola during their fight against UNITA and provided aid to the Sandinistas.
Those were pretty serious struggles. And there were more.

[mosfeld]

Here's the entire speech for you to read, comrades.



They did not elect me president to restore capitalism in Cuba or to surrender the Revolution. I was elected to defend, maintain and continue perfecting socialism, not to destroy it.

• Speech given by General of the Army Raúl Castro Ruz, president of the Councils of State and Ministers, during the 3rd ordinary session of the 7th Legislature of the National Assembly of People’s Power, at the International Conference Center, on August 1, 2009, "Year of the 50th anniversary of the triumph of the Revolution."

Compañeras and compañeros:

We have had days of intense work. On July 26, in Holguín, I explained that my remarks would be very brief, considering that questions of greater complexity were be debated thoroughly in different meetings throughout the week.

We dedicated the entire day on the 29th to holding the 7th Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party, with its Political Bureau and Secretariat, with the participation, as guests, of the members of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers; in other words, the main leaders of the Party, state, and government and the central cadres of the mass organizations, representing the rest of society. Further on, I will refer to some of the questions addressed in the plenum, although a brief report was published in our press yesterday.

Likewise, the next day there was an ordinary meeting of the Council of Ministers, which approved the second adjustment to expenditure for this year and a set of agreements to deal with the tense financial situation our economy is experiencing.

Also during the week, there have been meetings of the National Assembly commissions, in which deputies received detailed information and discussed developments in every area of activity in the country. Today, in this plenary session, we have analyzed and decided on other important issues.

The laws for the National Museum System and the Comptroller General of the Republic were passed, preceded by an extensive process of information, analysis and the reconciliation of different opinions on every level.

The first, the National Museum System Law, is an indispensable instrument for preserving our historical and cultural heritage for the present and future generations.

For its part, the Comptroller General of the Republic Law created a state agency that replaces the current Ministry of Auditing and Control, with the goal of aiding the National Assembly and the Council of State in implementing the constitutional mandate of exercising oversight of all state and government bodies.

This institution will play an essential role in increasing order, economic discipline, internal control and a resolute response to any manifestation of corruption, as well as causes and conditions that could propitiate negligent or criminal conduct on the part of any leader or official.

It will contribute to purging of administrative and criminal responsibility both the direct perpetrators of crimes and the secondary ones, which latter are, as the law itself defines, cadres, leaders or administrative officials who, because of a lack of exigency, negligent conduct or failure to observe established controls, help bring about violations of discipline or do not immediately confront and report them.

The Assembly has just elected as Comptroller General Deputy Gladys Bejerano Portela, who will receive my fullest support in carrying out her duties, and above all, I will require her to do so to the letter.

Likewise, we will be paying attention — both the Party and the government — so that leaders in other offices act with the same conscientiousness.

These are questions that are always essential, and even more so at this time.

Read the rest of the speech here (http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2009/agosto/lun3/32raul-ing.html)

[RHIZOMES]

Im splitting the bullshit out of this thread, end of story.. You got it too far!4 pages of a thread, half posts have nothing to do with the thread...

SoB if you have something to say, say it, dont use just emoticons, you can pm me with all your objections against me, and your ideas.Feel free, the same goes for anyone. What you tried to sarcasm anw, was just stupid, and what you tried to imply.
As for you mosfeld who you wish to i lost my mod power:lol: you see even if i do, big deal.. i instead of you, im not after the "power" and dont feel the need to have it.Im a mod just because i know i can help the forum with that possition.. So yeah, keep hoping like you hope its something bad..:lol:

Btw last warning, from now one administrative action will be taken on offtopic/derailment of this thread.This goes for me too..

Fuserg9:star:

My post was not "derailment". It was a serious criticism of what Pogue was saying about Cuba, I wanted the debate to be raised so he could actually say WHY it wasn't socialist (Which I'm sure there's heaps of resources arguing that). If you are going to trash what I said you might as well trash everything Pogue said as well because you are stifling legitimate criticism and discussion of his ideas. Anarchist clique alert.

[Coggeh]

The situation of Cuba is not black and white .

Their are many who say Cuba is a shining light of socialism and praise it non stop . Which is an incorrect analysis of the the situation there.

Others who attack Cuba 100% for many reasons(some of them sound) but no doubt are being ultra leftists in this case .

I think we should defend every last gain the revolution in Cuba has made , it is not like the gains of western europe or in the US because without revolution in Cuba there would be no welfare system , no free health care etc they were(still are in many respects) a third world country and a victim of imperialism . There was absolutly no chance of these gains within capitalism . These gains come directly from the revolution of 1959.

However we must criticize the regime in Cuba , the pragmatism and the lack of democracy among many other things .

[scarletghoul]

Maybe split it into a new thread instead of trashing it?

[x359594]

...Even if one disagrees with my position and firmly believes that socialism does not exist there, remember that Cuba still needs your unflinching support. As many have pointed out, the road they're on could go either way - further down the path of revolutionary progress or a u-turn back into capitalist hopelessness.

Discounting even the Cuban people themselves (although we can not of course), the Revolution remains a source of great hope and inspiration to the oppressed of the world (and particularly in Latin America), and if the Left doesn't stand in solidarity...who will?

Well said comrade. Relative to other countries in the Caribbean, the quality of life in Cuba is remarkably high. While our support of the Cuban Revolution should be critical, in the name of ideological purity does anyone seriously want to see Cuba reduced to the status of Haiti? In my view there's a revolutionary ember burning Cuba, and I'd rather see it fanned into a flame of socialism then extinguished altogether because Cuba is not yet authentically socialist.

[F9]

Maybe split it into a new thread instead of trashing it?

Split what scarlet?The post from AB?If that, i wouldnt have problem..But all the other posts, trash is too much for them..
Anw, i tried to clean the thread, and another subject came up again, on the location of the posts.Please dont continue it here.For ccers there is a cc thread, for others, open a thread in members forum.

Fuserg9:star:

[MilitantWorker]

Well, Cuba sent their troops to help Angola during their fight against UNITA and provided aid to the Sandinistas.
Those were pretty serious struggles. And there were more.

I agree the working class had a large role to play in the example you gave as well as others. But I would still say that these movements were reformist at best and called for "national fronts" and inter-class collaboration in order to "tweak the system" to the "advantage of the poor." I don't think any of these tactics have been effective and have actually been proven more or less counterrevolutionary by history. And whats sad is the lefties still justify statist policies in countries all over Latin America because they deny this reality.

During the Cuban revolution, the Cuban proletariat had a chance to implement socialism but the movement failed to actualize the true purpose and role of the revolutionary vanguard. The philosophy of the July 26th movement and the guerrillas was incorrect in thinking that an armed band of vigilantes could really be the revolutionary vanguard.

The vanguard is the most militant, committed, and advanced section of the working class. The purpose of the revolutionary vanguard is to always put forth revolutionary, anti-capitalist positions until communism is achieved and maybe even then, too. The revolutionary vanguard should not be merged with the state-apparatus because it is their role to see that the state is disintegrated.

However, as with the Cuban guerrillas, after they won the war they assumed power and took control of the bourgeois state instead of taking measures to ensure its eventual dismantlement via organic worker organization. The revolutionary movement, worker, student, and all other elements became fused with the state. The revolution was institutionalized, and when nationalist sentiments became tied to socialism, any genuine attempt to build communism could be forgotten.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Cuba's entire system exists directly as a result of a socialist revolution.

What socialist revolution was that? Something isn't socialist just because it calls itself such. Taking power away from one group of people and giving it to another group is not socialist.

I like how totalitarian regimes are forgiven and sympathized with by the left simply for "having some socialist qualities".

There's obviously worse countries out there than Cuba (in fact I'd probably love to live in Cuba) but that does not excuse the fact that they are in no way shape or form socialist.

[Communist]

>>The revolutionary vanguard should not be merged with the state-apparatus because it is their role to see that the state is disintegrated<<

Once the proletariat seizes the bourgeois state and dismantles it, replacing it with a proletariat state apparatus (ie, Paris commune), the Dictatorship of the Proletariat begins. There is still a state during the phase of socialism (I know this is basic, not trying to insult your intelligence, just getting my thoughts in gear).
The bourgeois state is gone and the proletarian state is to eventually wither away, as Lenin expounded in "StateAnd Revolution". Your suggestion that once the bourgeois state is taken, the vanguard should step aside, doesn't make sense to me in this context.

>>with the Cuban guerrillas, after they won the war they assumed power and took control of the bourgeois state instead of taking measures to ensure its eventual dismantlement via organic worker organization. The revolutionary movement, worker, student, and all other elements became fused with the state. The revolution was institutionalized, and when nationalist sentiments became tied to socialism, any genuine attempt to build communism could be forgotten<<

The guerrillas led the Revolution and the bourgeois state was ended. And most things afterwards, by necessity, had to be tied to the workers state so the bourgeois wouldn't retake control. The goal of communism is still in play, as far as I see it. The Mexican Revolution is a good example of comparison; it was progressive insofar as being able to expropriate the larger capitalist land owners and then to distribute land, but it didn't abolish the bourgeois state while doing so. There were great *reforms* with that revolution, but it didn't ever become a socialist revolution and Cuba's did.
I believe that while Cuba has had some serious problems, and arguably could be referred to as a degenerated workers state rather than a socialist one, it needs our unequivocal support.

[robbo203]

>>The revolutionary vanguard should not be merged with the state-apparatus because it is their role to see that the state is disintegrated<<

Once the proletariat seizes the bourgeois state and dismantles it, replacing it with a proletariat state apparatus (ie, Paris commune), the Dictatorship of the Proletariat begins. There is still a state during the phase of socialism (I know this is basic, not trying to insult your intelligence, just getting my thoughts in gear).
The bourgeois state is gone and the proletarian state is to eventually wither away, as Lenin expounded in "StateAnd Revolution". Your suggestion that once the bourgeois state is taken, the vanguard should step aside, doesn't make sense to me in this context. .

Lenin's theory is, frankly, incoherent nonsense. Since the bourgeoisie and proletarians cannot exist without each other and since the former exists only by virtue of exploiting the latter that means the alledged "proletarian state" amounts to nothing more than the exploited section of the population ruling over the exploiting section. Which is absurd. The key to understabnding what is actually going on here is the reference to the "vanguard". It is the vanguard that replaces the bourgeoisie as another exploiting class in the pretense that it represents the interests of the proletarians. In fact what it does is to exploit the proletarians (all the more effectively while claiming to speak for them) just as the old bourgeoisie had done.

This is what happened in Cuba and all the other state capitalist dictatorships

[Communist]

Lenin's theory is, frankly, incoherent nonsense. Since the bourgeoisie and proletarians cannot exist without each other and since the former exists only by virtue of exploiting the latter that means the alledged "proletarian state" amounts to nothing more than the exploited section of the population ruling over the exploiting section. Which is absurd.

The theory was also held by Marx, as in "The Class Struggles In France".

The proletarian state is an elementary Marxist concept, Lenin just expanded on it. The workers have to overthrow the existing dictatorship of the capitalist class, organize themselves as the dominant (ruling) class and assert their majority interests over the remaining anti-proletarian sections of society.

[KurtFF8]

^Exactly.

It does not automatically follow that after the success of a proletarian revolution that the former ruling class just vanishes and is absorbed into the new social makeup. We can see a perfect example of this in...well Cuba lets say. The former ruling elite had an "out" and was able to seek asylum in places like the United States. Thus the new Cuban ruling structure (the Communist Party) was unable to fully "eliminate" the former ruling class. (By eliminate here I don't mean some sort of murderous rampage or anything of that sort: I mean set the conditions to pave the way towards a classless society) But when the former ruling elite has such an easy "out" like in the case of Cuba, we get unintended consequences/results of the new revolutionary makeup of the "new society."

This is what many saw happen with the USSR and why many saw that "socialism in one country" was doomed to fail because of the continued existence of advanced capital right next to the revolutionary state. I'm not too sure how much I'm willing to accept this analysis fully but it certainly does need to be taken seriously by any revolutionary.

[robbo203]

The theory was also held by Marx, as in "The Class Struggles In France".

The proletarian state is an elementary Marxist concept, Lenin just expanded on it. The workers have to overthrow the existing dictatorship of the capitalist class, organize themselves as the dominant (ruling) class and assert their majority interests over the remaining anti-proletarian sections of society.


Yes the idea of a proletarian state is to be found in Marx. I quite agree. So what? I still consider the whole notion to be fundamentally flawed and incoherent.

Marx justified the need for a political transition period in which the proletarian state would exist on the grounds that it was needed to raise the level of the productive forces to enable socialism (communism) to be introduced. He did not argue that this transitional period amounted to a transitional form of society, it would still be capitalism but with the workers in control of the state and implementing the kind of reforms listed in the "proletarian and communists" section of the Communist Manifesto

Even if Marx's reasoning was correct - and in this I think he erred massively - the whole point of a political transition period has long ago disappeared; only dogmatic leftists with a penchant for quoting scripture can have failed to notice this. Indeed, unlike them Marx and Engels increasingly became aware of this as the various prefaces to the Communist Manifesto attest in which they point out that much of what they had written had become obsolete and no special stress should be laid on the particular reforms they had earlier adocated.

One final thing. Marx's concept of the "proletarian state" was very different to Lenin's. For Marx it was the working class as a class that needed to assume power; for Lenin it was the vanguard party. In my view the vanguard would have no other course of action available than to evolve into a new ruling class to replace the old bourgeoisie and to take over the role of the old bourgeoisie in exploiting the proletariat. You cannot run capitalism without exploitation

This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union and elsewhere including Cuba

[Das war einmal]

Its clear that once again the US and their lackeys apply a double standard. First, Biden spoke out for new NATO memberships in the remaining post-Soviet countries even if it was against the former policies made in the 90's saying something what comes down to 'Russia, you have no right to prohibit Georgia, the Ukrain, etc from joining NATO' but at the same time they DO demand that Cuba changes its political system.

Thankfully we still have brave leaders who are not easily intimidated. You know, a leader like Castro gives me, for one, inspiration and courage

[Communist]

>>Marx justified the need for a political transition period in which the proletarian state would exist on the grounds that it was needed to raise the level of the productive forces to enable socialism (communism) to be introduced.<<

Socialism is the political transition period, communism is the goal.

>>He did not argue that this transitional period amounted to a transitional form of society, it would still be capitalism but with the workers in control of the state<<

State capitalism?

>>Marx's concept of the "proletarian state" was very different to Lenin's. For Marx it was the working class as a class that needed to assume power; for Lenin it was the vanguard party<<

Remember also that when Marx spoke of the socialist period he was speaking only to it's fundamental class character. Lenin noted this: "...The transition from capitalism to communism is certain to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms yet the essence remains the dictatorship of the proletariat".

>>Even if Marx's reasoning was correct - and in this I think he erred massively - the whole point of a political transition period has long ago disappeared; only dogmatic leftists with a penchant for quoting scripture can have failed to notice this. Indeed, unlike them Marx and Engels increasingly became aware of this as the various prefaces to the Communist Manifesto attest in which they point out that much of what they had written had become obsolete and no special stress should be laid on the particular reforms they had earlier advocated.<<

The transitional socialist period wasn't one of them though. Nowhere do I recall Marx or Engels refuting this. Engels in about 1890 or so said the Paris Commune was the dictatorship of the proletariat.
If you believe Marx, Engels and Lenin to have been wrong, so be it, but is it dogmatic for the majority of communists to disagree with you?

[robbo203]

>>Marx justified the need for a political transition period in which the proletarian state would exist on the grounds that it was needed to raise the level of the productive forces to enable socialism (communism) to be introduced.<<

Socialism is the political transition period, communism is the goal.

Nowhere is such a distinction to be found in Marx or indeed even for early Russian Social Democrats. Stalin himself in the early 1900s wrote of a socialist society as one in which there is no wage labour or commodity production. Bogdanoff talked of socialism being the "highest form of society" we can conceive of in a text that was later published by the Bolsheviks.

It is was Lenin who invented the idea that socialism was a "transition" to communism to account for the fact that there was no socialism in Russia. Prior to Lenin socialism and communism were words that were effectively and almost universally used as synonyms among pre world war one revolutionaries


>>
>>He did not argue that this transitional period amounted to a transitional form of society, it would still be capitalism but with the workers in control of the state<<

State capitalism? .

Indeed. Engels wrote much on this in Socialism Utopian and Scientific and did not mince his words in calling the state takeover of the means of production as state capitalism. Lenin called "socialism" a state capitalist monopoly run in the interests of the whole community (as if)


>>
>>Marx's concept of the "proletarian state" was very different to Lenin's. For Marx it was the working class as a class that needed to assume power; for Lenin it was the vanguard party<<

Remember also that when Marx spoke of the socialist period he was speaking only to it's fundamental class character. Lenin noted this: "...The transition from capitalism to communism is certain to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms yet the essence remains the dictatorship of the proletariat"..

Yes he might have said that but for Lenin the dictatorship of the proletariat consisted in the rule of the vanguard party not the proletariat as such . He was quite explicit about this asserting that the class as a whole could not rule and what was needed was a vanguard to rule on its behalf . He seemed quite unware of the implication of this argument - that it would lead inevitably to the emergence of a new exploiting ruling class


>>
>>Even if Marx's reasoning was correct - and in this I think he erred massively - the whole point of a political transition period has long ago disappeared; only dogmatic leftists with a penchant for quoting scripture can have failed to notice this. Indeed, unlike them Marx and Engels increasingly became aware of this as the various prefaces to the Communist Manifesto attest in which they point out that much of what they had written had become obsolete and no special stress should be laid on the particular reforms they had earlier advocated.<<

The transitional socialist period wasn't one of them though. Nowhere do I recall Marx or Engels refuting this. Engels in about 1890 or so said the Paris Commune was the dictatorship of the proletariat.
If you believe Marx, Engels and Lenin to have been wrong, so be it, but is it dogmatic for the majority of communists to disagree with you?

I did not suggest that Marx or Engels completely abdandoned the idea of the political transition period; I was saying that they recognised that much of what written to support such idea had become obsolete and also that the time frame for such a transition had significantly narrowed. I recall Engels in particular had written about the possibility of socialist (communist) distribution being introduced after a relatively short period because of the advances in the productive forces that had occured even in his day permitting a decent standard of living for all to come within reach

This at least demonstrated an openmindedness, a willingness to question the basic assumptions upon which formulations such as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" were based. Had Marx and Engels been around a few decades later I am certain they would have no longer seen the necessity for a transitional period. By contrast many leftists consider the whole idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a holy tenet of marxian theology which we should not even presume to question. This despite the hugely problematic question of how it is that an exploited class can sensibly be said to "rule" over a tiny class while allowing to continue exploiting it . Instead of asking themselves why this exploited class should not just use its political control of the state and rid itself of the class that exploits it and itself as the exploited class - in short end class society and inaugurate socialism - these dogmatists on the left prefer to brush the whole issue under the carpet rather than confront it face on

[Communist]

Nowhere is such a distinction to be found in Marx or indeed even for early Russian Social Democrats...
It is was Lenin who invented the idea that socialism was a "transition" to communism

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." - Marx

You are correct that Marx never made the distinction in terminology that Lenin later did.
I think Lenin's assertion of the difference between the two phases has been so widely accepted (even by some non-Leninists) is that the classless, stateless society that is communism has yet to be achieved.
So whether or not it's called socialist, the dictatorship of the proletariat has been in existence, but has failed in most cases due to imperialist pressures and greed.
The debate over Cuba hinges on how far Cuba will go and in which direction, and it's absolutely crucial for Cuba to continue on the path they've been on since the Revolution. Call it socialist or degenerated workers state, or even state capitalist if you must, it is definitely revolutionary.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

This at least demonstrated an openmindedness, a willingness to question the basic assumptions upon which formulations such as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" were based. Had Marx and Engels been around a few decades later I am certain they would have no longer seen the necessity for a transitional period. By contrast many leftists consider the whole idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a holy tenet of marxian theology which we should not even presume to question. This despite the hugely problematic question of how it is that an exploited class can sensibly be said to "rule" over a tiny class while allowing to continue exploiting it . Instead of asking themselves why this exploited class should not just use its political control of the state and rid itself of the class that exploits it and itself as the exploited class - in short end class society and inaugurate socialism - these dogmatists on the left prefer to brush the whole issue under the carpet rather than confront it face on

The only way that Marx and Engels would have took up the position that worldwide communism could be established overnight is if they were senile, but since you say that they may have if they had been around a few more decades, perhaps that's what you meant.


"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." - Marx

You are correct that Marx never made the distinction in terminology that Lenin later did.
I think Lenin's assertion of the difference between the two phases has been so widely accepted (even by some non-Leninists) is that the classless, stateless society that is communism has yet to be achieved.
So whether or not it's called socialist, the dictatorship of the proletariat has been in existence, but has failed in most cases due to imperialist pressures and greed.
The debate over Cuba hinges on how far Cuba will go and in which direction, and it's absolutely crucial for Cuba to continue on the path they've been on since the Revolution. Call it socialist or degenerated workers state, or even state capitalist if you must, it is definitely revolutionary.

Not even Lenin called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat socialism.

I'd say that Cuba is one of the only places worthy of the description "deformed workers state."

[REDSOX]

Raul has just comfirmed that Cuba will not restore capitalism in any form but he has also confirmed that Cuba is not going down the so called vietmanese and china roads to socialism. Viva Cuba Viva socialism

[Communist]

Not even Lenin called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat socialism.

Did Lenin not say something like "socialism is a state socialist monopoly"?
Meaning, the "proletariat state", the dictatorship phase where the state is eventually taken down and communism is established. Looking it up, it doesn't appear on any pro-socialist web page that I see, but I recall it. I see someone says it's from a pre-October speech.
I've always understood that to be Lenin's position and basic words.

[anticap]

There have been certain rumors within the socialist movement, which you've most likely heard of at some point, that Raul was going to sell out the Cuban revolution and try and get Cuba to abandon the socialist road. What Raul is trying to do is debunking that rumor and reassuring everyone that Cuba will stay on the road towards socialism and not fall under US pressure to abandon its revolutionary gains, turn into a bourgeois democracy with multi-party elections etc.

I understand that. But when comrades raised concerns about Cuba and essentially pointed out the obvious, you slurred them as though they were attacking socialism, when in fact they were defending it.

Anyway it's no biggie. I shouldn't even be bumping this.