Cuba abandons equal wages?

[Technocrat]

This is old news, I know, but how do you interpret this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449776.stm

Is this an attempt by the bureaucracy to reinstate capitalism to enrich itself?

[khad]

This is old news, I know, but how do you interpret this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449776.stm

Is this an attempt by the bureaucracy to reinstate capitalism to enrich itself?
Raul Castro's building luxury resort hotels and million dollar villas for rich Europeans. This should come as no surprise. The man's even used rhetoric about how workers are victimized by lazy, no-good bums who leech from the welfare system.

I called Raul for a Dengist from the very start, though everyone here called me crazy and didn't believe a word of it.

History will vindicate me. Just you wait.

[n0thing]

Cuba already provided substantially better healthcare for rich tourists. They did this under Fidel.

Cuban "socialism" is a joke.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

The Cuban state should abandon itself.

Too bad capitalists don't give up their power.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I don't really see the problem. Unequal pay doesn't equal capitalism.

[Kamerat]

Cuba already provided substantially better healthcare for rich tourists. They did this under Fidel.

Cuban "socialism" is a joke.
Thats a lie. Rich tourists have to pay for healthcare. Poor tourists get free healthcare. Its substantially better to get free healthcare then, have to pay for it. Aparth from that, the healthcare is the same.

[Charles Xavier]

Socialism doesn't mean mechanically leveling wages. If it was there would be no incentive for people to take the in demand jobs rather they would just take the easy jobs.

[KurtFF8]

Socialism doesn't mean mechanically leveling wages. If it was there would be no incentive for people to take the in demand jobs rather they would just take the easy jobs.

Exactly, since when did we buy into this anti-communist straw man argument of "well everyone gets paid the same under socialism for different work"?

[Sam_b]

Apparently, socialism doesn't mean democratic worker's control of the means of production either, eh?

This is not surprising from a capitalist state masquarading as socialist.

[KurtFF8]

I don't want to derail this thread into a conversation that's been done time and time again at RevLeft, but I'm still just not seeing how Cuba is "capitalist"

[pastradamus]

On the issue of supposed equal pay this is what occurs under Socialist economics; Nationalization, Redistribution of wealth, typically by progressive taxation of high earners.,Minimum Wage Legislation, employment protection and Trade union recognition rights for the benefit of workers & National planning for industrial development.

Thats what the Ideal is of a Democratically elected Socialist Party, obviously this does not happen under a Revolution involving the gun as wealth is seized and divided a lot faster.

[Coggeh]

I don't want to derail this thread into a conversation that's been done time and time again at RevLeft, but I'm still just not seeing how Cuba is "capitalist"
It isn't.

[Enragé]

Socialism doesn't mean mechanically leveling wages. If it was there would be no incentive for people to take the in demand jobs rather they would just take the easy jobs.


the jobs nobody/too few ppl want to do we share, its just a matter of computing nrs of horus and scheduling - 'specially cuz the most shitty jobs usually require almost no skill/training.

As for equal wages? I thought the point was to abolish wage slavery! That everybody is enslaved equally don't mean they're not enslaved.

[Technocrat]

The point of the thread is:

What is the true motivation behind eliminating the system of equal wages?

If it's to provide incentive for people to do difficult jobs, isn't that the exact same argument used by capitalists?

Also, if progressive taxation and wealth redistribution are all that it takes to be socialist, doesn't that make FDR a huge socialist, and most other democrats? FDR created both the minimum wage *and* a maximum wage (99% tax on income above $350,000, adjusted for inflation).

Does *communism* (not socialism) have the same view in regards to wealth redistribution/taxation?

[Manifesto]

Raul Castro's building luxury resort hotels and million dollar villas for rich Europeans. This should come as no surprise. The man's even used rhetoric about how workers are victimized by lazy, no-good bums who leech from the welfare system.

I called Raul for a Dengist from the very start, though everyone here called me crazy and didn't believe a word of it.

History will vindicate me. Just you wait.
That damn Raul. I remember a thread saying how he will keep Cuba "Socialist".

[Abc]

I don't really see the problem. Unequal pay doesn't equal capitalism.
wtf????????? isnt the whole purpose of communism supposed to be EQUALITY and once you have some people getting paid more you have rich and poor and as such you have classes so yes Unequal pay DOES equal capitalism.

[Sam_b]

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=217&issue=111 - A good review by Chris Harman on the state of Cuba, foreign investment and bureaucratisation (from the SWP's International Socialism Journal).

[khad]

All right TC, you can come out of the woodwork now, you Raulite negrepper. I have nothing to hide about my position.

http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/more-revisionism-raul-castro-redefines-socialism-as-liberal-capitalism/


Cuba’s new president Raúl Castro, in an address to the National Assembly a few weeks ago, announced that “Socialism means social justice and equality, but equality of rights, of opportunities, not of income.” Echoing capitalists, he went on to say that “egalitarianism is in itself a form of exploitation; exploitation of the good workers by those who are less productive and lazy.” If he's saying this shit now (straight out of the definition of "market state"), imagine what he'll be spouting when Fidel finally kicks the bucket.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

All right TC, you can come out of the woodwork now, you Raulite negrepper. I have nothing to hide about my position.

http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/more-revisionism-raul-castro-redefines-socialism-as-liberal-capitalism/

If he's saying this shit now (straight out of the definition of "market state"), imagine what he'll be spouting when Fidel finally kicks the bucket.

Again, I don't see the problem. Where in Marx do you find the idea that socialism would entail equality of outcome?


Socialism - The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth.

ZOMG CAPITALIST!!11

[khad]

Again, I don't see the problem. Where in Marx do you find the idea that socialism would entail equality of outcome?
It's not that. It's the rhetoric. Marx would never say a phrase like "Egalitarianism is a form of exploitation"

I expect the real shit to go down after Fidel is dead. The Cuban press is already tacitly censoring him.

[Das war einmal]

This is old news, I know, but how do you interpret this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449776.stm

Is this an attempt by the bureaucracy to reinstate capitalism to enrich itself?


This is a major improvement on the development of socialism in Cuba. Equal loan politics is rather anti-social and leads to economic downfall. In fact, all communist should reject equal loan politics (if its unnecessary) cause its unfair towards people who take on more responsibility. It should be pointed out that this has nothing to do with 'capitalism', where the production from the working class is being stolen by the capitalists. I have heard that this previous equal-loan politics in Cuba was installed because of the economic hardships after the fall of the Soviet-Union, however, Cuba's economy is doing relatively better these days as they have found new trading partners.

[Revy]

Here's the SPGB's take on Cuba's wage system (article published in 2008):



Earlier this year, when in June the Cuban government, now under Fidel Castro’s brother Raul, announced a new system of wage payments, the Guardian (13 June) wrote that Cuba had “abandoned its egalitarian wages system”. This brought a response (20 June) from Helen Yaffe, author of Ermesto Che Guevara: The Economics of Revolution:
“In reality, there has never been an ‘egalitarian wage system’ (i.e. one where every worker was paid the same): Che Guevara himself devised a new salary scale, introduced in 1964, with 24 different basic wage levels, plus a 15% bonus for over-completion”.


In other words, Cuba never had practised wage equality, not even when Guevara was Minister of Industry. Not that socialists favour equal wages. As long as the wages system – the sale of people’s working skills for money – exists there will be a different price for the different types of skill. We want the abolition of the whole wage system, an end to the buying and selling of people’s working abilities, and the application of the principle “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”.
Yaffe made a claim about this too:


“Like Marx himself, Che recognised the socialist principle: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his work’ – which your article associates exclusively with Raul. Cuba has never claimed to be communist and therefore never embraced the principle ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’, which expresses the attainment of communist society”.


While it is true that Marx thought that it would not have been possible to implement “to each according to needs” immediately had a “co-operative society based on the common ownership of the means of production” been established in his day, he never drew a distinction between a socialist society (where this principle couldn’t yet be applied) and a communist society (where it would be). He actually spoke of two “phases” of the same society, which he called “communist society”. Engels and the later socialist movement adopted the term “socialist society”, but both terms referred to the same type of society; they are interchangeable.


In any event, the temporary measure until distribution according to needs became possible which Marx mentioned in the private notes he wrote in 1875 known as The Critique of the Gotha Programme was a system of “labour-time vouchers”. This would probably have proved unworkable but it was not the same as “to each according to their work”. It would have been “to each according to their working time”, with people being given a consumption voucher based on the time spent at work not for the particular kind of work they did. There wouldn’t be 24 different levels, just one. An engineer and a cleaner who put in the same number of hours would get the get the same number of consumption vouchers. In this sense it would have been “egalitarian”.


But what Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Guevara called “socialism” did not even correspond to Marx’s “first phase of communist society” since it was based on the state, not the common, ownership and control of the means of production, the majority remaining propertyless and having to sell their working skills to live. As the state was controlled by the leaders of a minority vanguard party, these leaders became in effect the employers of the excluded majority. As employers they had to devise some system of pricing the different kinds and qualities of labour-power they purchased. Hence schemes such as Guevara’s and the one just introduced in Cuba. This was state capitalism, not socialism/communism.

[A New Era]

As far as I know, there have always (or at least for a very long time) been a difference in wages. For instance, IIRC, doctors are among the most well-paid. Old people living on pensions, on the other hand, do not have much earning power.

Second, I don't see this as much of a problem as the relations between Cubans, and the relations with Cubans and the local government. People don't just show up on marches out of free will (although many want to). People are strongly tied to their workplace and if they don't they won't get bonuses and so forth. People who do participate in various regime-friendly acts or work hard, or lead a moral life (no excessive alcohol intake which of course in Cuba would be a lot, openly and very directly criticising the government, no criminal activities etc.) might get those bonuses.

And ministers and local politicians as well as top government officials and their relatives getting to live in hotels and swim in pools I find more worrisome than this. People earn a lot different as it is.

Old people who live on pensions might do some extra jobs here and there to get by.

Others might work two jobs, or on occasion they take tourist-related jobs which makes a lot of money.

Then you have those who own resturants who make some extra money.

And those who do black market sales and leasing. They earn a lot of money (in Cuban standards).


What does this mean? In Cuba you have quite fair housing standards. This means, however, that rich Cubans and poor Cubans live side by side. It's not like in the U.S. for instance, where the rich people live here, and the poor people live in a ghetto there. This also means that ordinary Cubans get to see the inequality and ultimately the unfairness of life. I won't blame this on the government however, this is more of a systemic problem than anything.


So there were "wage" (actually earning) differences before, and this won't change it. Actually, isn't this only good news? Incentives is almost like the driving force of humanity. It plays a very important role if you want to get things done. I felt that Fidel started making a lot of strange and worker-unfriendly policies in the later parts of the 1960's and it went downhill from there (although living standards actually increased a lot).

I personally think Raúl has made many practical and logical decisions.

[Charles Xavier]

wtf????????? isnt the whole purpose of communism supposed to be EQUALITY and once you have some people getting paid more you have rich and poor and as such you have classes so yes Unequal pay DOES equal capitalism.


Equal pay is what bourgeoisie liberals claim socialism to mean. Socialism doesn't mean Doctors get paid the same was beach attendants or that in demand Industrial workers for a steel mill who work long hours get paid the same as a waiter.

[Revy]

Equal pay is what bourgeoisie liberals claim socialism to mean. Socialism doesn't mean Doctors get paid the same was beach attendants or that in demand Industrial workers for a steel mill who work long hours get paid the same as a waiter.

Oh great, so those like yourself endorse elitism rather than equality? How about responding that perhaps all workers contribute and that contribution shouldn't be devalued.

You're only accommodating such a bourgeois argument instead of combating it.

One person even called equal pay "anti-social". :lol:

C'mon now, we are talking about socialism, if the idea of EQUALITY somehow bugs you, pick a new ideology.

[A New Era]

I don't have anything in mind that a person who works in a store will earn as much as a doctor. I think that is a fine idea. A very good idea.

But don't you think people who live in difficult jobs or dangerous jobs should be paid more? If you work night shifts, surely you should be paid more? If you work in a job where you see a lot of pain and death (like as in an ambulance driver etc.), shouldn't you be compensated for that?

And if you do better work than your colleagues, shouldn't you be rewarded for that?

[mosfeld]

Equal pay is what bourgeoisie liberals claim socialism to mean. Socialism doesn't mean Doctors get paid the same was beach attendants or that in demand Industrial workers for a steel mill who work long hours get paid the same as a waiter. Spot-on. Under socialism people should be payed according to their contribution to society, i.e to the full extent of their labour, added up with free health care, free education, free housing and so on.

[Raúl Duke]

I thought equal pay (in the strict definition) didn't exist in Cuba (or in virtually all previous regimes that claim to be socialist?)

From each according to ability, to each according to need (i.e. economic equality) I thought was something more in the realm of communism... (not socialism; socialism being more the phase where the working class takes power by gaining control of the means of production, smashing the bourgeois state, and basically after that begin the, perhaps steady yet moving, transition to a more communist economy.)


Under socialism people should be payed according to their contribution to society, i.e to the full extent of their labour, added up with free health care, free education, low rent cost and so on.

This is how I think/thought socialist economy, in general, should work (except without rent; housing should be provided as a social good).

[Misanthrope]

I see the wage system as inherently exploitative. Getting angry over petty shit like this makes you all look like democrats. Communism, socialism, anarchism, whatever-- has nothing to do with all the workers being payed the same wage. Every worker should be compensated for their contribution to society. In an equal wage system, the less efficient workers would benefit more than the more efficient workers, where is the motivation to work?

[Charles Xavier]

Oh great, so those like yourself endorse elitism rather than equality? How about responding that perhaps all workers contribute and that contribution shouldn't be devalued.

You're only accommodating such a bourgeois argument instead of combating it.

One person even called equal pay "anti-social". :lol:

C'mon now, we are talking about socialism, if the idea of EQUALITY somehow bugs you, pick a new ideology.


We are talking about equality, but not mechanically leveling wages. We are talking about a progressive increase in both the social wage and the paid wage until it becomes no longer needed. It would be economically disastrous to level wages it would slow growth and labour discipline. Causing a crisis in the socialist economy which is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. There would be no incentive for people to work in a coal mine when they could be a street sweeper instead. We are not talking about advanced communism, but socialism instead.

See socialism goes into crisis when production slows, where as capitalism goes into crisis when over production happens.

Only the conservatives who attack us tell us that socialism means everyone gets paid the same. Don't let them confuse you. Wages will depend on skills and demand not on ownership. And even bonuses can be issued for exceeding your goals.

[Killfacer]

I see the wage system as inherently exploitative. Getting angry over petty shit like this makes you all look like democrats. Communism, socialism, anarchism, whatever-- has nothing to do with all the workers being payed the same wage. Every worker should be compensated for their contribution to society. In an equal wage system, the less efficient workers would benefit more than the more efficient workers, where is the motivation to work?

So people born with more talent get more?

[Misanthrope]

So people born with more talent get more?

What constitutes talent? Don't you think every individual has unique talents? Don't you think that one would choose a job based on their ability to perform said job?

It has nothing to do with 'talent' it has to do with contribution to society.

[Killfacer]

What constitutes talent? Don't you think every individual has unique talents? Don't you think that one would choose a job based on their ability to perform said job?

It has nothing to do with 'talent' it has to do with contribution to society.

I think some people are born less able in general than other people. People aren't all born lucky with some handy talent in a particular field.

Are you saying that all jobs would be payed the same and different wages would be payed depending on effort?

[Misanthrope]

I think some people are born less able in general than other people. People aren't all born lucky with some handy talent in a particular field.

Are you saying that all jobs would be payed the same and different wages would be payed depending on effort?

What evidence are you basing that claim off of?

No, I am not saying all jobs would be payed the same. I'm sure a doctor would be payed more than a lawyer, for example. If worker A makes 5 shirts in 1 hour then he would be compensated for those five shirts or close to it. If worker B makes 6 shirts in 2 hours then he would be compensated for those six shirts.

[Killfacer]

What evidence are you basing that claim off of?

No, I am not saying all jobs would be payed the same. I'm sure a doctor would be payed more than a lawyer, for example. If worker A makes 5 shirts in 1 hour then he would be compensated for those five shirts or close to it. If worker B makes 6 shirts in 2 hours then he would be compensated for those six shirts.

Well are you of the belief that everyone is a potential Mozart or Aristotle? Personally, i admit i'm not exactly knowledgable on the matter, it seems obvious that some people are born more talented than others. For example i don't think, no matter how much training, i could be a nuclear physicist or be as good at football as Kaka. My brain just isn't up to it. People are more and less clever than others.

[Misanthrope]

Well are you of the belief that everyone is a potential Mozart or Aristotle? Personally, i admit i'm not exactly knowledgable on the matter, it seems obvious that some people are born more talented than others. For example i don't think, no matter how much training, i could be a nuclear physicist or be as good at football as Kaka. My brain just isn't up to it. People are more and less clever than others.

I don't see Mozart or Aristotle as greater individuals as you or I.

You may not be an adequate nuclear physicist but you may be a great teacher. Do you see what I am saying?

"So people born with more talent get more?" Not only is that argument based on nothing but it is extremely emotional.

[Abc]

Equal pay is what bourgeoisie liberals claim socialism to mean. Socialism doesn't mean Doctors get paid the same was beach attendants or that in demand Industrial workers for a steel mill who work long hours get paid the same as a waiter. If your communism is one were politicians live in opulence while a waiter lives in a slum then i dont want your communism

[Killfacer]

I don't see Mozart or Aristotle as greater individuals as you or I.

You may not be an adequate nuclear physicist but you may be a great teacher. Do you see what I am saying?

"So people born with more talent get more?" Not only is that argument based on nothing but it is extremely emotional.

So you think that teachers should be payed as much as nuclear physicists? I assume you don't in which case you are saying that pay depends on your birth and upbringing.

I consider Aristotle a greater man than myself. Im a lazy bloke from england with average intelligence, average looks and an average lifestyle. He's a genius philosipher from ancient greece who changed the way people saw the world.

[Misanthrope]

So you think that teachers should be payed as much as nuclear physicists? I assume you don't in which case you are saying that pay depends on your birth and upbringing.

I consider Aristotle a greater man than myself. Im a lazy bloke from england with average intelligence, average looks and an average lifestyle. He's a genius philosipher from ancient greece who changed the way people saw the world.

Where did I say pay depends on your birth and upbringing? Apparently you think that everyone should be payed the same because nature is somehow exploitative or unfair, we can't change nature. I say that pay relies on your contribution to society, which I cannot tell you what a nuclear physicists importance to society is, or a teachers importance to society is in the future. I don't have a time machine.


odd that I am agreeing with Lenninsts opposed to anarchists.

[Killfacer]

Where did I say pay depends on your birth and upbringing? Apparently you think that everyone should be payed the same because nature is somehow exploitative or unfair, we can't change nature. I say that pay relies on your contribution to society, which I cannot tell you what a nuclear physicists importance to society is, or a teachers importance to society is in the future. I don't have a time machine.


odd that I am agreeing with Lenninsts opposed to anarchists.

So you believe that instead of background, ethnicity and class which define pay in today's society, it should be decided on which particular fields you are born superior at?

Don't consider my veiws those of other anarchists because it's unfair to lump them with me :lol: In fact that reminds me i was gonna get rid of my tendancy thing. Ta.

[Revy]

We are talking about equality, but not mechanically leveling wages. We are talking about a progressive increase in both the social wage and the paid wage until it becomes no longer needed. It would be economically disastrous to level wages it would slow growth and labour discipline. Causing a crisis in the socialist economy which is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. There would be no incentive for people to work in a coal mine when they could be a street sweeper instead. We are not talking about advanced communism, but socialism instead.

See socialism goes into crisis when production slows, where as capitalism goes into crisis when over production happens.

Only the conservatives who attack us tell us that socialism means everyone gets paid the same. Don't let them confuse you. Wages will depend on skills and demand not on ownership. And even bonuses can be issued for exceeding your goals.

Um, I am for the complete abolition of the coal industry as it is extremely environmentally destructive.

Anyway, a "street sweeper" is not a job that exists in most areas, I believe.

What you are proposing is every sense of the term elitism. You are putting subjective definitions of what constitutes a job which would be of better value, harder, or whatever.

Who says that doctors are inherently more valuable than those doing menial jobs? We pay doctors so much, and they act so irresponsibly, that even celebrities and relatives of celebrities are not immune to their incompetence! The death of Michael Jackson and the mother of Kanye West comes to mind. Perhaps an equalization would restore some much needed ethics so that those who come to the medical profession aren't driven by greed?

Socialism drives down a hammer against greed in society, and replaces a wealth-driven society with one based on sustainable allocation of resources. I will oppose any attempt to keep a profit-driven society in place.

[Abc]

you think that everyone should be payed the same because nature is somehow exploitative or unfair, we can't change nature.
thats not nature thats capitalism learn the fucking difference nature does not give a fuck if you are steel worker or world leader or begger, its capitalism that pampers one persons ass while stomping anothers into the mud

[Misanthrope]

thats not nature thats capitalism learn the fucking difference nature does not give a fuck if you are steel worker or world leader or begger, its capitalism that pampers one persons ass while stomping anothers into the mud

wut

what does the same wage for every worker have to do with capitalism or communism? Do you not have a problem with the wage system? I would say that an "equal wage system" is more exploitative than a variety of wages.


So you believe that instead of background, ethnicity and class which define pay in today's society, it should be decided on which particular fields you are born superior at?

Don't consider my veiws those of other anarchists because it's unfair to lump them with me :lol: In fact that reminds me i was gonna get rid of my tendancy thing. Ta.

No. If I believed that I would say that. I believe that your reward should be decided by your contribution to society.

[Abc]

because once you start paying some people more money and some people less you have rich and poor, you have classes and the rich will always exercise control over the poor to protect there wealth and power, so you have hierarchy

[pastradamus]

"Equal Wages" in its exact form is not what happens in Cuba and Rightfully so. Rather the wage difference between the richest and the poorest earner is only slight. Therefore, people who put in the work, Do more hours and work harder are the ones who come out on top of the food chain. Hard Work is rewarded and I think thats both a good thing for the worker and productivity.

For example, over here in Ireland it costs €60 to visit a GP Doctor (we'll call him Dr.X). You might be in Dr.X's practice for 10 minutes and you owe him €60 for telling you what you already know (but you still need a prescription off him). Where as when im working at my job it takes me almost 6 hours work to achive the €60 it took Dr.X 10 minutes to achieve - THATS CAPITALIST SOCIETY.

Whilst I believe Dr.X should work and whilst I believe DR.X deserves an hourly pay better than me (Because he greatly benefits society and Spent years in education), I do not think there should be a gap so large between us that He can earn in a day what it takes me a week to earn.

I basically believe in rewarding hard work and long hours.

[Misanthrope]

because once you start paying some people more money and some people less you have rich and poor, you have classes and the rich will always exercise control over the poor to protect there wealth and power, so you have hierarchy

The capitalists collect wealth through fiscal exploitation, from expropriating the surplus value that the worker's labor created. That is wrong. Working and getting rewarded fairly for that work is not wrong.

Are you a barracks communist or something?

[Abc]

you missed my point more wealth = more power, and power corrupts and people in wealth and power will do anything to A: make more wealth including exploiting those poorer then them B: do anything to insure that the structure remains the same too ensure they are at the top. you also have a social hierarchy which goes against anarchism

[pastradamus]

you missed my point more wealth = more power, and power corrupts and people in wealth and power will do anything to A: make more wealth including exploiting those poorer then them B: do anything to insure that the structure remains the same too ensure they are at the top. you also have a social hierarchy which goes against anarchism

By paying someone a little more an hour you don't create a "social hierarchy" that's completely absurd in the Cuban context and someone who is paid in this context is not going Power Hungry for more and more power, Because how are they supposed to get it?

[Abc]

i honestly dont know how to respond, but let me put it this way a doctor and a janitor which one deserves to be paid more? most would say the doctor but with out the janitor there would be no-one to clean and sanatize the hospitals making the doctor useless everybody who contributes to society deserves to be rewarded equaly because every person plays there own part

[spice756]

This is old news, I know, but how do you interpret this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449776.stm

Is this an attempt by the bureaucracy to reinstate capitalism to enrich itself?

It is called reform bills do to the embargo Cuba has allowed private hotels and tourists centers not to say small private restaurants and bars.

The Cuban healthcare is dual system.If you have money you can go to hospital in Havana and get better care.You want a private room with TV you have to pay for it.

[RedSonRising]

I think many are confusing an increase in salary with "class" immediately. Equal access to educational, health, and professional institutions, as well as a minimum material guarantee such as housing and food, allows every Cuban citizen to experience the same relative quality in life outside of their labor, making them (at least progressing towards being) classless. Once labor comes into play, a socialist citizen has a choice what their goals are, if their happiness lies in their expression of labor (a specialized career), and if their abilities allow them a specifically more physical or more academic job depending on their attributes. The surplus of such jobs being rewarded to those who contribute more in their role is not exploiting anyone, as the capitalist has been replaced by Cuban society as a whole and their labor serves a purpose beyond that of sustaining a private owner. Having more money to afford a few more small commodities is not the same as having enough economic power to pursue a quality of life beyond that of your neighbor through a privileged form of educational betterment or otherwise. The children of such socially mobile people in capitalist society is where the foundation for superior social capital is created, and what perpetuates the class system. This is not found in Cuba's contribution-based wage system shift.

[spice756]

Equal pay is what bourgeoisie liberals claim socialism to mean. Socialism doesn't mean Doctors get paid the same was beach attendants or that in demand Industrial workers for a steel mill who work long hours get paid the same as a waiter.


It how it is paid .Most doctors and skilled people other than Canada and US in any country get dirt pay .Most doctors and skilled people in Canada and US get too much pay.A surgeon getting $700,000 year is way way way way too much and board of directors and administration getting $1,000,000 a year:scared: no wonder why Canada money is drying up for healthcare.

Most people who work at walmart get more pay than doctors and skilled person out site the US and Canada.You want equal pay than get paid $1 a day and eat once a day so other countries get money and food the US and Canada has.


In eand it not so much doctors and skilled people who own the wealth but rich thugs and CEO's who can buy the country and own it.Check the pop stars and movies stars and big CEO's they are the money pit.

Has for Cuba it would help if commuist party members give up some of their pay .

Has for having $1,000,000 in Cuba that would be useless has they have to inport every thing.Has South America is starting to give Cuba nicer Tv's and cars now .Do not count on LCD,plasma TV's or HD TV any time soon.

Cuba is still too agriculture and lack industizationan.

[Killfacer]

No. If I believed that I would say that. I believe that your reward should be decided by your contribution to society.

If your ability to contribute is decided at birth by what professions are deemed important by society then i don't see how your point stands. We will still have rich a poor even if the gap is smaller, there will still be inequality, still be pay gaps and still be elitism.

[Killfacer]

I basically believe in rewarding hard work and long hours.

Yes i agree with this, long hours and hard work are important. In fact i believe it is these things, not the job someone has which should define how much they are payed.

[Radical]

Cuba are on a Revolutionary journey to Socialism. Cuba is an on-going Revolution. I support all their measures to further ensure the final goal of Socialism.

While people on Revleft just talk of progressive change, Cuba makes progressive change.

It's easy to sit on the internet and criticize something you've never experienced.

[Killfacer]

Cuba are on a Revolutionary journey to Socialism. Cuba is an on-going Revolution. I support all their measures to further ensure the final goal of Socialism.

While people on Revleft just talk of progressive change, Cuba makes progressive change.

It's easy to sit on the internet and criticize something you've never experienced.

It's also easy to sit and support something you've never experienced. :rolleyes:

[Technocrat]

A lot of the arguments for unequal pay could be summarized as "if someone works harder, shouldn't they be paid more?"

This makes sense only in the context of a scarcity-based system.

In a post-scarcity system, every person has a share of production which is already more than they can physically consume. So it would appear that in a post-scarcity system, any differentiation in incomes would be pointless. Thoughts?

Maybe I need to start a new thread for this.

[KC]

Good contribution!:rolleyes:

[Misanthrope]

you missed my point more wealth = more power, and power corrupts and people in wealth and power will do anything to A: make more wealth including exploiting those poorer then them B: do anything to insure that the structure remains the same too ensure they are at the top. you also have a social hierarchy which goes against anarchism

Yeah, because someone with an extra television or automobile owns the world, right? Do you suppose every single job should be payed the same exact wage? A paper boy should be payed the exact same as a soldier?

How exactly would those with a little more wealth exploit others when the differentiation of said wealth among workers is linked directly to every worker's personal labor and not expropriating wealth from others?

Social hierarchy goes against anarchism? That is wrong. Illegitimate social hierarchy goes against anarchism. How is collecting the value of your labor illegitimate?

[pastradamus]

A lot of the arguments for unequal pay could be summarized as "if someone works harder, shouldn't they be paid more?"

This makes sense only in the context of a scarcity-based system.

In a post-scarcity system, every person has a share of production which is already more than they can physically consume. So it would appear that in a post-scarcity system, any differentiation in incomes would be pointless. Thoughts?

Maybe I need to start a new thread for this.

Good point. Though I must say, How many states such as Cuba or how many states in General have the resources to maintain a post-scarcity based system? Cuba, must be realistic in the position its in, thats the reality of the situation they're in Financially. Though Im somewhat of a fan of the technocratic Scarcity/Post scarcity theory "the paradox is resolved by considering that some resources will always remain scarce, such as human attention and time".

[pastradamus]

i honestly dont know how to respond, but let me put it this way a doctor and a janitor which one deserves to be paid more? most would say the doctor but with out the janitor there would be no-one to clean and sanatize the hospitals making the doctor useless everybody who contributes to society deserves to be rewarded equaly because every person plays there own part

The Janitor is a good worker, a good contributor to society and overall deserves more pay than the Doctor if he decides to put in the effort and work longer hours than the doctor. But on an Hour-by-hour basis I cant agree that they deserve equal pays. The Doctor maintains the responsibility for Human life, its one of the most responsible Jobs in the worlds societies today. The Janitor, albeit a necessary and important person deserves his cut too but I dont believe he bears the same responsibility. Though I see where your coming from.

[Technocrat]

Good point. Though I must say, How many states such as Cuba or how many states in General have the resources to maintain a post-scarcity based system? Cuba, must be realistic in the position its in, thats the reality of the situation they're in Financially. Though Im somewhat of a fan of the technocratic Scarcity/Post scarcity theory "the paradox is resolved by considering that some resources will always remain scarce, such as human attention and time".

It is true that a post-scarcity society is limited by geography - you would have to have a sufficient area to have access to all the necessary resources. That's why Technocracy, Inc. projected that the minimum area for a Technate would include Canada and the United States, and the optimum area would also include Central America and the northern part of South America.

I don't think attention and time being scarce necessarily defeats the theory of a post-scarcity society, as defined by Technocracy (and others). At least, I don't see how it would. For example, time is limited (there are 24 hours in a day), but if you can produce more than can be consumed (or as much as could be consumed) within that time, where is the scarcity?

[pastradamus]

It is true that a post-scarcity society is limited by geography - you would have to have a sufficient area to have access to all the necessary resources. That's why Technocracy, Inc. projected that the minimum area for a Technate would include Canada and the United States, and the optimum area would also include Central America and the northern part of South America.

I don't think attention and time being scarce necessarily defeats the theory of a post-scarcity society, as defined by Technocracy (and others). At least, I don't see how it would. For example, time is limited (there are 24 hours in a day), but if you can produce more than can be consumed (or as much as could be consumed) within that time, where is the scarcity?

Point well made, but I dont see where any form of Leftist Technocracy comes into play here? Also I would like to say that to form a union of Mexico, Canada and the US seems most impossible in almost any day and age, let alone trying to technocracize Cuba (as you have pointed out).

[Jethro Tull]

I don't want to derail this thread into a conversation that's been done time and time again at RevLeft, but I'm still just not seeing how Cuba is "capitalist"

How is Cuba not capitalist?

[Technocrat]

Point well made, but I dont see where any form of Leftist Technocracy comes into play here? Also I would like to say that to form a union of Mexico, Canada and the US seems most impossible in almost any day and age, let alone trying to technocracize Cuba (as you have pointed out).

The relevance to Technocracy is that in a Technate, all would receive a share of production which is more than they can consume. If everyone receives the same pay, this raises the question of worker motivation. In Cuba, they produce more Doctors per capita than the United States does, which is of significance here.

I think the reason why people would do harder jobs (even if given equal wages) is simple. If you look at rich people today, they have everything they could want, yet many of them are still unhappy. It has been *scientifically proven* that the brain's reward system (the part that makes us feel good) is more active when a person is giving to others or helping others, than when an individual is gaining something for themselves.

The reason I wanted to know the motivation behind abolishing equal wages in Cuba is to know whether or not this is merely an attempt by the bureaucracy/those in power to enrich itself, or is it being done because it is really necessary from a motivation standpoint?

Also, I don't think a Technocratic union between the U.S., Canada, and Central America is any more unlikely than a socialist or communist union between them. They already have NAFTA, because those countries recognized that it was in their economic interest to do so (at least from a Price System/Capitalist perspective). This indicates that such unions are not impossible.

This might be of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

[Charles Xavier]

Want to know what happens when you mechanically level wages? Well enter the Soviet Union 1960s to 1980s. You unfortunately cannot jumps ahead with communism before society is ready.

[Revy]

You unfortunately cannot jumps ahead with communism before society is ready.

Sounds like reformism to me.

[KurtFF8]

How is understanding that communism cannot be achieved without a transitional phase reformism in any capacity?

Reformisism is the tactic of trying to bring about socialism/modifying capitalism within capitalism. That word gets thrown around a lot without its actual meaning taken into account

[Revy]

The idea that we need to live a lifetime (or more) under a bureaucratic state to achieve socialism is nothing short of reformism. Under this line of logic, the workers aren't "ready" which was said above.

Cuba exists within a global capitalist system. I have many times stated my complete openness to hard evidence that the Cuban economy is organized in a socialist manner. None have provided that.

[BobKKKindle$]

Doubtless this has been stated already, but Cuba has never had equal wages. Prior to the special period, the top fifth of the population had incomes 4.8 times those of the bottom fifth in 1973 (as against ten times in 1958) whilst the top 10 percent seven times the bottom 10 percent. These ratios were lower than in most Western capitalist countries, although very similar to those for Taiwan in that period. In addition to enjoying higher incomes, the elite have also been able to enjoy other benefits, such as the 600 that were imported at considerable cost in 1969 at a time when most Cubans had difficulties getting hold of many basic necessities and given for free to leading officials and managers in order to cement their loyalty, and more recently the expansion of the tourist economy as well as the relaxation of ties with the United States has led to the emergence of a further source of inequality in Cuban society as workers in the tourism industry are able to receive dollars, and thus enjoy access to goods and services that are beyond the reach of workers who are still employed in other sections of the economy, with the same being true of Cubans who receive money from relatives in Florida and other parts of the US, something they are now legally permitted to do. Inequality has become more severe during the special period as reflected in the Gini Coefficient, which rose from 0.22 in 1986 to 0.407 in 1999, with the ratio between the richest fifth of the population and the poorest fifth rising from 3.8 in 1989 to 13.5 in 1999.

These inequalities are higher than what would be permitted in a socialist society but as apologists for Cuba have been eager to point out, it is not the existence of income inequalities as such that makes Cuba capitalist, as socialism does not mean the arbitrary equalization of wages. Rather, the capitalist nature of the Cuban state is due to the fact that these inequalities are the result of the means of production being under the control of a bureaucracy, and workers being deprived of meaningful power. Cuba is state-capitalist for this basic reason.

[black magick hustla]

I do not think cuba is a socialist country but labor theory of value disperses with "equal wages". More labor power demands more exchange value. A doctor spends a good amount of their lifetime investing labor power in their studies, that is why atleast under marxist analysis it makes little sense to pay him as much as a grocery store clerk.

[BobKKKindle$]

I do not think cuba is a socialist country but labor theory of value disperses with "equal wages". More labor power demands more exchange value. A doctor spends a good amount of their lifetime investing labor power in their studies, that is why atleast under marxist analysis it makes little sense to pay him as much as a grocery store clerk.

To be honest this seems to confuse normative and positive statements. The labour theory of value explains why it is that doctors and other skilled workers receive higher wages than workers who don't possess skills and qualifications under capitalism - more labour has gone into "producing" the first category of workers. But the labour theory of value isn't suppossed to serve as a basis for what constitutes an ethical distribution of income, i.e. it's not a theory of justice. In fact, insofar as Marxism is an ethical project, it's central moral aim is to create a society in which the distribution of goods is governed by need, not exchange value.

[black magick hustla]

To be honest this seems to confuse normative and positive statements. The labour theory of value explains why it is that doctors and other skilled workers receive higher wages than workers who don't possess skills and qualifications under capitalism - more labour has gone into "producing" the first category of workers. But the labour theory of value isn't suppossed to serve as a basis for what constitutes an ethical distribution of income, i.e. it's not a theory of justice. In fact, insofar as Marxism is an ethical project, it's central moral aim is to create a society in which the distribution of goods is governed by need, not exchange value.

:shrugs: the labor theory of value only makes sense in the context of capitalism - but the existence ofa wage is going to imply the existence of capitalist relationships, which do not dissappear overnight. the idea of "need" will only come into being after all class relationships are abolished.

[black magick hustla]

besides, workers are exploited because they do not get the full value of their LTV and hence why it seems morally right for revolution. obviously LTV is just an aspect of it . workers are sent to wars, they are the first to confront calamities, etc, but the thing is that marx does make an ethical statement about LTV (the need of revolution)-

[BobKKKindle$]

which do not dissappear overnight. the idea of "need" will only come into being after all class relationships are abolished. I would certainly argue that wage-labour should be abolished through the process of revolution because wage-labour is the central feature that distinguishes capitalism from other mode of production, but payment for services rendered should not - these are two distinct things. An immediate post-revolutionary society where people are still influenced by the ideology of capitalism and the forces of production are not developed enough to provide communist living standards would have need of a payment whereby people are given access to a portion of society's output in return for their willingness to work, but this system of distribution would not be the same as wage-labour because it would effectively involve the working class paying itself, in its role as the ruling class, instead of entering into a relationship of dependency with individual members of the bourgeoisie, as under capitalism. It is because this system is not the same as wage-labour that the distribution of income would not be governed by exchange value and so the level of inequality between different workers (such as skilled and unskilled workers) would not be as great under capitalism even when these workers are producing very unequal amounts of value. The level of inequality would be determined solely by what's necessary to stimulate productivity until the conditions that make unequal payments necessary has disappeared.

I don't know if you disagree with any of that, but it seemed from your last post that you were saying that you think payment in a post-revolutionary society should precisely reflect the output of individual workers, measured in terms of exchange value, which would lead to skilled workers who produce high-value goods recieving much more income than unskilled workers.


besides, workers are exploited because they do not get the full value of their LTV and hence why it seems morally right for revolution.I'm not sure about this. I think it's clear that despite having (or claiming to have) a scientific analysis of how capitalism operates and the nature of human history Marx was also full of emotional outrage at the injustices of capitalism, and every socialist I've ever met has had that political orientation because of similar emotional outrage, and a sense of how capitalism violates their own interests, not because they were convinced of the merits of Marxist economics on an abstract intellectual level. Nonetheless, it's probably because of the positivist context in which Marx lived that he does present his analysis as essentially objective, to the extent that someone could believe in the inevitability of the overthrow of capitalism without having an emotional response to the effects of the capitalist system simply because they are convinced by Marx's argument. In fact, he explicitly contends in Das Kapital that a worker not being paid the full value of their labour does not violate any ethical law on the grounds that:

“To the purchaser of a commodity [i..e the capitalist, in the case of labour-power] belongs its use, and the seller of labour-power, by giving his labour, does no more in reality than part with the use-value he has sold”

In this respect Marx is differentiating himself from Aristotle whose theory of distributive justice is based on the principle that individual should receive the full value of their contributions. I don't think that Marxist ethics (whatever that might mean - whether Marxism has an ethics and what they are is a broader and more complex question) relies on the LTV in any meaningful sense. This is further affirmed by the fact that in Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx explicitly argues that workers still won't receive the full value of their labour because certain deductions will have to be made to provide for people who can't work, to raise the productive forces, safeguard against disasters, make repairs, and so on.

[robbo203]

I don't really see the problem. Unequal pay doesn't equal capitalism.


The wages system itself equals capitalism so unequal pay certainly implies capitalism. Of course you cannot run capitalism except on an unequal basis as Lenin was forced to concede in 1918 when he abandoned the old Bolshevik policy of uravnilovka or income levelling

[spice756]

Under capitalism there is no rationing.It is base on supply and demad that = who pays the most.

In Cuba there is no who pays the most to get it.

The rich people get it and poor do not or die ( what ever it is they want like food or house).There is no rich people in Cuba but Cuba is 80% socialism and 20% capitalism it is not true socialism .

The fact that Cuba allows private ownership of some bars , restaurants ,hotels and tourists centers not to say some farms that are private now = capitalism .

You want a better heathcare and private room and TV you pay for it.The Cuba heathcare has turn into businesses where people around the world go to Cuba for cheaper cost.

Drugs are not free in Cuba :(you have to pay for it and well it is way way way lower than the US if you poor and sick in Cuba how are you to pay for it?

[KurtFF8]

Under capitalism there is no rationing.It is base on supply and demad that = who pays the most.

False, there is rationing under Capitalism. It's just based on the ability to pay. That doesn't make it less of a rationing system than any possible alternative.


The idea that we need to live a lifetime (or more) under a bureaucratic state to achieve socialism is nothing short of reformism. Under this line of logic, the workers aren't "ready" which was said above.

Cuba exists within a global capitalist system. I have many times stated my complete openness to hard evidence that the Cuban economy is organized in a socialist manner. None have provided that.

Again, you obviously don't believe in the transitional phase (or at least don't believe that certain "Stalinist" states are sufficient in dealing with this transition). It doesn't follow, however, that this is reformism. How exactly would a bureaucratic socialist state be "reforming" an existing system of capital? It may be a poor replacement to the system of capital in your opinion, but that doesn't make it a reform of that system. Granted you may try to categorize it as "State-Capitalism" but even then, it is a replacement of the previously existing system that has characteristics that make it quite distinct from the "normally" exisitng property relationship that was in place prior to the installation of "State-Capitalism."

This of course can possibly lead us to a long argument about State-Capitalism that I'm not sure I'm interested in getting into in this thread right now.

[Cael]

Raul Castro's building luxury resort hotels and million dollar villas for rich Europeans. This should come as no surprise. The man's even used rhetoric about how workers are victimized by lazy, no-good bums who leech from the welfare system.

I called Raul for a Dengist from the very start, though everyone here called me crazy and didn't believe a word of it.

History will vindicate me. Just you wait.

I would also be very wary of Raul Castro. When you start building resorts for rich capitalists to flaunt their wealth before the local population you are asking for trouble. Having a large difference in rates of pay is also counter-revolutionary. Its well past time to democratise the Revolution to a much greater extent. We saw in the USSR how these old and creaking relics were not able to defend the Revolution.

[Das war einmal]

Raul Castro does not build resorts for tourists, but there are some companies who build them in Varadero and some Hotels in Havana. The Cuban state gets a significant amount of money from these enterprises, more than any other state and they pump it back into the socialist system.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Spot-on. Under socialism people should be payed according to their contribution to society, i.e to the full extent of their labour, added up with free health care, free education, free housing and so on.

Under socialism there shouldn't be money.

[Charles Xavier]

Under socialism there shouldn't be money.

Please explain why economically speaking?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Please explain why economically speaking?

I thought this was a readily accepted fact. Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme made it clear that the lower phase of communism, ie. socialism, a money economy would no longer exist (distribution being mediated by what Marx hypothesised would be a labour-voucher system).

The reason this is incomprehensible to you is because you fail to distinguish between a socialist society and a society under the political dictatorship of the proletariat. Though maybe I am being generous here and it is just your blind adherance to soviet dogma.

[Cael]

I thought this was a readily accepted fact. Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme made it clear that the lower phase of communism, ie. socialism, a money economy would no longer exist (distribution being mediated by what Marx hypothesised would be a labour-voucher system).

The reason this is incomprehensible to you is because you fail to distinguish between a socialist society and a society under the political dictatorship of the proletariat. Though maybe I am being generous here and it is just your blind adherance to soviet dogma.

But arent labour vouchers a form of money?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Please explain why economically speaking?

I think why not is the better question. What purpose do pieces of paper with imaginary value (debt) associated with them serve? There should be no reason for money in a collective socialized society. Money is the root of inequality and hypocritical to socialist philosophy.

[Niccolò Rossi]

But arent labour vouchers a form of money?

Not at all:
But in the trading between the commune and its members the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate; to use Marx's phrase, it is "merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption", and in carrying out this function, it is "no more 'money' than a ticket for the theatre". - Engels, 1877, Anti-Duhring, Part III: Socialism, IV. Distribution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm)
Also, an interesting passage I found which I think is relevant to quote here which elaborates the concept of the 'transition period'
It is true that Marx realised that, had socialism been established in his day, it would not have proved possible to implement immediately, or even for some years, the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, i.e. free access for all to consumer goods and services according to individual need. In the early years of socialism, established at this time, there would inevitably have had to have been some restrictions on access to consumer goods and services, some form of, if you like, “rationing” (if this word’s association with the war-time and post-war ration cards is forgotten, for although full free access according to need would not have been possible in 1875, the amount allocated for consumption could have been considerably higher than the workers were then getting under capitalism). Marx suggested as one such possible method so-called labour-time vouchers. It is important to realise that this was only a suggestion and, moreover, one open to serious objections. But Marx’s point was that, for some period of time, some method of rationing consumption would be necessary. He referred to the period of socialism during which this would be so, as “the first phase of communist society”, as compared with a “higher phase” in which free access to consumer goods and services could be implemented. Note that Marx is talking of different phases of the same society, society “based on the common ownership of the means of production”, i.e. a classless, stateless society with no wages or monetary system (Marx made it clear that the “labour-time vouchers” were not money, “no more ‘money’ than a ticket for the theatre” as he put it in Capital ). No doubt one could speak of a transitions from the “first” to a “higher” phase of socialism, but the fact remains that Marx did not employ the concept of “transition period” in this sense. For him, as we have explained, it was the transition from capitalism to socialism and not from one phase of socialism to another. - Critique 5, The Myth of the Transitional Society, 1975
What is important from the above is the stress that Marx's hypothesised labour-time voucher system was just that, a hypothesis. The form that rationing will take in socialist society is something that will be worked out in practice and has not been inscribed in stone tablets.


(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm)

[Cael]

Not at all:
But in the trading between the commune and its members the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate; to use Marx's phrase, it is "merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption", and in carrying out this function, it is "no more 'money' than a ticket for the theatre". - Engels, 1877, Anti-Duhring, Part III: Socialism, IV. Distribution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm)
Also, an interesting passage I found which I think is relevant to quote here which elaborates the concept of the 'transition period'
It is true that Marx realised that, had socialism been established in his day, it would not have proved possible to implement immediately, or even for some years, the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, i.e. free access for all to consumer goods and services according to individual need. In the early years of socialism, established at this time, there would inevitably have had to have been some restrictions on access to consumer goods and services, some form of, if you like, “rationing” (if this word’s association with the war-time and post-war ration cards is forgotten, for although full free access according to need would not have been possible in 1875, the amount allocated for consumption could have been considerably higher than the workers were then getting under capitalism). Marx suggested as one such possible method so-called labour-time vouchers. It is important to realise that this was only a suggestion and, moreover, one open to serious objections. But Marx’s point was that, for some period of time, some method of rationing consumption would be necessary. He referred to the period of socialism during which this would be so, as “the first phase of communist society”, as compared with a “higher phase” in which free access to consumer goods and services could be implemented. Note that Marx is talking of different phases of the same society, society “based on the common ownership of the means of production”, i.e. a classless, stateless society with no wages or monetary system (Marx made it clear that the “labour-time vouchers” were not money, “no more ‘money’ than a ticket for the theatre” as he put it in Capital ). No doubt one could speak of a transitions from the “first” to a “higher” phase of socialism, but the fact remains that Marx did not employ the concept of “transition period” in this sense. For him, as we have explained, it was the transition from capitalism to socialism and not from one phase of socialism to another. - Critique 5, The Myth of the Transitional Society, 1975
What is important from the above is the stress that Marx's hypothesised labour-time voucher system was just that, a hypothesis. The form that rationing will take in socialist society is something that will be worked out in practice and has not been inscribed in stone tablets.


(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm)



Actually, theatre tickets would be a form of money if everyone went to the theatre on a regular basis. But I see what Marx is saying. What he doesnt say in that extract, and what would be the key factor in stopping labour vouchers becoming money, is to make the labour vouchers non transferable. Because once they are tranferable, they will begin to act as money, i.e. they will become traded.

[Charles Xavier]

Actually, theatre tickets would be a form of money if everyone went to the theatre on a regular basis. But I see what Marx is saying. What he doesnt say in that extract, and what would be the key factor in stopping labour vouchers becoming money, is to make the labour vouchers non transferable. Because once they are tranferable, they will begin to act as money, i.e. they will become traded.


Its hard for such a system to be employed as the Socialist world had a need for capital to trade with the non-socialist world.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Actually, theatre tickets would be a form of money if everyone went to the theatre on a regular basis. But I see what Marx is saying. What he doesnt say in that extract, and what would be the key factor in stopping labour vouchers becoming money, is to make the labour vouchers non transferable. Because once they are tranferable, they will begin to act as money, i.e. they will become traded.

Well yes, the entire idea of a labour-voucher is that it is non-transferable. Unlike money, theatre tickets and labour-vouchers would not circulate, no matter how frequently they were used.

Anyway this discussion is rather off topic, not that it really matters at this point.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Its hard for such a system to be employed as the Socialist world had a need for capital to trade with the non-socialist world.

No, CX. The existance of capital, trade and commodity production are anti-thetical to socialism. There can be no co-existing 'socialist' and 'non-socialist' world.

[JimmyJazz]

How is Cuba not capitalist?

How is it capitalist? And just to clarify, I expect an answer like "the means of production are in private hands" or "the economy operates according to the law of value" or "productive wealth is allocated according to which industry offers the highest rate of profit"; NOT an answer like "there is no democratic workers' control", which is only good enough to show that it isn't any form of ideal socialism.

I think more than a few people on this board consider "capitalism" to describe anything besides their exact preferred form of socialism. Which is absurd, and reduces to the word "capitalism" to analytical meaninglessness. Capitalism is a specific form of social organization--private ownership of the MoP, production carried out by these private owners for profit--and a person who says a society is capitalist should be able to produce some evidence of this, imo. For a genuinely capitalist society, producing this evidence is not hard.

I wouldn't necessarily call Cuba socialist, and I certainly wouldn't consider it ideal, but to call it capitalism is just bizarre.

[Revy]

How is it capitalist? And just to clarify, I expect an answer like "the means of production are in private hands" or "the economy operates according to the law of value" or "productive wealth is allocated according to which industry offers the highest rate of profit"; NOT an answer like "there is no democratic workers' control", which is only good enough to show that it isn't any form of ideal socialism.

I think more than a few people on this board consider "capitalism" to describe anything besides their exact preferred form of socialism. Which is absurd, and reduces to the word "capitalism" to analytical meaninglessness. Capitalism is a specific form of social organization--private ownership of the MoP, production carried out by these private owners for profit--and a person who says a society is capitalist should be able to produce some evidence of this, imo. For a genuinely capitalist society, producing this evidence is not hard.

I wouldn't necessarily call Cuba socialist, and I certainly wouldn't consider it ideal, but to call it capitalism is just bizarre.

I think we're all arguing from our own perspectives. Has even one anecdote about the Cuban economy been posted? Or just any credible information from an observer?

I agree that calling Cuba capitalist may be too simplistic. I think the burden of proof should be on those calling it socialist. I stay by my categorization of the Cuban state as reformist and left-nationalist. They certainly aren't revolutionary internationalists.

[JimmyJazz]

I think we're all arguing from our own perspectives. Has even one anecdote about the Cuban economy been posted? Or just any credible information from an observer?

Well, that's true. But how about this:


Population below poverty line - 1%

Unemployment - 1.9% (2007 est.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba


Cuba has a dual economy, with two distinct systems operating side by side. The socialist peso economy applies to most Cubans, providing them with free education, free health care, universal employment, unemployment compensation, disability and retirement benefits and the basis necessities of life: food, housing, utilities and some entertainment at very low cost (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/cuba/economy.htm#).
The free-market dollarized economy operates in the tourist, international and export sectors, and substantially sustains the socialist economy.

The Cuban Government continues to adhere to socialist principles in organizing its state-controlled economy. Most of the means of production are owned and run by the government and, according to Cuban Government statistics, about 75% of the labor force is employed by the state. The actual figure is closer to 90%, with the only private employment consisting of some 200,000 private farmers and some 100,000 “cuentapropistas,” or private business (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/cuba/economy.htm#) owners.

The country's population is approximately 11 million. The Government continues to control all significant means of production and remained the predominant employer, despite permitting some carefully controlled foreign investment in joint ventures. Foreign companies are required to contract workers only through state agencies, which receive hard currency payments for the workers' labor but in turn pay the workers a fraction of this (usually 5 percent) in local currency. In 1998 the Government rescinded some of the changes that had led to the rise of legal nongovernmental business activity when it further tightened restrictions on the self-employed sector by reducing the number of categories allowed and by imposing relatively high taxes on self-employed persons. In September 2000, the Minister of Labor and Social Security publicly stated that more stringent laws should be promulgated to govern self-employment.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/cuba/economy.htm

[manic expression]

I think we're all arguing from our own perspectives. Has even one anecdote about the Cuban economy been posted? Or just any credible information from an observer?

I agree that calling Cuba capitalist may be too simplistic. I think the burden of proof should be on those calling it socialist. I stay by my categorization of the Cuban state as reformist and left-nationalist. They certainly aren't revolutionary internationalists.

The Cuban economy is collectivized, the state controls the vast majority of production. That's a fact that no one can seriously challenge.

You don't see any internationalism in sending 30,000 Cuban soldiers (many of whom gave their lives) to combat apartheid in Angola? You don't see internationalism in sending thousands upon thousands of doctors to impoverished communities around the world to treat workers for free? You don't see the internationalism in defending every progressive movement in Latin America against American imperialism?

[JimmyJazz]

You don't see any internationalism in sending 30,000 Cuban soldiers (many of whom gave their lives) to combat apartheid in Angola? You don't see internationalism in sending thousands upon thousands of doctors to impoverished communities around the world to treat workers for free? You don't see the internationalism in defending every progressive movement in Latin America against American imperialism?

Yeah, those were the examples that came to my mind too. I honestly don't think I've ever heard the Cuban revolution accused of being "nationalist" before now. It is nationalist in the anti-imperialist sense of course, but that's anger directed at the actions of a few countries (the U.S. most of all), not a sense of superiority over all other countries besides itself. And Fidel has also supported things like the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, but that was probably driven by economic necessity given how much Cuba was dependent on the USSR for trade--so you can blame that whole situation on the Soviet leadership at least as much as you can blame it on Cuba's. On balance, I can't think of an actually-existing socialist country that has been as close to the internationalist ideal for as long of a time, however big its departures may have been.

[Revy]

I honestly don't think I've ever heard the Cuban revolution accused of being "nationalist" before now. It is nationalist in the anti-imperialist sense of course, but that's anger directed at the actions of a few countries (the U.S. most of all), not a sense of superiority over all other countries besides itself.

"Patria o muerte" is the Cuban national motto. That literally means "fatherland or death", though it is best translated as "homeland or death" due to the connotations of "fatherland" in English. Whereas the motto of the Soviet Union and other similar states was "Workers of the world, unite".

The Cuban state chooses to present itself as nationalist. It's not an accusation.

[chegitz guevara]

Wow, it's like all these people have forgotten that 90 miles from Cuba the most powerful capitalist empire in the world sits. That this empire has Cuba under embargo and has made it difficult even for other countries to trade with Cuba.

And many of these folks who are always reminding us how you can't have socialism in one country are blaming Cuba for not succeeding in building socialism in one country.

Fortunately, Cuba is too busy trying to build socialism to listen to First world socialists who've never made a revolution.

BTW, about that no workers control of industry in Cuba, not true. The workers have lots of control through their very powerful unions.

[JimmyJazz]

"Patria o muerte" is the Cuban national motto. That literally means "fatherland or death", though it is best translated as "homeland or death" due to the connotations of "fatherland" in English. Whereas the motto of the Soviet Union and other similar states was "Workers of the world, unite".

The Cuban state chooses to present itself as nationalist. It's not an accusation.

It also presents itself as socialist. And the United States presents itself as the beacon of democracy. Etc, etc. Repeating state slogans is not a real analysis. What actions and policies do you believe the Cuban government has taken which make it "nationalist"--especially in comparison to other countries claiming to be socialist?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Fortunately, Cuba is too busy trying to build socialism to listen to First world socialists who've never made a revolution.

I love it! The ol' "you-have-no-right-to-criticize-such-and-such-socialist-group-because-you're-an-internet-couch-potato-who-has-never-made-a-revolution" rebuttal! Haven't heard that one in a while...

[chegitz guevara]

I don't believe I implied "internet-couch-potato." I know I didn't write it. Feeling self-conscious perhaps? In any event, it's easy for people who aren't responsible for ten million people and a revolution to criticize the revolution for not being perfect. They don't have the luxury of being perfect. They're too busy trying to hold off counter-revolution.

When you make a perfect revolution, then you can criticize the others for not living up to your standards.

[Charles Xavier]

No, CX. The existance of capital, trade and commodity production are anti-thetical to socialism. There can be no co-existing 'socialist' and 'non-socialist' world.
absolutely incorrect

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't believe I implied "internet-couch-potato." I know I didn't write it. Feeling self-conscious perhaps?

Hmm. Probably not, seeing as I'm more of a "chair man", myself.


In any event, it's easy for people who aren't responsible for ten million people and a revolution to criticize the revolution for not being perfect. They don't have the luxury of being perfect. They're too busy trying to hold off counter-revolution.

When you make a perfect revolution, then you can criticize the others for not living up to your standards.

*Yawn* Now who's putting words in someone else's mouth? I never said anything about not supporting the Cuban state because it wasn't "perfect". Imperfection is something I can handle, so long as I feel a situation is headed in the "right direction". However, I do not feel that way about Cuba, therefore I cannot support them (other than opposing any meddling by foreign powers in Cuba's affairs).

[Os Cangaceiros]

I wouldn't necessarily call Cuba socialist, and I certainly wouldn't consider it ideal, but to call it capitalism is just bizarre.

If Cuba isn't socialist, and it isn't capitalist, then what do you think it is? :confused:

[manic expression]

*Yawn* Now who's putting words in someone else's mouth? I never said anything about not supporting the Cuban state because it wasn't "perfect". Imperfection is something I can handle, so long as I feel a situation is headed in the "right direction". However, I do not feel that way about Cuba, therefore I cannot support them (other than opposing any meddling by foreign powers in Cuba's affairs).

What would the "right direction" be for the Cuban workers? Dismantle their state 90 miles from the most powerful imperialist nation the world has ever seen? I'd like to know.


"Patria o muerte" is the Cuban national motto. That literally means "fatherland or death", though it is best translated as "homeland or death" due to the connotations of "fatherland" in English. Whereas the motto of the Soviet Union and other similar states was "Workers of the world, unite".

The Cuban state chooses to present itself as nationalist. It's not an accusation.

Defending your nation from the aggression of the imperialists is completely compatible with socialism. The patriotism shown by our Cuban comrades is not reactionary at all, it's something many socialist movements have. After all, most working class people in the US have similar feelings for their nationalities and their home regions; I'm proud of where I come from, too.

And if you remember the heroic Soviet resistance to the Nazi onslaught in 1941, the very name of that struggle is the "Great Patriotic War".

[chegitz guevara]

What would the "right direction" be for the Cuban workers? Dismantle their state 90 miles from the most powerful imperialist nation the world has ever seen? I'd like to know.

So many comrades fail to understand that revolutions do not happen in isolation. These few forward positions are under immediate and constant siege from a powerful enemy that wants only to destroy them and takes every chance it can get. If comrades don't understand context, they will never do anything other than fail.

Could Cuba be more democratic, possibly (although Cuba is very democratic). However, it is under constant threat of terrorist attack, the U.S. is trying to strangle its trade, and it is constantly bombarding the island with media designed to undermine it. On top of that, every few years the United States threatens to invade the country.

WTF should they do?

[Hiero]

Cuba never had equal wages. I would say the Cuban government is allowing wages to float more?

Also mobile phones and computers were never banned in Cuba.