Che Guevara and Joseph Stalin

[Comrade_Stalin]

I have seen a number of pro-Stalin guotes about Stalin.

"Along the way, I had the opportunity to pass through the dominions of the United Fruit, convincing me once again of just how terrible these capitalist octopuses are. I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated."

Could you guys tell me the reason, why Che was pro-Stalin?

[Nolan]

Because Stalin led the USSR to victory against the fascists and Stalin's policies did a lot to build the Soviet economy and further the development of Socialism.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Because Stalin led the USSR to victory against the fascists and Stalin's policies did a lot to build the Soviet economy and further the development of Socialism.

Yes that very ture, I quess I didn't ask my question right let me try it again. Why do you guys think that Che was pro Stalin, at a time, when their was a lot of anti Stalin propaganda out their.

[gorillafuck]

Probably because Stalin was the head of the USSR which was a superpower.

[Nolan]

Yes that very ture, I quess I didn't ask my question right let me try it again. Why do you guys think that Che was pro Stalin, at a time, when their was a lot of anti Stalin propaganda out their.

Same reason we are, Comrade.

[RadioRaheem84]

Che was a great revolutionary leader that even attracted the attention of libertarians like Murray Rothbard who sang his praises when he died.

But alas he was a bit of a Stalinist. I wouldn't attribute anything he did though (as regard to policy) was because of Stalinism though as he left shortly after the Cuban Revolution. Capitalists attribute some of the misdeeds of the Castro administration to him because he "helped found the camps" that would later be used to imprison dissidents and homosexuals. Yet, I believe that even he admitted that he was no good at being a states man.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why do you guys think that Che was pro Stalin, at a time, when their was a lot of anti Stalin propaganda out their.

On the left I don't think there was as much anti-Stalinist sentiment at that time. Trotskyist and anarchist groups were much smaller, less organized, and much more on the defensive compared to the CPs. CPs were still big enough to dictate the direction of the left and even trade unions in much of Europe and the Americas... even the US CP during McCarthyism was undoubtedly the hegemonic force on the far left. In the 50s and 60s the radical ideas that were gaining currency were Maoist and even if they were not favorable to the USSR they still largely saw stalinist-like system as they way to go.

Also Che wasn't advocating a "working class self-emancipation" road to socialism, he was looking to create a "socialist" state that could grant reforms to the people and build up the national economy free of imperialist intervention... so like many of the anti-imperialist/anti-colonial revolutionaries during that historical period, he favored what I would call a state-capitalist alternative.

[Comrade_Stalin]

So the Trotskyist and anarchist were small groups back then, and their was a more postive view of Stalin during those time, right?

Could you also define what state capitalism means to you Jimmie Higgins

[manic expression]

On the left I don't think there was as much anti-Stalinist sentiment at that time. Trotskyist and anarchist groups were much smaller, less organized, and much more on the defensive compared to the CPs. CPs were still big enough to dictate the direction of the left and even trade unions in much of Europe and the Americas... even the US CP during McCarthyism was undoubtedly the hegemonic force on the far left. In the 50s and 60s the radical ideas that were gaining currency were Maoist and even if they were not favorable to the USSR they still largely saw stalinist-like system as they way to go.
I don't think Che denounced Stalin even after the Secret Speech, when there WAS a ton of anti-Stalin sentiment among the left. IIRC, Che spoke positively of Mao after the Sino-Soviet split, even though the Cuban Revolution had sided with Khrushchev in that controversy. Since Che wasn't anti-Stalinist when it was the Soviet position to be as much, it's unwarranted to say that Che said good things about Stalin just because the commonly accepted position at the time was to be pro-Stalin.

And moreover, that quote from Che while he was in Guatemala was not said by a dedicated "Stalinist", but by a supporter of Arbenz who was then seeing the limits and problems of reformism. He recognized Stalin as a legitimate leader of the socialist movement and as a figure of progress because that was the political landscape at the time, not because he was tied to the Soviet line (because he wasn't).


Also Che wasn't advocating a "working class self-emancipation" road to socialism, he was looking to create a "socialist" state that could grant reforms to the people and build up the national economy free of imperialist intervention... so like many of the anti-imperialist/anti-colonial revolutionaries during that historical period, he favored what I would call a state-capitalist alternative.
:rolleyes: Yeah, 'cause you said so. I guess anti-socialists like yourself love to slander prolific revolutionaries such as Che, so this is to be expected.

[Winter]

Also Che wasn't advocating a "working class self-emancipation" road to socialism, he was looking to create a "socialist" state that could grant reforms to the people and build up the national economy free of imperialist intervention... so like many of the anti-imperialist/anti-colonial revolutionaries during that historical period, he favored what I would call a state-capitalist alternative.

:thumbdown:



"Naturally, the party must be a class party. A Marxist-Leninist party could hardly be anything else. Its mission is to find the shortest route to achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat. Its best members, its leading cadres, and its tactics all come from the working class."

[marvell2k]

I can see why everyone here loves communism because you are stripped of having an opinion of it and just like Stalin starved off millions of Ukranians because many of them refused to assimilate to his policies. But because it was all in the name of communism I guess it was alright that millions of people died and in some cases resorted to cannibalism. Same with Mao who caused the deaths of anywhere from 35-70 million deaths from starvation until he finally realized maybe it wasnt his best idea to have the state control farming yields. Let us also not forget Che who was a racist who said the black man was frivolous and spent all his money on booze. This was written in his diaries he also was against music which he felt poisoned society. He was the Taliban of his day. Just look at Cuba where they have a history of being Homophobic and people with HIV/AIDS are segregated from the rest of the population. Or how about George Bernard Shaw who advocated that people be put before a board to explain why they should live and what they bring to society that is useful and referred to societies that have yet to even reach the capacity to have a capitalist society in order to transition to communism as Racial trash! None of this stuff is made up, look it up and wake up! Look it up its all true and if you want to ban me for speaking the truth which anyone can research and come to the same conclusion then ban me and prove how communist and their national police will do anything to silence its critics just like my family in Cuba suffered for their views. So go ahead and do it no one has put you in jail in the United States for your political views. Go to Cuba and enjoy their Communist regime.

[robbo203]

I can see why everyone here loves communism .


Dont jump to conclusions. There are quite a lot of people here who do not identify with what you call "communism" and in fact actually oppose it as state capitalism whether in Cuba, the Soviet Union or wherever

[red cat]

I can see why everyone here loves communism because you are stripped of having an opinion of it and just like Stalin starved off millions of Ukranians because many of them refused to assimilate to his policies. But because it was all in the name of communism I guess it was alright that millions of people died and in some cases resorted to cannibalism. Same with Mao who caused the deaths of anywhere from 35-70 million deaths from starvation until he finally realized maybe it wasnt his best idea to have the state control farming yields. Let us also not forget Che who was a racist who said the black man was frivolous and spent all his money on booze. This was written in his diaries he also was against music which he felt poisoned society. He was the Taliban of his day. Just look at Cuba where they have a history of being Homophobic and people with HIV/AIDS are segregated from the rest of the population. Or how about George Bernard Shaw who advocated that people be put before a board to explain why they should live and what they bring to society that is useful and referred to societies that have yet to even reach the capacity to have a capitalist society in order to transition to communism as Racial trash! None of this stuff is made up, look it up and wake up! Look it up its all true and if you want to ban me for speaking the truth which anyone can research and come to the same conclusion then ban me and prove how communist and their national police will do anything to silence its critics just like my family in Cuba suffered for their views. So go ahead and do it no one has put you in jail in the United States for your political views. Go to Cuba and enjoy their Communist regime.

Now that was quite a hasty decision . Nowadays almost all successful anti-communists who oppose historic and ongoing revolutions(including the ones you mentioned) hide their reactionary fangs and claws under a red make-up. If you just had the patience to read some more from this forum, then probably you would have mastered the trick too. :lol:

[HamishFTW]

Che was a reader of Stalin's when it wasn't fashionable to be one, and laid a floral tribute at Stalin's grave/tomb/w/e

[Comrade_Stalin]

Che was a reader of Stalin's when it wasn't fashionable to be one, and laid a floral tribute at Stalin's grave/tomb/w/e

This is what I want to find out. What made Che pro-Stalin, at a time when it was not fashionable.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have a lot of respect for Che as a anti-imperialist revolutionary, but I do not think his politics or tactics can achieve "working class self-emancipation". In fact his methods failed in all other counties he attempted this in. Cuba was an exception because the regime there has no significant support among any part of the population.


Yeah, 'cause you said so. I guess anti-socialists like yourself love to slander prolific revolutionaries such as Che, so this is to be expected.How is this slander - he was not organizing among the working class in working class areas. He was organizing intellectuals and recruiting rural farmers.


"Naturally, the party must be a class party. A Marxist-Leninist party could hardly be anything else. Its mission is to find the shortest route to achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat. Its best members, its leading cadres, and its tactics all come from the working class." Who cares if guerrillas "come from the working class" if they are not organizing among the working class and helping the working class to learn how and gain the confidence to become rulers of society.


it's unwarranted to say that Che said good things about Stalin just because the commonly accepted position at the time was to be pro-StalinOf course it is more more complicated, I was speaking broadly. About anti-Stalin sentiment in general - while things like the Secret Speech had a big impact on the movement and there was a lot more doubts and confusion in this time period, Stalinim was still the main driving force of the left throughout this period and only Maoism later came to be the alternative. I didn't mean to suggest that Che was "lazy" in supporting Stalinism - just that on the left at that time, Stalinism was still seens as a very legitimate force and model for struggles and so it does not suprise me that anti-impeirlaist struggles would look to this model.

[Winter]

Who cares if guerrillas "come from the working class" if they are not organizing among the working class and helping the working class to learn how and gain the confidence to become rulers of society.

I don't think you understand the importance that the Llano, or Urban Underground played in the Cuban Revolution.

The Revolution was not just 80 Guerillas in the Sierra Maestra, there were workers in the cities that belonged to the July 26th Movement that promoted anti-Batista pamphlets, pro-communist education, and organized strikes. The Labor Unions played a big role in it by organizing "fighting commitees". Without the Llano, the Revolution would have fizzled out extremely quickly.

Frank Pais was one of the leaders of the Urban Underground, his wikipedia does a good job at describing more details of the Llano. Check it out if you're interested in learning more on this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Pa%C3%ADs

[blake 3:17]

Che was a reader of Stalin's when it wasn't fashionable to be one, and laid a floral tribute at Stalin's grave/tomb/w/e


???

[Kayser_Soso]

I can see why everyone here loves communism because you are stripped of having an opinion of it and just like Stalin starved off millions of Ukranians because many of them refused to assimilate to his policies. But because it was all in the name of communism I guess it was alright that millions of people died and in some cases resorted to cannibalism. Same with Mao who caused the deaths of anywhere from 35-70 million deaths from starvation until he finally realized maybe it wasnt his best idea to have the state control farming yields. Let us also not forget Che who was a racist who said the black man was frivolous and spent all his money on booze. This was written in his diaries he also was against music which he felt poisoned society. He was the Taliban of his day. Just look at Cuba where they have a history of being Homophobic and people with HIV/AIDS are segregated from the rest of the population. Or how about George Bernard Shaw who advocated that people be put before a board to explain why they should live and what they bring to society that is useful and referred to societies that have yet to even reach the capacity to have a capitalist society in order to transition to communism as Racial trash! None of this stuff is made up, look it up and wake up! Look it up its all true and if you want to ban me for speaking the truth which anyone can research and come to the same conclusion then ban me and prove how communist and their national police will do anything to silence its critics just like my family in Cuba suffered for their views. So go ahead and do it no one has put you in jail in the United States for your political views. Go to Cuba and enjoy their Communist regime.



Intellectual Checkmate: What can I say to make him look more stupid, that he hasn't already said himself?

[Luisrah]

Who cares if guerrillas "come from the working class" if they are not organizing among the working class and helping the working class to learn how and gain the confidence to become rulers of society.

Focoism and Guevarism doesn't advocate taking power by 80 guerrilas.
The armed struggle is used in difficult countries like military dictatorships, creating small points of discontent among the people, so that it would later lead to a general insurrection, like a revolution.

Just as in Leninism it isn't the vanguard who does the revolution, but the working class, here, it isn't the guerrilas who make it, they are just there to fight the fight and consciencialize the people, because it's them who makes the revolution.

You can have as many guerrila groups as you want in a country, but if the people doesn't support them, no socialism for anyone.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Focoism and Guevarism doesn't advocate taking power by 80 guerrilas.
The armed struggle is used in difficult countries like military dictatorships, creating small points of discontent among the people, so that it would later lead to a general insurrection, like a revolution.

Just as in Leninism it isn't the vanguard who does the revolution, but the working class, here, it isn't the guerrilas who make it, they are just there to fight the fight and consciencialize the people, because it's them who makes the revolution.

You can have as many guerrila groups as you want in a country, but if the people doesn't support them, no socialism for anyone.

Yes like all vanguards (real military ones included), they are there to lead the way, not do all the fighting.:)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Without the Llano, the Revolution would have fizzled out extremely quickly.And more generally without mass discontent with Batista and US imperialism the Revolution would not have lasted and Cubans would not have rallied to defend the gains of the revolution. Again, in other countries where Che's methods were used, the revolution attempts failed so the link with the urban population as well as popular sentiment is key to the Cuban revolution (along with the complete lack of support to the Batista government).

In my view, this kind of struggle is an inversion of the way a socialist struggle should be fought if the goal is working class self-emancipation. It must be the the working class that leads the struggle with voluntary aid from other oppressed classes - and gurella/worker militia forces if necessary. A passive working class support as an auxiliary of a pesant-oriented struggle will not lead to dual-power let alone worker's power no matter how dedicated the struggle is.

So while the Cuban revolution was a successful anti-imperialist struggle, in my view, it did not create worker's power but a state-capitalist reform government that passed land and rent reforms and so on. The working class did not directly take power or hold power.


The armed struggle is used in difficult countries like military dictatorships, creating small points of discontent among the people, so that it would later lead to a general insurrection, like a revolution.Yes, this was their view and going back to the OP, this was Che's tension with the sort of CP-version of Stalinism that existed in Latin America at the time; I think many of Che's fellow revolutionaries believed that the top-down trade-union oriented parties were not radical enough. However, I think they tried to jump over the question of how to more effectively build working class confidence and leadership (and working class socialist consciousness) by abandoning the urban struggle (Che said the CPs were dogmatically tied to a urban trade-union approach) and seeing a guerrilla struggle supported by the peasants as the way to go.


Just as in Leninism it isn't the vanguard who does the revolution, but the working class, here, it isn't the guerrilas who make it, they are just there to fight the fight and consciencialize the people, because it's them who makes the revolution.It's interesting that you say "the people" and not the working class. This is my point, without the active leadership of a self-conscious working class movement, the best we could expect would be a nationalist/populist reform kind of government.

[black magick hustla]

he was a courageous selfless man. i dont think he was really a communist in the sense of a "working class" revolution. he was a sort of "latin american" left nationalist.

[RadioRaheem84]

he was a courageous selfless man. i dont think he was really a communist in the sense of a "working class" revolution. he was a sort of "latin american" left nationalist.


Agreed. I think he was very much a raging Stalinist and in favor a state capitalist society. As much as I will always admire Che for his revolutionary zeal and will defend him against ignorant taunters like Glenn Beck, I would've probably objected to his rather authoritarian methods and ideas. He seemed like a bit of a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur. When it comes to revolutionary heroes I am more of a fan of Zapata and Durruti.

[Comrade_Stalin]

he was a courageous selfless man. i dont think he was really a communist in the sense of a "working class" revolution. he was a sort of "latin american" left nationalist.

The view, if he was a communist, changes with who you ask. But his is not a part of the question, which is why do you think that he was pro-"State capitlism"(from your point of view).

[black magick hustla]

The view, if he was a communist, changes with who you ask. But his is not a part of the question, which is why do you think that he was pro-"State capitlism"(from your point of view).

i think the issue is more fundamental that being "pro state-capitalism". his whole methodology was alien to class politics. he was involved in voluntarist guerrillas that try to sbustitute class conflict with the agency of a few hardened "warriors". his slant was not "class", but speaking about the "people", the "opressed", democracy etc.

[Kayser_Soso]

Agreed. I think he was very much a raging Stalinist and in favor a state capitalist society. As much as I will always admire Che for his revolutionary zeal and will defend him against ignorant taunters like Glenn Beck, I would've probably objected to his rather authoritarian methods and ideas. He seemed like a bit of a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur. When it comes to revolutionary heroes I am more of a fan of Zapata and Durruti.


Yeah I'm sure they never did anything "authoritarian".

[Luisrah]

Yes, this was their view and going back to the OP, this was Che's tension with the sort of CP-version of Stalinism that existed in Latin America at the time; I think many of Che's fellow revolutionaries believed that the top-down trade-union oriented parties were not radical enough. However, I think they tried to jump over the question of how to more effectively build working class confidence and leadership (and working class socialist consciousness) by abandoning the urban struggle (Che said the CPs were dogmatically tied to a urban trade-union approach) and seeing a guerrilla struggle supported by the peasants as the way to go.

But wasn't the theory to start in the country and move into the urban areas? Seriously, this is an honest question.


It's interesting that you say "the people" and not the working class. This is my point, without the active leadership of a self-conscious working class movement, the best we could expect would be a nationalist/populist reform kind of government.

I say the people because I mean the working class, plus peasants, and petit-bourgeoisie. We care for a society free of exploitation, and if the peasants and the petit-bourgeoisie are for it and truly support the working class, then what's the problem?
Heck, I guess we would be the last to oppose even a bloodless revolution, when the bourgeoisie lays down their means of production and weapons, and classes end just like that. That is impossible, but the possibility that the peasants and the petit-bourgeoisie could help the working class isn't.

As long as people are conscious and willing to sacrifice to create a true socialist society, it doesn't matter who the heck they are. IMO, I mean

[manic expression]

I have a lot of respect for Che as a anti-imperialist revolutionary, but I do not think his politics or tactics can achieve "working class self-emancipation". In fact his methods failed in all other counties he attempted this in. Cuba was an exception because the regime there has no significant support among any part of the population.Not exactly. As Che pointed out, Mao discovered and applied principles that were practically the same to great success. The partisans of Europe effectively employed similar tactics against the Nazi menace, albeit in different circumstances. The point is that Che's tactics weren't just Che's tactics, and they still have their place. Lastly, let's not forget that Che always said that his tactics in Cuba weren't applicable everywhere, and he always (IIRC) suggested that comrades in the US, for example, pursue other means of making revolution.


How is this slander - he was not organizing among the working class in working class areas. He was organizing intellectuals and recruiting rural farmers.
First, it's slander because the July 26 Movement had a great amount of support within the urban areas of Cuba and every study of the Revolution proves this. In fact, a lot of important resistance against Batista came from the cities (sabotage of infrastructure, etc.). The urban resistance was not nearly as visible or as sensational (and thus they attracted less press) for obvious reasons, but they were certainly present and they did their part and more. As one small example, the J26M's circles in the cities were instrumental in smuggling a NYT reporter to Fidel (no small feat in a warzone) for an interview that roused revolutionary sympathies in Cuba and beyond. You can read about some of the specifics of the urban resistance's role in "The Man Who Invented Fidel".

Second, it's slander because intellectuals are fully capable of being part of or even leading working-class movements. If you criticize Che because he was an "intellectual" and organized with other "intellectuals", then you should be damn sure to extend the same criticisms to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and every other revolutionary who ever did anything worth knowing about. The same can be said for the role of "rural farmers", Marx and Lenin were very clear about the need to extend the hand of the working class to their fellow toilers.

Third, it's slander because it's purely ridiculous to think that the guerrillas had a real choice in the avenues available to them. Do you think they liked eating, sleeping, marching, bleeding, dying and crapping in the most inhospitable parts of Cuba? Think about it for five seconds: any revolutionary who overtly organized against Batista would either be dead or in prison before they could say "Oye" if they weren't either underground or fighting with the guerrillas (or otherwise supporting them). The J26M did exactly those two things, because any other form of organization would have been downright suicidal.

Even if slander is too heavy a term, your position is still anti-historical and misled for the reasons listed.


Who cares if guerrillas "come from the working class" if they are not organizing among the working class and helping the working class to learn how and gain the confidence to become rulers of society.

That's exactly what they (the J26M and later the PCC) did. The J26M was THE popular opposition group against Batista, the J26M organized in the cities and the countryside. Just because they recognized the importance of attacking the capitalist state with whatever means available doesn't change anything.

And if we're going by "not organizing among the working class", then I can't wait to hear you badmouth Lenin and Trotsky, who were hardly doing that during their lengthy times in exile. What's that? They were forced into exile by a repressive regime that threatened to jail or murder them for their activities? Right.


Of course it is more more complicated, I was speaking broadly. About anti-Stalin sentiment in general - while things like the Secret Speech had a big impact on the movement and there was a lot more doubts and confusion in this time period, Stalinim was still the main driving force of the left throughout this period and only Maoism later came to be the alternative.
I'm not sure what you mean. Sure, people were confused, but Che was around for more than a decade after the denunciation of Stalin. I'm sure he had more than enough time to consider the question.


I didn't mean to suggest that Che was "lazy" in supporting Stalinism - just that on the left at that time, Stalinism was still seens as a very legitimate force and model for struggles and so it does not suprise me that anti-impeirlaist struggles would look to this model.

Stalin was seen as a legitimate figure because he won great victories for socialism in general. Without his strong leadership, the Soviet Union would have faced liquidation and its peoples would have faced genocide, the kulaks would have run rampant and the Soviet Union would have remained a depleted economy dependent on a primitive mixed market. We all have disagreements with Stalin, let's not forget, but the communist movement must re-embrace the principles of democratic centralism: you can disagree with a comrade without denouncing her/him, you can strongly disagree with a socialist figure while still standing firm with her/him. That's what our movement is all about, and too many of us have forgotten it. I think Che was one who didn't forget.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

So while the Cuban revolution was a successful anti-imperialist struggle, in my view, it did not create worker's power but a state-capitalist reform government that passed land and rent reforms and so on.
Can you actually call it a successful anti-imperialist struggle if all it did was take Cuba out of the Western imperialist bloc and into the Eastern imperialist bloc, tho?

[Kléber]

I don't think you understand the importance that the Llano, or Urban Underground played in the Cuban Revolution.Actually it's you who I think doesn't understand. Castro purged his old comrades from the July 26 Movement after coming to power. That said, the urban support networks were a hodge-podge of class and political representation. They sure as hell didn't represent a form of workers' council and neither do the CDR's, which were established by military bureaucratic command, not by the conscious action of the proletariat. The "Communist" rulers of Cuba, who were bourgeois nationalists one day and became reds the next when Khrushchev offered them a good deal, never had enough support among the working class to stand in a fair election or tolerate political criticism. Without democracy there is no socialism.

[manic expression]

Actually it's you who I think doesn't understand. Castro purged his old comrades from the July 26 Movement after coming to power.

Like who? Like Che? Like Almeida Bosque? Like Cienfuegos? Like Raul?


That said, the urban support networks were a hodge-podge of class and political representation. They sure as hell didn't represent a form of workers' council and neither do the CDR's, which were established by military bureaucratic command, not by the conscious initiative of the proletariat.

The "urban support networks" carried out key activities during and after the Revolution. The CDR's do represent a form of workers councils because they're workers organized to protect the interests of workers. The matter in which they were established is secondary, and even if they were established "by command", that command came from the vanguard of the proletariat, so your babble about "conscious initiative" is just hot air.


The "Communist" rulers of Cuba, who were bourgeois nationalists one day and became reds the next when Khrushchev offered them a good deal, never had enough support among the working class to stand in a fair election or tolerate political criticism. Without democracy there is no socialism.

Che and Raul were communists long before they boarded the Granma, and Fidel was forced to refrain from claiming an ideology because it would have likely doomed the Revolution. Fidel still had sympathizers in the United States, especially from progressives, and the "communist" label would have done away with that and likely stiffened US support for Batista greatly. And what would that be good for? Ideological purity? Revolutionaries have no time for such idiocy.

Khrushchev offered Cuba an alliance on fair terms, something no one had ever offered Cuba in its entire existence. But that's what socialists do.

Oh, and on your liberal ramblings about fair elections, you should do your homework about the Cuban electoral system, as its the most democratic country on the face of the planet and the spitting image of working-class democracy. There are plenty of links in plenty of threads if you're not too lazy or stubborn to find them yourself.

Without logic there is no socialist, and that's why you're no socialist.

[manic expression]

Can you actually call it a successful anti-imperialist struggle if all it did was take Cuba out of the Western imperialist bloc and into the Eastern imperialist bloc, tho?
No, the USSR was not imperialist, the relationship the Soviet Union had with Cuba was basically the opposite of what existed before. How were the Soviets imperialists when it came to Cuba? Was it because stuff went from Cuba to Russia and from Russia to Cuba? Is there any concrete analysis behind that claim?

Could you imagine the US imperialists supporting (after some feet-dragging, admittedly) an independent Cuban intervention in Africa to oppose apartheid? I can't. The imperialists were all busy funding the racist murderers, the socialists were busy fighting them. That's basically the point here.