The Question Of Cuba [Archive]

leninwasarightwingnutcase

11th February 2010, 19:11

:rolleyes: Look up Oswaldo Paya. The Varela Project. The Ladies in White. The Assembly for the Promotion of Civil Society in Cuba.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569981.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2583201.stm

Just a few examples. If the PCC "brutally suppressed" all dissent, those individuals and groups wouldn't have the chance to organize and demonstrate openly, nor would they be able to travel abroad to accept awards named after anti-communists. The amount of people here who don't know anything about the political realities of Cuba is quite funny. It reminds me of that person who keeps dissing communism/anarchism/Marxism/leftist without knowing the first thing about any of those ideologies. I suggest the Castrophobes out there do their homework for once. Let me know when you guys figure out the first thing about the Cuban political system.

Oh, and on the Cuban political system itself:

http://www.cubasolidarity.com/aboutcuba/topics/government/0504elecsys.htm
http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/977/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7784234.stm

But who cares about facts when you can complain about stuff you don't understand?I never claimed the PCC suppressed all dissent - only dissent to the left of them. Right-wingers/Pro-Americans get a lot more leeway (the Cuban people will never take them seriously so they aren't a threat). It is a fact that Castro closed the Anarchist press and imprisoned Anarchists for speaking out against his regime. Discussed here:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/bright/dolgoff/cubanrevolution/chapter10.html

manic expression

11th February 2010, 19:37

Basically, anyone who isn't a Stalinist doesn't know what they are talking about, how socialist.
Yeah, because the BBC is as Stalinist as they come...:rolleyes:

I never claimed the PCC suppressed all dissent - only dissent to the left of them. Right-wingers/Pro-Americans get a lot more leeway (the Cuban people will never take them seriously so they aren't a threat). It is a fact that Castro closed the Anarchist press and imprisoned Anarchists for speaking out against his regime. Discussed here:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist...chapter10.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/bright/dolgoff/cubanrevolution/chapter10.html)
The right wing traitors get sent to prison when they take money from their imperialist masters. I wouldn't call that too much leeway, I'd call that exactly what the doctor ordered.

This is my favorite line from that link: "The anarchist papers were compelled to cease publication about two years after the revolution." Can anyone think of some important event that happened in that year (1961)? The most dire threats to the Revolution were rearing their heads at that time, and you're outraged over the closing of a few "zines" that were opposed to the revolutionary government? The Cuban working class was under attack, and you think open opposition against the revolutionary government was acceptable? Whether or not you agree with the Cuban Revolution, it is simply unreasonable to expect anyone to be broadminded when they're facing a murderous onslaught from imperialism. It makes no sense from any perspective.

Here's my question: should we allow the enemies of the revolution free speech in times of life-or-death class struggle?

Ovi

11th February 2010, 22:22

The Cuban working class was under attack, and you think open opposition against the revolutionary government was acceptable? Whether or not you agree with the Cuban Revolution, it is simply unreasonable to expect anyone to be broadminded when they're facing a murderous onslaught from imperialism. It makes no sense from any perspective.

It's nice to see stalimaos supporting the imprisonment of real socialists to defend the regime. It says a lot about your politics.

manic expression

11th February 2010, 22:51

It's nice to see stalimaos supporting the imprisonment of real socialists to defend the regime. It says a lot about your politics.
Except those "real socialists" were agitating against a revolutionary government while it was under attack from imperialism. Workers have every right to suppress the enemies of their revolutionary gains, and I believe that says a whole lot about working-class politics, as well it should.

Robocommie

11th February 2010, 23:08

Here's my question: should we allow the enemies of the revolution free speech in times of life-or-death class struggle?

Personally, I believe so, because when I was still liberal I felt the United States was wrong to begin curtailing civil liberties under Bush in order to fight terrorism. and it would be just as wrong as we did it, and it would make any of us who criticize capitalists for their repression of socialist views complete hypocrites.

How can we expect to have a truly free democratic society if we don't have free speech? If we can justify censorship and state banning of dissent, we can justify it a hundred times. And how are we to be threatened by right wingers and their lies and bullshit? Any truly revolutionary working class will be able to see through it, and if we can't handle right wing media spin, then we certainly can't win a revolution.

KlÃ©ber

11th February 2010, 23:24

Except those "real socialists" were agitating against a revolutionary government while it was under attack from imperialism.Could you post something from one of those banned anarchist magazines that shows they published or did anything that was counter-revolutionary or pro-imperialist?

Ovi

11th February 2010, 23:37

Except those "real socialists" were agitating against a revolutionary government while it was under attack from imperialism. Workers have every right to suppress the enemies of their revolutionary gains, and I believe that says a whole lot about working-class politics, as well it should.
Workers? They were suppressing themselves?
It is very weird how someone can consider the banishment of strikes, the suppression of leftist revolutionary publications, the complete censorship of the press and assuming unlimited power and no accountability for ones actions as leftist.

leninwasarightwingnutcase

12th February 2010, 05:06

The Cuban working class was under attackIt certainly was. On two fronts.

you think open opposition against the revolutionary government was acceptable?I think that, seeing as it still hasn’t instituted workers self management after over 50 years in power, we can safely say the government wasn’t revolutionary (though it did institute some nice healthcare/education reforms). Opposition to the regime was essential to defending the Cuban working class from the attack it was facing.

Could you post something from one of those banned anarchist magazines that shows they published or did anything that was counter-revolutionary or pro-imperialist?This.

See, there is honestly intentioned war censorship. Then there is being an opportunistic dickhead who exploits fear to crush anything you find inconvenient. Castro’s suppression of other Socialists is a clear example of the latter. The Anarchist publications were revolutionary organs, published by and for the working class, resolutely opposed to capitalism and imperialism. I can’t for the life of me see how their closure helped Cuba defend itself against US imperialism. If anything the opposite is true – this must have played into the hands of US propaganda which tried to paint the Cuban revolution as tyrannical.

manic expression

12th February 2010, 07:46

And here comes the RevLeft Castrophobe Brigade.

Could you post something from one of those banned anarchist magazines that shows they published or did anything that was counter-revolutionary or pro-imperialist?

In the first days after taking power, Castro expelled known anarcho-syndicalists from the Confederacíon de Trabajadores de Cuba (Cuban Workers Confederation, CTC). Because of this, and a general suspicion towards governments, the ALC's national council issued a manifesto denouncing the Castro government and its actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Cuba#Post-revolutionary_period

It goes on in more detail. On another note, I'm glad you've thrown your lot in with anarchists on this one, Kleber, it shows what your priorities are. Trotsky would be proud. :lol:

It certainly was. On two fronts.
Will you justify that assumption or are you going to act as though your opinion counts for something more than it really does? Class warfare, history teaches us, has two sides, and whoever is not on one side is on the other. Who do you stand with, then?

I think that, seeing as it still hasn’t instituted workers self management after over 50 years in power, we can safely say the government wasn’t revolutionary (though it did institute some nice healthcare/education reforms). Opposition to the regime was essential to defending the Cuban working class from the attack it was facing.Of course it has, you just reject it because it doesn't fly the color flag you want it to. See my previous links on the subject of working-class democracy, you need to do your homework.

See, there is honestly intentioned war censorship. Then there is being an opportunistic dickhead who exploits fear to crush anything you find inconvenient.Yet dissent remains legal and open in Cuba today, as it has been for years. How do you square your rhetoric when faced with this reality?

Workers? They were suppressing themselves?
It is very weird how someone can consider the banishment of strikes, the suppression of leftist revolutionary publications, the complete censorship of the press and assuming unlimited power and no accountability for ones actions as leftist.
Workers were not suppressing themselves, they were suppressing enemies to the Revolution in a time of great peril, as they should have. Through the organizations that made the revolution, through the vanguard of the working class, they made what measures they needed to to defend their gains.

The suppression of "leftist revolutionary publications" was reasonable because those publications were opposing the revolutionary government and acting as a fifth column.

There was complete censorship of the press when the Revolution was under attack, but today there is no such thing because the threat is not there anymore. Thus, censorship in Cuba was a function of defending the Revolution from its enemies in certain instances, while allowing free speech otherwise (such as today).

Assuming unlimited power is precisely what the workers must do. Only by conquering state power can the workers transform society in their image and in their interests while defending their gains. Cuba is a perfect example. Through working-class democracy (see my previous posts), the Cuban working class democratically controls society and directs the course of their own destiny. If you read my links with some care and attention, you'd see this is undeniably true.

KlÃ©ber

12th February 2010, 09:32

And here comes the RevLeft Castrophobe Brigade.
At least we aren't actual phobes like Castro himself.

In the first days after taking power, Castro expelled known anarcho-syndicalists from the Confederacíon de Trabajadores de Cuba (Cuban Workers Confederation, CTC). Because of this, and a general suspicion towards governments, the ALC's national council issued a manifesto denouncing the Castro government and its actions.

The suppression of "leftist revolutionary publications" was reasonable because those publications were opposing the revolutionary government and acting as a fifth column.

Your logic is circular. The anarchists were suppressed because they protested after being suppressed.

I'm glad you've thrown your lot in with anarchists on this one, Kleber, it shows what your priorities are.Democracy should be a priority for everybody.

leninwasarightwingnutcase

12th February 2010, 09:34

you post something from one of those banned anarchist magazines that shows they published or did anything that was counter-revolutionary or pro-imperialist?In the first days after taking power, Castro expelled known anarcho-syndicalists from the Confederacíon de Trabajadores de Cuba (Cuban Workers Confederation, CTC). Because of this, and a general suspicion towards governments, the ALC's national council issued a manifesto denouncing the Castro government and its actions.So in your view any opposition to the Castro regime is automatically support for counter-revolution and US imperialism. This is the mindset of a totalitarian fanatic and reactionary to the core. For the working class as a whole to take power there must be massive critical discussion of the manner in which society is developing and wide experimentation which actively involves people in the decision making processes. One of the first prerequisites for this is the right to denounce the new administration for failing to effectively represent the working class. Doing this is not siding with the old ruling class or imperialism.

Class warfare, history teaches us, has two sides, and whoever is not on one side is on the other. Who do you stand with, then?Patent shit. Consider revolutionary era France. The working class faced attack from both the bourgeoisie and the old feudal ruling class - who were also engaged in class conflict with one another. Same for Cuba - the working class was under attack by both US imperialism/the old ruling class and the Castro clique.

Of course it has, you just reject it because it doesn't fly the color flag you want it to.I reject it because its a sham. I have been to Cuba and I do know what I am talking about. The Cuban working class 'democratically' controls industry in a similar manner to which the American people 'democratically' control the US government. Form without function.

Really, the proof is in the pudding. Where real workers self management existed (ie revolutionary spain) there was innovation and economic transformation like the world has never seen - despite blockade, capital flight and civil war. Had similar economic organisation developed in Cuba, Cuba would have become a beacon of development and cultural emancipation, a shining inspiration to the world. It didn't, and that's a crying shame.

Chambered Word

12th February 2010, 10:28

CubaTruth.Info - UN Statistics
cubasolidarity.com

Ignore the idiots that label Cuba "State-Capitalist".

Besides, most of the Anarchists and Trotskyists on here just spend their lives being critics rather than Revolutionaries... So fuck them.

How about giving some proper arguments instead of getting on this forum, suddenly acting like King Shit and making as many ad hominems as possible against Trotskyists?

How many revolutionary struggles have you been in lately, anyway?

Criticizing Stalinism isn't about 'just being a critic', it's about having a revolution AND pointing it in the right direction.

12th February 2010, 10:36

Criticizing Stalinism isn't about 'just being a critic', it's about having a revolution AND pointing it in the right direction.
The right direction absolutely not being having the means of production owned by the state and having power consolidated into the hands of the few bureaucrats. That is why we criticise Stalinism. We are not completely opposed to every aspect of Stalin's USSR and we accept that living conditions were much better than under the monarchy. What we aim to do is see the room for improvement in the purportedly socialist societies of the past and, well, improve what we can during the next revolution so we don't get another mess such as the Soviet Union.

manic expression

12th February 2010, 16:15

At least we aren't actual phobes like Castro himself.
True, you could say he has a phobia for idiotic arguments, and no one can accuse you of that.

Your logic is circular. The anarchists were suppressed because they protested after being suppressed.
Wrong. They were suppressed because they openly opposed a revolutionary government while it was under attack from imperialism. This is about the political suppression of counterrevolutionary anarchists, the act you're referring to was hardly that, and the anarchist reaction to that act comfortably put them in the category of counterrevolutionaries.

Democracy should be a priority for everybody.
Counterrevolution is your priority.

So in your view any opposition to the Castro regime is automatically support for counter-revolution and US imperialism.
Not really, but under the circumstances of the time, any opposition to the revolutionary government was at best a misguided blow against the workers and a gain for the imperialists, and at worst a fifth column-type campaign against the Revolution. Plus, the anarchists were, at that point, fully against the revolutionary government, and thus counterrevolutionary. You're trying to make believe they opposed the revolutionary government...without opposing the revolutionary government.

Patent shit. Consider revolutionary era France. The working class faced attack from both the bourgeoisie and the old feudal ruling class - who were also engaged in class conflict with one another. Same for Cuba - the working class was under attack by both US imperialism/the old ruling class and the Castro clique.
:lol: First of all, "revolutionary era France" can mean about two dozen periods, all extremely different in many ways. Second of all, there was no significant class conflict between a feudal aristocracy and the bourgeoisie in Cuba, at least at the time running up to the Revolution. Third, you have yet to show us how the workers were "under attack" from Castro, aside from the fact that the poor anarchist counterrevolutionaries were shut down when they opposed the Revolution in the midst of an imperialist invasion.

I reject it because its a sham.
It might seem like a sham if you ignore reality for sectarian reasons. Please read my links, they disprove your opinions entirely.

Really, the proof is in the pudding. Where real workers self management existed (ie revolutionary spain) there was innovation and economic transformation like the world has never seen - despite blockade, capital flight and civil war. Had similar economic organisation developed in Cuba, Cuba would have become a beacon of development and cultural emancipation, a shining inspiration to the world. It didn't, and that's a crying shame.
The proof is in the pudding. The Cuban workers democratically control their society and their communities, and thus Cuba is "a beacon of development and cultural emancipation, a shining inspiration to the world". Like I said, you ignore and oppose all this, just because you don't see any black flags. But to each their own, I suppose.

KlÃ©ber

12th February 2010, 17:15

Counterrevolution is your priority.If I'm "Counterrevolution," open up a thread in Members forum and call for me to be restricted. Do this immediately and without hesitation. Counter-revolutionaries are not allowed here, and if I am one, I should be exposed and banned. If you make the accusation you should be prepared to back it up. Otherwise stop making baseless personal attacks in Learning forum.

manic expression

12th February 2010, 17:25

If I'm "Counterrevolution," open up a thread in Members forum and call for me to be restricted. Do this immediately and without hesitation. Counter-revolutionaries are not allowed here, and if I am one, I should be exposed and banned. If you make the accusation you should be prepared to back it up. Otherwise stop making baseless personal attacks in Learning forum.
First, it's not a personal attack if it's about your ideology, so stop playing victim when you can't think of a real argument. Second, many posters here are counterrevolutionary when it comes to Cuba, and you know what? I don't think they should be restricted because they're still leftists. Third, why would I want you restricted? It's far better to expose the bankruptcy of your politics directly. Fourth, this isn't about your persecution complex, this is about why Cuba is socialist.

KlÃ©ber

12th February 2010, 17:28

It is a baseless, disingenuous claim, and the fact that you have refused to accuse me through the proper channels proves that you have no evidence to back it up.

manic expression

12th February 2010, 17:32

It is a baseless, disingenuous claim, and the fact that you have refused to accuse me through the proper channels proves that you have no evidence to back it up.
As is your manner, you're avoiding the facts of the question: it is my contention that you oppose the Cuban Revolution and the revolutionary government of Cuba. Do you deny this, yes or no?

KlÃ©ber

12th February 2010, 17:42

Ovi

12th February 2010, 19:33

You still haven't answered my question: is the banishment of strikes leftist? Since you confuse central power with workers, did the workers decide to ban their own strikes?

manic expression

12th February 2010, 21:23

Yes, I deny that, although the question is very vague and could refer to multiple uprisings and governments. Your question is based on a presumption that Cuba has a socialist economy, and anyone who does not believe that is a counter-revolutionary. Furthermore, my answer does not mean that I unquestioningly support the Castro clique.
First, my question has nothing to do with your definition of Cuba: nowhere does my question depend on the label you choose give the country. Second, I'm not asking you about Fidel, I'm asking you about the Revolution. If you now support the Revolution and the revolutionary government, that is a welcome turn of events, and I will expect an endorsement of both the Revolution and the present government which is its direct product shortly. If you don't support those things, then that shows you to be in opposition to the Revolution. It's quite simple.

So try again.

You still haven't answered my question: is the banishment of strikes leftist? Since you confuse central power with workers, did the workers decide to ban their own strikes?
You'll have to show me a specific case where strikes were banned for me to answer that. Without a concrete example, this discussion would be theoretical, abstract and largely useless.

alphabetikal

13th February 2010, 00:26

the people of Cuba know that Cuba is socialist
Go on a may day 'protest' in Cuba and you will see millions of people screaming in support of THEIR revolution

Im saying THEIR revolution, because its nothing to do with us

They build it and live it and we should just support them as progressives from the outside

I recommend reading Yaffe's Che Guevara: The Economics of Revolution. It covers new undisclosed material from Cuban sources.

a

alphabetikal

13th February 2010, 00:33

Really, the proof is in the pudding. Where real workers self management existed (ie revolutionary spain) there was innovation and economic transformation like the world has never seen - despite blockade, capital flight and civil war. Had similar economic organisation developed in Cuba, Cuba would have become a beacon of development and cultural emancipation, a shining inspiration to the world. It didn't, and that's a crying shame.

Cubas achievements in medicine, education and democracy outstrip even some of the most developed countries in the world

I honestly can not believe you think you have the right to say that because 'you have been to Cuba'

Stupid European tourists go to Cuba to lie in the sun, doesnt give them an argument when they start mouthing off that its a backward country.

VIVA CUBA SOCIALISTA!

KlÃ©ber

13th February 2010, 05:02

First, my question has nothing to do with your definition of Cuba: nowhere does my question depend on the label you choose give the country. Second, I'm not asking you about Fidel, I'm asking you about the Revolution. If you now support the Revolution and the revolutionary government, that is a welcome turn of events, and I will expect an endorsement of both the Revolution and the present government which is its direct product shortly. If you don't support those things, then that shows you to be in opposition to the Revolution. It's quite simple.

So try again.How about you stop puffing up your chest and take off your imaginary military uniform. Then count to 10. Comrades of the POR(T) were struggling against Batista long before the PSP thugs who suppressed them, so there is no need for me as a Trotskyist to step through the hoops of the dishonest format of your veiled accusations. The POR(T) supported the overthrow of Batista, and tried to participate in the new "revolutionary" (it did not initially claim to be socialist) nationalist government. However they were suppressed from 1961 and banned in 1965. Your suggestion that one can not be for "the Revolution" and against Castro means that to support revolution in theory, it is necessary to support counter-revolution in practice.

Your real question appears to be: should workers sacrifice their political independence to uncritically worship the Castro clique? Every reasonable criticism I have made of Cuban government policy has made me an ultra-left or a counter-revolutionary according to you, and you are snottily disdainful of any evidence of working class discontent in Cuba. The answer to your question is no, but pretending that the bureaucratic dictatorship is somehow "revolutionary" or "socialist" appears to play a sort of palliative role for the egos of frustrated middle class leftists in the US.

You even admit that Castro and the Revolution didn't become "socialist" until after they were safely in power and receiving Soviet advisors, so your support for them seems tied to their alliance with the USSR, totally after the fact and related to your own subjective obsession with anything involving Russia. It's funny how you have a deathly hated of Trotskyism, the founder of whom called for principled defense of the USSR against an imperialist attack, but you don't seem to care about the Maoists and Hoxhaists whose namesakes all but called for a jihad on Moscow.

leninwasarightwingnutcase

13th February 2010, 08:15

Cubas achievements in medicine, education and democracy outstrip even some of the most developed countries in the world

I honestly can not believe you think you have the right to say that because 'you have been to Cuba'

Stupid European tourists go to Cuba to lie in the sun, doesnt give them an argument when they start mouthing off that its a backward country.

VIVA CUBA SOCIALISTA!
Of course healthcare, education and the standard of living experienced by the poor is vastly superior to that in private capitalist nations at a similar level of development.Please have the courtesy to read my posts before you start insulting me.

manic expression

13th February 2010, 09:09

I just love seeing Castrophobes flail around and run away from the issues when the nature of their slander gets exposed.

However they were suppressed from 1961 and banned in 1965.
So they opposed the revolutionary government as imperialism tried to attack it, just like the anarchist counterrevolutionaries. Thanks for confirming what was already apparent: Trotskyists were acting as counterrevolutionaries, and the workers had every right to put an end to that.

Your real question appears to be: should workers sacrifice their political independence to uncritically worship the Castro clique? Every reasonable criticism I have made of Cuban government policy has made me an ultra-left or a counter-revolutionary according to you, and you are snottily disdainful of any evidence of working class discontent in Cuba.My real question is quite clear. The workers' political independence is guaranteed and defended by the working-class democracy of Cuba. I've posted evidence of this, but you keep ignoring it because you hate facts. Further, your criticisms of the Cuban revolutionaries are that they suppressed counterrevolutionaries during a time of crisis and that you don't want to believe the host of sources that prove working-class democracy is at work. Hardly reasonable.

The answer to your question is no, but pretending that the bureaucratic dictatorship is somehow "revolutionary" or "socialist" appears to play a sort of palliative role for the egos of frustrated middle class leftists in the US.So you oppose (and slander) the Cuban Revolution. Noted.

You even admit that Castro and the Revolution didn't become "socialist" until after they were safely in power and receiving Soviet advisors,It was a socialist revolution from the start, it simply wasn't officially declared Marxist-Leninist until the US imperialists had been taken for a ride. Like I said, Fidel played the US imperialists like an old fiddle, but since you oppose the Revolution itself, then it's not surprising that you'd have a problem with this.

(http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:%20leoHighlightsIFrameClose%28%29;)

KlÃ©ber

13th February 2010, 09:23

So they opposed the revolutionary government as imperialism tried to attack it, just like the anarchist counterrevolutionaries. Thanks for confirming what was already apparent: Trotskyists were acting as counterrevolutionaries, and the workers had every right to put an end to that.There is a serious hole in your logic: how is it counter-revolutionary to criticize government policy in a socialist democracy?

So you oppose (and slander) the Cuban Revolution. Noted.Of course I support the Cuban Revolution. You imply that the Cuban Revolution refers to the entire flow of events since 1959, and that it is therefore impossible to support the overthrow of Batista, the ouster of US imperialist property, or nationalizations (all of which were demands of the Cuban Trotskyists long before Castro carried them out) without supporting every single action of the Castro regime.

It was a socialist revolution from the startThe July 26 Movement, like Castro himself was actually not officially "socialist" until official statements made after the seizure of power; this clerical change caused deep ruptures in Castro's organization and led him to purge his liberal nationalist ex-comrades from the M26J.

you don't want to believe the host of sources that prove working-class democracy is at work
I discredited this "host" of a source in the other thread.

manic expression

13th February 2010, 11:24

There is a serious hole in your logic: how is it counter-revolutionary to criticize government policy in a socialist democracy?
Not "government policy", but the revolutionary government itself. Constructive, supportive criticism would be more than welcome, but that's not what it is.

Of course I support the Cuban Revolution.
Then I will expect an endorsement of the J26M and its successor the PCC, the revolutionary Cuban government and the leaders of the Revolution (past and present) shortly.

The July 26 Movement, like Castro himself was actually not officially "socialist" until official statements made after the seizure of power; this clerical change caused deep ruptures in Castro's organization and led him to purge his liberal nationalist ex-comrades from the M26J.
Right, officially, even though dedicated communists were in high positions long before the Granma (Che, Raul, among others). Fidel, by being ambiguous in order to deprive the imperialists of the best excuse to crush the Revolution, played the capitalists like a violin, got into power and facilitated the working-class Revolution that continues today. The US actually started slowly backing away from Batista in his final days, when that would have never happened if Castro declared his political aims before state power was conquered. Lastly, the fact that you think it wise to put the Revolution in danger for nothing but your own personal ideological purity is just more proof that you're a utopian socialist who cares nothing for working-class power.

I discredited this "host" of a source in the other thread.
No, you clasped your hands over your ears and refused to deal with anything that could possibly disagree with you. You discredited something alright: your last shreds of intellectual integrity.

KlÃ©ber

13th February 2010, 11:55

Not "government policy", but the revolutionary government itself.Source?

Then I will expect an endorsement of the J26M and its successor the PCC, the revolutionary Cuban government and the leaders of the Revolution (past and present) shortly.You imply that the Cuban Revolution refers to the entire flow of events since 1959, and that it is therefore impossible to support the overthrow of Batista, the ouster of US imperialist property, or nationalizations (all of which were demands of the Cuban Trotskyists long before Castro carried them out) without supporting the leadership and actions of the Castro regime.

Right, officially, even though dedicated communists were in high positionsSo you admit that the M26J was not a socialist organization. The Guomindang in China had lots of Communists in high positions in the 1920's, that didn't make it socialist.

The US actually started slowly backing away from Batista in his final days, when that would have never happened if Castro declared his political aims before state power was conquered.And you have no proof that his "political aims" were socialist until after he had taken power.

leninwasarightwingnutcase

13th February 2010, 12:36

Arguing with ideologues invariably results in being continually misunderstood and having to repeat yourself ad nausem. I think I have made myself pretty clear and this is learning, not a debate forum, so I’m only going to restate my position one more time.

the anarchists were, at that point, fully against the revolutionary government, and thus counterrevolutionary. You're trying to make believe they opposed the revolutionary government...without opposing the revolutionary government.No, I am arguing that the government was counterrevolutionary and that the Anarchist opposition to it was revolutionary. How have you not understood this? You remind me of those Christian fundies who can’t comprehend that we don’t believe in Satan.

For an organisation which wields a great deal of power to be revolutionary it must represent the working class. Given the scope, variety and complexity of opinion in any working class it is inconceivable that an organisation can effectively represent the working class unless it receives massive critical input from the working class. This can’t happen when it suppresses any other organisation which opposes it. It is inconceivable that an organisation can remain revolutionary (ie representative of the working class) unless people are permitted to argue that it is not so. It is immaterial to this point whether the critics are correct (though I think in the case of Cuba they were).

Second of all, there was no significant class conflict between a feudal aristocracy and the bourgeoisie in CubaI never claimed there was. I brought up revolutionary era France to refute your claim that “Class warfare, history teaches us, has two sides, and whoever is not on one side is on the other”. Here there were at least 3 sides – the old feudal ruling class, the bourgeoisie and the workers. Likewise in Cuba we had the old ruling class, Castro and his goons and the workers – 3 way conflict.

you have yet to show us how the workers were "under attack" from CastroThe Dolgoff book I linked does that.

It might seem like a sham if you ignore reality for sectarian reasons. Please read my links, they disprove your opinions entirely ... The Cuban workers democratically control their society and their communities, and thus Cuba is "a beacon of development and cultural emancipation, a shining inspiration to the world"Democracy is a sliding scale, not an either or. As I said before this ‘democratic control’ is at best comparable to that which exists in western states. This is not socialist and nothing to be proud of.

For a specific example, let’s take the education system. By world standards it is excellent – but that’s the thing it has a similar structure, standards and goals to education in capitalist countries. Schools teach obedience and a work ethic, just like in the west. In a real socialist society, one would expect education and it’s purposes to be radically altered – aimed at developing free people and giving students as much control over their own development and learning as possible. This is the sort of thing that concerns me, not the colour of flags.

manic expression

13th February 2010, 16:21

Source?
I already posted as much. If you think opposing the government is merely "criticizing policy", then you're simply not willing to look at the situation.

You imply that the Cuban Revolution refers to the entire flow of events since 1959, and that it is therefore impossible to support the overthrow of Batista, the ouster of US imperialist property, or nationalizations (all of which were demands of the Cuban Trotskyists long before Castro carried them out) without supporting the leadership and actions of the Castro regime.
You can oppose Batista and the working-class revolution that took place. Many gusanos did precisely that. Huber Matos is one of the more well-known examples. Sure, he opposed Batista and worked to fight him, but as the class warfare became more pointed, he betrayed the Revolution and sided with imperialism.

So you admit that the M26J was not a socialist organization. The Guomindang in China had lots of Communists in high positions in the 1920's, that didn't make it socialist.
What makes an organization socialist is its willingness and ability to carry the struggle of the workers in practice. Its official definition is wholly secondary, especially if that definition is made in order to fool the imperialists, which is precisely what happened. By the way, the fact that you put your personal moral purity above the interests of the workers is noted.

And you have no proof that his "political aims" were socialist until after he had taken power.
Of course they were. One of the first acts of the revolutionary government was to facilitate working-class land reform, and literacy campaigns. Expropriating the capitalists was the first item on the J26M's list. But who cares about history when you can slander revolutionaries?

manic expression

13th February 2010, 16:33

No, I am arguing that the government was counterrevolutionary and that the Anarchist opposition to it was revolutionary. How have you not understood this? You remind me of those Christian fundies who can’t comprehend that we don’t believe in Satan.So you think the Cuban government was and is carrying forth the interests of the workers or not? There are two sides to every modern revolutionary situation, not five.

For an organisation which wields a great deal of power to be revolutionary it must represent the working class. Given the scope, variety and complexity of opinion in any working class it is inconceivable that an organisation can effectively represent the working class unless it receives massive critical input from the working class. This can’t happen when it suppresses any other organisation which opposes it. It is inconceivable that an organisation can remain revolutionary (ie representative of the working class) unless people are permitted to argue that it is not so. It is immaterial to this point whether the critics are correct (though I think in the case of Cuba they were).
The Cuban government doesn't "suppress any other organization which opposes it." That's just a fiction that you keep pushing. If you read my links, you'd see that anti-government dissent is open and permitted in Cuba.

The J26M did receive massive input from the working class. That's why it lasted as long as it did. You really think a few dozen guys in the Sierra Maestra with few supplies and weapons brought down Batista by themselves? Without vital support from the workers and campesinos, the J26M wouldn't have had a chance in the world.

Much of the history of the Cuban Revolution was communists persuading people, through arguments, to follow the revolutionary path. They said, "do you like the land reforms? That's socialism." And the masses agreed.

I never claimed there was. I brought up revolutionary era France to refute your claim that “Class warfare, history teaches us, has two sides, and whoever is not on one side is on the other”. Here there were at least 3 sides – the old feudal ruling class, the bourgeoisie and the workers. Likewise in Cuba we had the old ruling class, Castro and his goons and the workers – 3 way conflict.
Funny you should mention it, because we're not living in 18th Century France, are we? When Le Roi starts making royal decrees against the Cuban Revolution, let me know. Until then, you're talking nonsense that has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Ancient Rome saw conflict between Patricians, Knights, Plebians and Slaves...therefore, your logic would tell us that revolutions in capitalist societies 2,000 years later can have 4 classes to side with. Is that the argument you'd like to make?

The Dolgoff book I linked does that.
Cite something specific, the Cuban revolutionaries were pushing forth the workers' interests at every turn, this is essentially an unimpeachable fact of history.

Democracy is a sliding scale, not an either or. As I said before this ‘democratic control’ is at best comparable to that which exists in western states. This is not socialist and nothing to be proud of.
And as I said before, you're speaking in contradiction of the many verified studies I've posted. You're arguing against the plain fact that Cuba is a country that runs off of working-class democracy, and your "sliding scale" is just your freshest excuse to oppose that very institution. If you read my links, we wouldn't have to go over this time and again.

For a specific example, let’s take the education system. By world standards it is excellent – but that’s the thing it has a similar structure, standards and goals to education in capitalist countries. Schools teach obedience and a work ethic, just like in the west. In a real socialist society, one would expect education and it’s purposes to be radically altered – aimed at developing free people and giving students as much control over their own development and learning as possible. This is the sort of thing that concerns me, not the colour of flags.
What's wrong with work ethic, first of all? Discipline, secondly, is a cornerstone of revolutionary societies. Without discipline, working-class organization fizzles. Without discipline, working-class state power falters. But most importantly, if this is your justification for comparing the Cuban education system to the American education system (for instance), you have no justification for such a comparison and its based purely on your own warped bias. Let me know when you come up with something concrete and useful.

Ovi

13th February 2010, 18:13

You'll have to show me a specific case where strikes were banned for me to answer that. Without a concrete example, this discussion would be theoretical, abstract and largely useless.
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6412

A series of anti-union laws were passed. Under Law 678 (23 December 1959) collective bargaining was suspended for 120 days – in fact it never resumed. In March 1960 the Minister of Labour was given the power to revise collective agreements. (1987 p.229)
By the end of 1960 the right to strike, enshrined in law since 1934 and included in early legislation, was dropped from the Law of Labor and Social Security Procedures (No.938). The Law of Labor Organisation in 1961 (No.962) imposed the rule of one union per enterprise, one per sector and one national federation.
Government and PSP leaders hammered away at the new line. Carlos Rafael Rodríguez said: “We hear from many quarters the idea that workers should decide by majority vote… Collective management is destructive. Administrators should have, have and will have the last word.”
http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/revistaweb/1960s/cuba/alguilera-manzano

Workers needed to develop conciencia of the new conditions: the imperative of pursuing policies to eliminate unemployment and satisfy the needs of the clases populares as a whole. Prior to the October 1960 nationalizations, the state had already demanded moderation from the working class; afterward, it completely disavowed the right or the need to strike

RED DAVE

13th February 2010, 18:16

Let me know when you come up with something concrete and useful.That's what I keep asking you on the other Cuba thread.

What are the concrete institutions by which the Cuban workers control the conditions of their work and the distribution of surplus value?

Anyone with any knowledge of capitalism can give a pretty good outline of how the capitalist class controls the conditions of work and this distribution of surplus value. How is this done is Cuba, which is allegedly a workers state?

RED DAVE

leninwasarightwingnutcase

13th February 2010, 18:53

So you think the Cuban government was and is carrying forth the interests of the workers or not?Was the Atlee government and its backers carrying forth the interests of the British workers? To an extent, but as concessions to placate the workers in order to maintain themselves as the ruling class rather than as a road to a classless society. That’s how we see you guys – violent reformists.

The Cuban government doesn't "suppress any other organization which opposes it." That's just a fiction that you keep pushing.
The suppression of "leftist revolutionary publications" was reasonable because those publications were opposing the revolutionary governmentPick one.

Funny you should mention it, because we're not living in 18th Century France, are we?You made a claim about what all history teaches us. I think it’s fair that I refer to any piece of history to refute it

Cite something specific, the Cuban revolutionaries were pushing forth the workers' interests at every turn, this is essentially an unimpeachable fact of history.
Plight of the Workers
The promised abolition of house rents and increasing wages of the lowest paid workers was not kept. Likewise, full pay for sick and retired workers was eliminated. There was no lessening of the severe food rations in 1973. One of the main resolutions of the 13th Congress of the Cuban Confederation of Labor (CTC), Nov., 1973, restored the worst features of the capitalist wage system -- payment according to output, instead of according to need. In this speech to the closing session of the Congress, Castro tried to justify this policy: "... paying the same wage for the same type of work without taking into account the effort required to do it, is an equalitarian principle we must correct ... payment should be measured in physical terms according to the complexity and skill required to do the job ..." In line with this policy, 132 million pesos were allotted to raise wages for technicians in order to spur them to "increase their productivity." (19) At the First Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba (Dec. 1975), the motto "From each according to his ability; to each according to his WORK." was displayed in huge red letters.
Wages are linked to work quotas. Every worker is given a quota. If the quota is not fullfilled, wages are proportionally reduced. Purchase of scarce appliances (television sets, refrigerators, washing machines, etc.) are allotted not according to the worker's need but according to his correct attitude (obeying orders, patriotism, overfullfillment of work quotas, etc.) The faithful wage slave will be allowed to spend his vacation at the better resorts and be granted first access to housing. (20)
Actually, the 13th Congress of the CTC rejected the right of the Unions to defend the interests of the workers. According to the resolutions, there are no conflicts. The State, the Communist Party, and the unions are partners cooperating always to produce "more and better products and services; to promote punctual attendance at work; to raise political consciousness; to follow the Communist Party directives ..." (21)
To get a job, every worker must carry an identity card and a file with a full work record of his "merits" and "demerits." "Merits" include voluntary unpaid labor, overfullfillment of work quotas, working overtime without pay, postponing retirement to keep on working, defense of State property, and a high level of political consciousness. "Demerits" are "activities that negatively affect production, disturb discipline, lower the level of political consciousness ..." (22)
In the Spring of 1971, the government proclaimed a law against "loafing," compelling all able-bodied men between the age of 17 and 60 to work. Worker absenteeism was 20% in late 1970. Penalties for the "crime of loafing" fluctuate between house arrest and one or two years of forced labor. (23)This is a small selection. The whole of chapter 13 is worth a read: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/bright/dolgoff/cubanrevolution/chapter13.html

And as I said before, you're speaking in contradiction of the many verified studies I've posted. You're arguing against the plain fact that Cuba is a country that runs off of working-class democracyYou asked me to cite, so I don’t think it’s unfair that I do the same. RED DAVE put my questions very concisely.

What's wrong with work ethic, first of all?It kills creativity, initiative, curiosity, self-activity and numerous other virtues essential to active participation in the organisation of society.

Discipline, secondly, is a cornerstone of revolutionary societies. Without discipline, working-class organization fizzles. Without discipline, working-class state power falters. But most importantly, if this is your justification for comparing the Cuban education system to the American education system (for instance), you have no justification for such a comparison and its based purely on your own warped bias. Let me know when you come up with something concrete and useful.Well, here’s what your lovely rhetoric looks like in practice:
Cuban Youth Rebels
In the spring of 1972, Jaime Crombat, Secretary of the Young Communist League, complained that among the youth there was a "... backward minority who neither study nor work --- or do so only under pressure -- those who, permeated by the old ideology ... maintain a conduct contrary to socialist morals ..." (16) Mesa-Lago's painstaking research unearths the true situation. He deserves to be quoted at length:
"... in spite of the remarkable progress in education, i.e., reduction in the illiteracy rate ... serious deficiencies were reported. In April, 1971, out of the number of school-age youngsters 14 to 16 years old, there were 300,000 who neither worked nor studied: 23% among 14 year olds, 44% among 15 year olds, and 60% among 16 year olds. The dropout rate was worse -- more in rural areas (88%) than in urban areas (66%). In elementary schools, 69% of those who attended classes in 1965 did not finish in 1971 ... students showed a lack of concern for socialist property ..." According to the Minister of Education, 50% of the books sent to school were lost every year due to carelessness. Castro exploded in indignation: "... there is something wrong when we have to educate our young people in the need to care for socialist property ... loafers, people who don't work, criminals are the ones who destroy ..."
... in the same speech Castro denounced the youth for wearing "extravagant" foreign fashions [Too tight pants and long hair in the case of boys. Too short mini-skirts in the case of girls.], liking "decadent literature." In some cases, "... the youth were used by coutner-revolutionaries against the Revolution ..." Castro found "residual manifestations" of prostitution and homosexuality. In 1967, minors participated in 41% of all crimes committed in the nation. Four years later the percentage rises to 50%... (16)
... in 1972, Joe Nicholson, Jr., a sympathetic journalist who visited Cuba, asked Cuban officials why boys are not allowed to wear long hair. The official answered that if one boy is allowed to be different in hair, dress or behavior, the rest might request the right to be different, too. This in turn, would create controversy, something that was considered incorrect... (17)
Measures to correct this situation included compulsory military service, military units to aid production, and to work in construction, irrigation and other projects. Nevertheless, it was reported that the number of youngsters in the 13 to 16 year bracket who committed offenses remained unchanged. Castro alleged that the high juvenile delinquincy rate was due to the fact that they were exempt from criminal punishments by the courts. In May 1973, legal liability was reduced from 18 to 16 years and tough penalties up to life imprisonment were imposed for crimes against the economy, abnormal sexual behavior and other offenses.
... The drop-out problem was partially solved through the SMO (compulsory military service) and the Youth Centennial Columns. The SMO recruits numbered 300,000 in 1972 (about one third of all youngsters between 16 and 17). In 1973 both these youth organizations were merged into the Youth Army of Work (EJT) ... (18)

KurtFF8

13th February 2010, 19:58

So far this thread is full of a lot of baseless references to the situation in Cuba without even describing these conditions in any detail. For example: "The working class has no actual control over the means of production, it's just formal!" or "All criticism of the Cuban revolutionary government was counter-revolutionary" etc.

There are so many generalizations and baseless attacks that this thread is hardly a thread about Cuba and more of a thread about letting competing theories of revolutionary socialism "duke it out."

I've still yet to see in this thread:
-What the nature of those Anarchist papers' writings were
-Exactly why they were suppressed
-Real arguments for or against worker ownership in Cuba (except for perhaps this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1670256&postcount=7))

This thread isn't doing much to "teach" anyone in the "learning" sub-forum anything other than "The Left is full of infighting on a shallow intellectual level."

There is some real good discussion to be had about Cuba but I'm just not finding it in a thread like this, and threads like this can be to common sometimes. The theoretical differences are just being masked by personal slanders, distortions of history, romanticized versions of history, etc.

How can the counter-productive nature of this thread not be painfully obvious to all participating?

RED DAVE

13th February 2010, 20:10

Real arguments for or against worker ownership in Cuba (except for perhaps this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1670256&postcount=7))I suggest you go back to the links in this post. Not one of them gives any evidence for direct workers control of industry on any level, except for negative evidence.

RED DAVE

KlÃ©ber

13th February 2010, 22:02

I already posted as much. If you think opposing the government is merely "criticizing policy", then you're simply not willing to look at the situation.You did not post anything that remotely proves that the anarchists or Trotskyists presented any sort of armed threat to the government. You have just talked in circles and avoided all demands to post more comprehensive sources which actually back up your ludicrous claims.

You are the one who won't read sources when they are posted in front of their eyes.

You can oppose Batista and the working-class revolution that took place. Many gusanos did precisely that. Huber Matos is one of the more well-known examples. Sure, he opposed Batista and worked to fight him, but as the class warfare became more pointed, he betrayed the Revolution and sided with imperialism.Huber Matos opposed Castro's declaration that he had become a socialist.

The POR(T) had been demanding that the revolution adopt a socialist course long before Castro became socialist.

Therefore you are just talking in circles and smearing people, as always.

Furthermore you really need to use more polite language in this forum.

What makes an organization socialist is its willingness and ability to carry the struggle of the workers in practice.
So the AFL-CIO is more socialist than the PSL because the unions actually do something IN PRACTICE! Same old Menshevik nonsense

Its official definition is wholly secondary, especially if that definition is made in order to fool the imperialists, which is precisely what happened. By the way, the fact that you put your personal moral purity above the interests of the workers is noted.How about the fact that your tiny petty bourgeois head can't realize the difference between "the revolution" and Castro himself.

Of course they were. One of the first acts of the revolutionary government was to facilitate working-class land reform, and literacy campaigns. Expropriating the capitalists was the first item on the J26M's list. But who cares about history when you can slander revolutionaries?
You're distorting history. Castro did not officially become socialist until after he took power. First you admit it, then you backtrack and convince yourself that you were always right, USSR won the space race and is therefore socialist, etc. It's impossible to even teach you anything.

manic expression

13th February 2010, 22:21

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6412
http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/revistaweb/1960s/cuba/alguilera-manzano
a.) Check the dates. Read Cuban history. Make connections between the two.
b.) Strikes against a working-class government would be workers striking against themselves. It's not only illogical, but it's little more than an opportunity for opportunistic reactionaries. Lech Walesa's campaign for capitalism in Poland is one prominent example. Under working-class state power, "labor" need not bargain anymore, for the leaders of society have no reason to bargain in such a manner.

You did not post anything that remotely proves that the anarchists or Trotskyists presented any sort of armed threat to the government.
Neither did Lech Walesa. Who cares?

Huber Matos opposed Castro's declaration that he had become a socialist.

The POR(T) had been demanding that the revolution adopt a socialist course long before Castro became socialist.
Yes, and thus Huber Matos is a good example of someone who opposed Batista while opposing the Cuban Revolution.

The POR(T), from everything you've provided, showed itself to fall under the same category, being distinguished from Matos only in the label it gave itself.

So the AFL-CIO is more socialist than the PSL because the unions actually do something IN PRACTICE! Same old Menshevik nonsense
The AFL-CIO doesn't lead the organization of campaigns and marches against imperialism, it doesn't promote revolutionary socialism in the electoral arena, it doesn't mobilize workers to directly challenge police brutality and racism that terrorizes their communities, it doesn't do anything the PSL does when it comes to pushing forth the interests of workers. So you're wrong. "Menshevik nonsense" would be supporting the overthrow of a reactionary government (the Tsar/Batista) while opposing the conquest of power by the workers (the Bolsheviks/J26M).

How about the fact that your tiny petty bourgeois head can't realize the difference between "the revolution" and Castro himself.
Except Fidel has retired from politics, and the Revolution marches on.

You're distorting history. Castro did not officially become socialist until after he took power. First you admit it, then you backtrack and convince yourself that you were always right, USSR won the space race and is therefore socialist, etc. It's impossible to even teach you anything.
I see you're trying to dodge my points yet again. I've always said that Castro did not officially declare his political intentions until after the Revolution's victory, and I've always pointed out that this was a strategically wise move. By remaining officially ambiguous, the imperialists were fooled and by the time they realized what had happened, the Cuban workers were ready to defend their revolutionary gains. Quite impressive stuff, really. But since you put your personal moral purity above working-class interests, it's natural that you'd find a way to slander this.

manic expression

13th February 2010, 22:30

Was the Atlee government and its backers carrying forth the interests of the British workers? To an extent, but as concessions to placate the workers in order to maintain themselves as the ruling class rather than as a road to a classless society. That’s how we see you guys – violent reformists.
First, that's a contradiction. Second, that's an absurd comparison because Atlee, for starters, never abolished private property, expropriated the capitalist class, defeated imperialism for the first time in the Americas, reorganized society along collective lines and established working-class state power. But since you're RevLeft's king of irrelevant comparisons, this isn't all that bad given your track record.

Pick one.Both are valid under different circumstances. But subtlety was never something you've understood, apparently.

You made a claim about what all history teaches us. I think it’s fair that I refer to any piece of history to refute itI think it's fair that you're pulling irrelevant examples out of thin air instead of dealing with the issue. It's fair because you lack context, to say the least. Yeah, let's directly compare the class struggle of Ancient Rome to the Cuban Revolution...:lol:

This is a small selection. The whole of chapter 13 is worth a read:You know what else is worth a read? The living conditions created by the Revolution that exist today:
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/cuba_statistics.html

You asked me to cite, so I don’t think it’s unfair that I do the same.I never said it was unfair, I simply stated the fact that you're ignoring valid sources that I've already shown you. If you persist in your unwillingness to learn about Cuba, then that's not my problem, it's yours.

It kills creativity, initiative, curiosity, self-activity and numerous other virtues essential to active participation in the organisation of society.
Well, here’s what your lovely rhetoric looks like in practice:Right, because there's no creativity, initiative, curiosity, self-activity and the like in Cuba. You really are making stuff up now. Cuba is one of the most creative, vibrant, dynamic countries on the planet, and it's no small part of the revolutionary government's initiatives and education. The fact that work ethic is also promoted as a way of making work less tedious, less time consuming and all around more beneficial to workers might contradict your moral collage, but it's perfectly in line with progressive thought.

But then again, you're only in this for your own virtue, right? Who cares about what kind of education the Cuban workers want to establish?

RED DAVE

13th February 2010, 22:30

Strikes against a working-class government would be workers striking against themselves.Unless, of course, it's not a working class government.

Under working-class state power, "labor" need not bargain anymore, for the leaders of society have no reason to bargain in such a manner.Unless, of course, it's not a working class government.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate the concrete institutions by which the Cuban workers control industry.

RED DAVE

manic expression

13th February 2010, 22:37

RED DAVE

13th February 2010, 22:51

Still waiting for you to demonstrate the concrete institutions by which the Cuban workers control industry.
It's all laid out quite clear. Please go to my first post in this thread, it provides links which explain, in detail, the processes of the Cuban electoral process, which determine the leaders of the Cuban state, which controls the vast majority of industry in Cuba.Okay! I've read every one of these links. There is nothing in any of them that shows workers control of industry.

And here's how you put it:

the Cuban electoral process, which determine the leaders of the Cuban state, which controls the vast majority of industry in Cuba.What your links demonstrate, over and over again, is an easily manipulable electoral process, without political parties or organized tendencies, with no access to mass media by minority points of view, which controls industry, top down.

What you have done is demonstrate that there is no workers control of industry in Cuba. There are no workers councils on any levels, no direct ability by workers to make day-to-day decisons or to elect management on the shop floor or any other level.

Bureaucratic state capitalism in action: right there for anyone to see who isn't in denial.

RED DAVE

KlÃ©ber

13th February 2010, 22:52

Neither did Lech Walesa. Who cares? The fact that he was able to rally the working class behind privatizations just shows how popular your phony socialism was with actual workers. The CIA didn't buy off the entire Polish working class, and you can't blame everything on the failures of "This great man," "this evil man" "that other powerful man" etc.

The AFL-CIO doesn't lead the organization of campaigns and marches against imperialism, it doesn't promote revolutionary socialism in the electoral arena,
M26J/Castro were not "socialist" until after coming to power. Stop talking in circles. By your logic, the PSL should abandon communism and pretend to be liberal until it gets elected, or else it will get crushed by US imperialism.

"Menshevik nonsense" would be supporting the overthrow of a reactionary government (the Tsar/Batista) while opposing the conquest of power by the workers (the Bolsheviks/J26M).A working class vanguard can not be unconscious. The Bolsheviks were a revolutionary socialist party. The M26J was a bourgeois nationalist guerrilla army and urban support network.

The M26J did oppose socialism. It was not until Castro moved towards the USSR diplomatically, while in power, that "socialism" became his or the state's policy.

The POR(T) on the other hand were the real Bolshevik Leninists. They demanded socialism from the beginning and virtually all of Castro's "socialist" moves or progressive campaigns started out as POR(T) demands.

Except Fidel has retired from politics, and the Revolution marches on.Except all facts and common sense (abolition of max. wage) show that social inequality is increasing.

I've always said that Castro did not officially declare his political intentions until after the Revolution's victorySo admit that you think Castro proved Lenin wrong by establishing "socialism" through an apolitical military coup, without the conscious action of the socialist working class.

Quite impressive stuff, really.
Admit that you are anti-Leninist.

never said it was unfair, I simply stated the fact that you're ignoring valid sources that I've already shown you. You don't read sources, you just troll. Your sources are always horribly irrelevant and only someone of your mental capacity could grab the first article they find on BBC about some people having a backyard barbecue and turn that into proof that there are socialist relations of production.

Also, notice how you still haven't provided any justification for the suppression of Cuban Trotskyists and anarchists. All you are doing is wasting people's time and polluting the Learning forum with crap.

Nolan

14th February 2010, 00:26

Ok Lefties. Let's put on our pretending caps:

Congratulations.

A while back, you stopped being armchair revolutionaries. You successfully mobilized the proletariat and overthrew capitalism in....Guatemala, for poops and giggles. We at Revleft are all so very proud of you. There is thread after thread praising you.

Since you and your people's army played the capitalists like a fiddle and didn't renew Guatemala's commitment to be a banana republic like you were instructed, they are naturally very upset with you. You then attempt to turn Guatemala into a "real socialist state" and not "state capitalism."

The USA and their lackeys slap an embargo on your ass. This causes many problems. You have no access to markets where the US dollar circulates, and you simply can't get certain foods and medicines, not to mention better technology. Since your leftie comrades gloriously overthrew the evil fake socialist red bourgeoisie in Cuba and Venezuela but sadly were stopped by capitalist intervention, they are out of the picture. You hope Europe and China throw you some crumbs, and occasionally they do, though it isn't nearly enough. Even though you reform it tremendously, your economy stagnates and problem after problem appear within weeks, but you remain committed to complete worker self-management with no state control whatsoever. Workers having a large say and electing officials simply isn't enough, fuck the fact that Guatemala is a very poor country in no way ready for pure socialism and getting worse. The capitalist media in the states portrays your economy as stagnating due to socialism, and naturally those fleeing from your communist hellhole get special treatment in capitalist countries and are coached before interviews on tv. You are surrounded on all sides by hostile nations with troops on your borders. CIA agents and agents from other countries are up your ass constantly. Many of your government officials and proletariat leaders in no way associated with the government are assassinated by car bomb and poisoned bath soap. But even though all this is taking place, you remain committed to your values. Even though most of your populace is living in poverty still, they still wholeheartedly support the revolution. You are demonized by the corporate media on a daily basis using both fabricated and exaggerated stories, and anyone who challenges this is labeled "politically correct" and a commie. Hell, some people are starving in the country, but your populace supports the revolution despite their situation, so maybe, just maybe, you'll pull it off and revolution can spread.

But you forgot one serious hurdle - The opportunistic, new-and-improved "real" Marxists have shown up. The Anarchists, operating under clueless business as usual and horrified at the prospect of communism being achieved under a red flag and not a black one, oppose you. These two groups take advantage of your people's' plight. Suddenly, your solid support disappears. No matter how many times you send them a friendly request to fuck off and find their own revolution (and maybe a box of chocolates, you don't want to hurt their feelings, right?) they just won't go away. So, your already unstable country plunges even further into chaos. One day, you are assassinated by an exile terrorist group ("freedom fighters") and your government collapses. The bourgeois media paints this as the final proof that "real" communism can't work. Interest in Marxism drops, and the EZLN and the FARC disband. Revleft doesn't get the same traffic anymore, and we get a record number of trolls mocking us. Edelweiss is pissed because he can't sell as many t-shirts.

RED DAVE

14th February 2010, 00:33

Ok ... t-shirts.Congratulations on justifying bureaucratic control over the working class.

After all, those of you who will control the economy of whatever country (Guatemala?) has the misfortune to back you and your ilk for state power, obviously know better than those ignorant workers.

RED DAVE

Nolan

14th February 2010, 00:39

Congratulations on justifying bureaucratic control over the working class.

After all, those of you who will control the economy of whatever country (Guatemala?) has the misfortune to back you and your ilk for state power, obviously know better than those ignorant workers.

RED DAVE

......those ignorant workers.

Your words, not mine. So is it a valid point or not? Your problem is that you're completely inflexible. You seem to forget that we have powerful enemies.

KlÃ©ber

14th February 2010, 00:41

You then attempt to turn Guatemala into a "real socialist state" and not "state capitalism."
You don't get it. State capitalism is unavoidable if you're a tiny backwards country against a capitalist world economy. Lenin and Trotsky were running a state capitalist industrial economy, and so was Stalin. No difference there. State capitalism is a step towards socialism. The point is that Stalin, when he declared the "victory of socialist construction" in the USSR, changed the definition of the words, that's literal "revisionism." If you confuse the definitions of socialism and state capitalism, that legitimizes the inequality and abandons the struggle to construct socialism. There will be no special stores and restaurants, mansions and limousines for people of high rank in "socialism."

These two groups take advantage of your people's' plight. Suddenly, your solid support disappears. No matter how many times you send them a friendly request to fuck off and find their own revolution (and maybe a box of chocolates, you don't want to hurt their feelings, right?) they just won't go away. So, your already unstable country plunges even further into chaos. One day, you are assassinated by an exile terrorist group ("freedom fighters") and your government collapses.
Why would having freedom of thought and discussion lead to civil war, foreign invasion and restoration?

Has this happened anywhere? Have anarchists ever brought down a socialist republic with their ultraleft utopianism? As I recall, only Stalinist bureaucrats have ever brought down a "socialist" government with their rightist revisionism.

RED DAVE

14th February 2010, 00:47

Your words, not mine. So is it a valid point or not? Your problem is that you're completely inflexible. You seem to forget that we have powerful enemies.What does the fact that the workers have powerful enemies have to do with your belief that they don't have the capacity to run society?

Even though you reform it tremendously, your economy stagnates and problem after problem appear within weeks, but you remain committed to complete worker self-management with no state control whatsoever.Fabulous that you counterpose worker self-managment and state control.

It would seem that your concept of a workers state involves state control over the workers system of self-management.

Can we spell b-u-r-e-a-u-c-r-a-c-y, Comrades?

In fact, can we spell s-t-a-t-e c-a-p-i-t-a-l-i-s-m?

RED DAVE

Nolan

14th February 2010, 00:50

What does the fact that the workers have powerful enemies have to do with your belief that they don't have the capacity to run society?

Did I ever say that? Do you understand what not ready for pure socialism means?

Fabulous that you counterpose worker self-managment and state control.

It would seem that your concept of a workers state involves state control over the workers system of self-management.

Can we spell b-u-r-e-a-u-c-r-a-c-y, Comrades?

In fact, can we spell s-t-a-t-e c-a-p-i-t-a-l-i-s-m?

RED DAVE

I never said that either. Stop putting words in my mouth.

RED DAVE

14th February 2010, 01:05

Did I ever say that? Do you understand what not ready for pure socialism means?What is unpure socialism?

Did Marx talk about it in the Near-Communist Manifesto (http://www.jewcy.com/post/karl_marx_predicted_hannah_montana_would_go_nude), or did Lenin mention it in What Is Perhaps to Be Don (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1387603)e?

RED DAVE

Nolan

14th February 2010, 01:08

What is unpure socialism?

Did Marx talk about it in the Near-Communist Manifesto, or did Lenin mention it in What Is Perhaps to Be Done?

RED DAVE

Didn't you get the memo? Reality doesn't always match theory.

Jimmie Higgins

14th February 2010, 01:20

Ok Lefties. Let's put on our pretending caps:It's telling that in your hypothetical scenario, the working class is presented as completely passive and can only support or not support the revolution.

Not only is this a very top-down view of revolution and socialism, it is also just plain mechanical. A non-passive working class, one that actively and consciously participates in the "self-emancipation of the working class" will necessarily be one that is not easily swayed by capitalist propaganda and a working class that has seized their workplaces and land and is in the process of reshaping society will benefit from actual democratic debates with groups arguing different points of view.

Sure the revolution could fail as past worker (or even bourgoise) revolutions have failed - maybe the working class would be decimated by war or famine and loose the ability to organize itself and rule - maybe the US just decided to nuke the country - or maybe this is why broad hypothetical situations just aren't very useful.

A while back, you stopped being armchair revolutionaries.Comments like these are completely unproductive - particularly since there are many people here from various political traditions who are very active in the working class and political movements around us.

RED DAVE

14th February 2010, 01:30

What is unpure socialism?

Did Marx talk about it in the Near-Communist Manifesto, or did Lenin mention it in What Is Perhaps to Be Done?
Didn't you get the memo?Sorry.

Reality doesn't always match theory.That is a very strange thing for a Marxist to believe in considering that one of our principles is the unity of theory and practice. So, you bureaucrats are the "practical" types while we Trots, et al., are "armchair theorists."

Translation: It's okay to impose bureaucratic controls over the working class.

RED DAVE

LeninistKing

14th February 2010, 01:39

Fidel Castro's crime in this evil world is being a mountain of honesty. Fidel Castro has never lied in his life, he is a saint. I think that it is a duty of the worlds left to support the Cuban Revolution. The world's left cannot be so divided between trotskists, stalinists, anarchists, leninists, maoists, etc. divided we are doomed

.

.

I think it's rather narrow approach to label Cuba as democratic, dictatorial, socialist etc. and especially in ideological sense. And, it requires extensive reading of Cuban history, revolution, development etc. to adequately understand the current circumstances. Besides, How on earth one can expect Cuba to become truly socialist or communist or whatever when her next door neighbour is her biggest enemy? Imposes decades of blockades and threatens to overthrow the government and possibly invade the island to establish "real" democracy? etc. To assume that without central government people can defend themselves effectively is quite wish-thinking in Cuban case.

I think Cuban people and government so far have done splendid job to defend their revolution and advance towards a better society - communism. To sit in the West and criticize (like armchair revolutionaries) Cuba, DPRK or any other country in this matter for not being socialist or communist enough is quite unfair and ignorant in my opinion, especially when those leftist "critics" both in Europe and US have been continuously failing to agree on anything let alone start a revolution.

Nolan

14th February 2010, 01:46

Sorry.

That is a very strange thing for a Marxist to believe in considering that one of our principles is the unity of theory and practice. So, you bureaucrats are the "practical" types while we Trots, et al., are "armchair theorists."

So we're going to make reality fit theory? Good luck with that. It shouldn't be surprising that something developed in the 1800s is not foolproof today.

Translation: It's okay to impose bureaucratic controls over the working class.
RED DAVE

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that's what we want. :lol:

Nolan

14th February 2010, 01:46

Comrade_Stalin

14th February 2010, 04:27

In a response to this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/proof-popular-cuban-p1669045/index.html#post1669045 and not wanting to start a new subject in the middle of an ongoing arguement in that thread; I ask of your opinions of Cuba.

How close is it to the ideals of socialism (what seems to be defined as democratic control of the economy and society, but before communism); i.e., how democratic is Cuban politics and who owns and controls the means of production?

And if the people supposedly have the power as seemingly demonstrated in that video, then why does central authority in Cuba exist?

Infighting (especially directed against or from Trotskyists who seem to be labelled as counter-revolutionaries of sorts) is not welcome in this thread.

I find it :laugh: that your post has turned into a infighting post, not against or from Trotskyists, but against and from Stalinists

RED DAVE

14th February 2010, 04:55

That is a very strange thing for a Marxist to believe in considering that one of our principles is the unity of theory and practice. So, you bureaucrats are the "practical" types while we Trots, et al., are "armchair theorists."
So we're going to make reality fit theory? Good luck with that. It shouldn't be surprising that something developed in the 1800s is not foolproof today.Again, I find your attitude towards Marxism to be dubious at best. If Marxism can't be adopted to be used as a revolutionary class philosophy in our time, what good is it? You seem to be evincing the notion that what should be happening is that Marxism as a "theory" needs to be disgarded when it contradicts "reality."

Translation: It's okay to impose bureaucratic controls over the working class.
Yeah, just keep telling yourself that's what we want.It's what you are advocating and what Stalinists in the USSR, China and Cuba have done.

By links that you have posted, it's shown that the Cuban system is a top-down economy without workers control as Marxists conceive of it.

RED DAVE

Jimmie Higgins

14th February 2010, 07:09

So we're going to make reality fit theory? Good luck with that. It shouldn't be surprising that something developed in the 1800s is not foolproof today.Yeah, evolution is such hogwash.:confused:

Like evolution and many other theories, when reality or new evidence doesn't fit the theory then we should look into why this is, reevaluate, adapt the theory to new material conditions, and even jettison parts of a theory if they do not work. Unlike, say, postmodernists, if a theory is not connected to reality and does not help us understand the world, then it's time to take a new look at the theory.

Early Marxists believed that the boom-bust cycle would inevitably get worse and lead to the system tearing itself apart, this did not happen and so many Marxists who accepted reality but understood that the underlying critique of capitalism and its contractions were sound, they developed theories as to why and how capitalism had adjusted: theories of imperialism, understanding of credit and so on.

In fact why are there so many tendencies in radicalism today - many are due to different theories to explain why the Russian Revolution ended up like it did, why Capitalism rebounded after WWII and so on. Unfortunately many seem to still be trying to get reality to fit theories based on the Cold War foreign policy of the USSR.

zein al-abdeen

14th February 2010, 08:36

My opinion is:
It's democratic for the bureaucracy, not for the majority.
How could it be socialism?

Comrade_Stalin

14th February 2010, 17:19

We need to change theory based on facts, not facts, based on theory. I think that qoute is from Sherlock Holmes and it makes a lot of sense to me.

Ovi

14th February 2010, 18:43

a.) Check the dates. Read Cuban history. Make connections between the two.

Batista is overthrown on 1 jan 1959, fidel castro is appointed prime minister on 16 feb 1959, by the end of 1960 the right to strike was taken away from the people.

b.) Strikes against a working-class government would be workers striking against themselves. It's not only illogical, but it's little more than an opportunity for opportunistic reactionaries. Lech Walesa's campaign for capitalism in Poland is one prominent example. Under working-class state power, "labor" need not bargain anymore, for the leaders of society have no reason to bargain in such a manner.

I'm not interested at all in your boring rhetoric, but clearly people weren't taking away their own rights. Strikes should disappear after a revolution because they're not needed not because they're banned by the state.

Nolan

15th February 2010, 00:25

Yeah, evolution is such hogwash.

I didn't say Marxism was wrong. It's that the writings of Marx are not infallible and shouldn't be treated as some kind of holy scripture like some ultra-left tendencies do, though it's really only their interpretation of it. Overall, Marxism's theory is sound, like Darwin's theories.

Darwin wasn't completely right either. Today's Darwinism is Neo-Darwinism.

manic expression

15th February 2010, 18:27

The fact that he was able to rally the working class behind privatizations just shows how popular your phony socialism was with actual workers. The CIA didn't buy off the entire Polish working class, and you can't blame everything on the failures of "This great man," "this evil man" "that other powerful man" etc.
:lol: So I take it you're not going to address the facts. I could write about how you have no grasp of history here, but it's more effective to point out how you're trying to run away from the issue you initially brought up. Old habits die hard, I suppose.

M26J/Castro were not "socialist" until after coming to power. Stop talking in circles. By your logic, the PSL should abandon communism and pretend to be liberal until it gets elected, or else it will get crushed by US imperialism.They were indeed socialist. They simply didn't write a letter to the White House informing the American imperialists of this. They played the capitalists like an old fiddle by remaining officially vague about their ideology, and then mobilizing working-class state power after destroying Batista's regime. You want to equate not giving the imperialists casus belli with liberal electioneering, but only because you're a naive utopian socialist who can't tell the difference.

A working class vanguard can not be unconscious. The Bolsheviks were a revolutionary socialist party. The M26J was a bourgeois nationalist guerrilla army and urban support network.Good thing, then, that the J26M wasn't unconscious. Oh, and if we're going by your logic, then I guess the workers of 1848 were all reactionaries, because they didn't call themselves communists! :lol:

The M26J did oppose socialism.That's a lie, spoken by a liar. Have fun trying to prove your newest piece of slander.

The POR(T) on the other hand were the real Bolshevik Leninists. They demanded socialism from the beginning and virtually all of Castro's "socialist" moves or progressive campaigns started out as POR(T) demands.Except they acted as imperialism's fifth column against the Cuban Revolution, and were appropriately crushed by the Cuban workers for being the counterrevolutionaries we know them as today. Good to know you support them.

Except all facts and common sense (abolition of max. wage) show that social inequality is increasing.And that is sure to ruffle some utopian's feathers, isn't it?

So admit that you think Castro proved Lenin wrong by establishing "socialism" through an apolitical military coup, without the conscious action of the socialist working class.The J26M engaged in a great deal of political activity before, during and after the overthrow of Batista. Their urban cells distributed agitprop amongst the Cuban masses, and the guerrillas also waged ideological warfare as well. But once again, you demonstrate your fondness of ignorance in ignoring the history of the Cuban Revolution.

Admit that you are anti-Leninist.But then I would be a Trotskyist.

You don't read sources, you just troll.More desperate nonsense from someone whose entire argument is based on a fundamental misconception of Cuban history.

Also, notice how you still haven't provided any justification for the suppression of Cuban Trotskyists and anarchists. All you are doing is wasting people's time and polluting the Learning forum with crap.Of course I have. The justification is clear to all: the Trotskyists and anarchists (your ideological pals, remember) were acting as counterrevolutionaries in a time in which the Cuban Revolution was in grave danger from imperialist aggression. Just as the anarchists of Russia were rightly suppressed by the Russian workers, so too were the reactionary "leftists" of Cuba suppressed by the Cuban workers. You identify with reaction, and that's fully valid for someone of your beliefs, it just happens to run contrary to the Cuban Revolution and the march of the workers.

(javascript: leoHighlightsIFrameClose();)

manic expression

15th February 2010, 18:31

Okay! I've read every one of these links. There is nothing in any of them that shows workers control of industry.
Try reading them with more care and attention. You obviously don't want to accept anything that disagrees with your imaginary world.

What your links demonstrate, over and over again, is an easily manipulable electoral process, without political parties or organized tendencies, with no access to mass media by minority points of view, which controls industry, top down.
Hey, RED DAVE...PROVE IT. It's easy to slander a socialist society you don't understand, but it's not so easy to provide some sort of basis for this beyond "because I said so", which is your only argument as of now.

So really, good luck with that. I'll wait until you make something worth addressing. Just be sure to PM me when you run into your inability to make a reasoned argument. I'll be able to help you out on that front.

manic expression

15th February 2010, 18:35

Batista is overthrown on 1 jan 1959, fidel castro is appointed prime minister on 16 feb 1959, by the end of 1960 the right to strike was taken away from the people.
And in 1961, the US invades the country. It didn't happen out of thin air, things were heating up.

I'm not interested at all in your boring rhetoric, but clearly people weren't taking away their own rights. Strikes should disappear after a revolution because they're not needed not because they're banned by the state.No one was "taking away their own rights" (echoes of Rousseau here), it's simply an oxymoron for workers to strike against working-class state power. It would be a class striking against itself. And when you say "should disappear", why are you trying to take agency away from the workers? If they see the inherent logical fallacy in strikes within a working-class society, then why shouldn't they reflect that in their laws? Workers have every right to legislate their interests to the letter, and that's precisely what happened here.

the last donut of the night

15th February 2010, 20:23

Personally, I believe so, because when I was still liberal I felt the United States was wrong to begin curtailing civil liberties under Bush in order to fight terrorism. and it would be just as wrong as we did it, and it would make any of us who criticize capitalists for their repression of socialist views complete hypocrites.

How can we expect to have a truly free democratic society if we don't have free speech? If we can justify censorship and state banning of dissent, we can justify it a hundred times. And how are we to be threatened by right wingers and their lies and bullshit? Any truly revolutionary working class will be able to see through it, and if we can't handle right wing media spin, then we certainly can't win a revolution.

Nope. We can't. Why?

Well, as a communist, you know very well how futile our jobs can be sometimes. In America, for example, getting one person to become a Marxist is very good. That's because propaganda here has basically led workers to believe that Obama is a communist usurper. Class-consciousness is extremely low, and you know that.

Now fast forward a few decades. The US is in the midst of a civil war: the proletariat is fighting off a desperate bourgeoisie (that's right, a revolution here in apathetic America). Let's say that some of our comrades -- yes, they're still comrades -- start a third-camp against us. They may be anarchists, Trotskyists, Maoists, whatever. However, their actions come to draw revolutionary fervor away from the movement. They actively call against this movement and in fact, make it seem worse than it actually is.

I would expect anyone to censor such publications in these very pivotal times. When the proletariat is on the verge of victory and defeat, we must muster all our forces together. Dissent, sadly, will not be accepted in this time. The liberal notion of 'free speech' is the same used to condemn anti-racist coalitions when far-right groups protest in our communities.

the last donut of the night

15th February 2010, 20:38

I think that, seeing as it still hasn’t instituted workers self management after over 50 years in power, we can safely say the government wasn’t revolutionary (though it did institute some nice healthcare/education reforms). Opposition to the regime was essential to defending the Cuban working class from the attack it was facing.

Some "nice" reforms?

Let me tell you that Cuba, while facing an enormous embargo and the constant risk of imperialist destruction, has eliminated child malnutrition. Basically, no child in Cuba starves nowadays.

And you still write with a very arrogant tone, because at the end of the day, you're just a nice, typical First World leftist: the welfare state is good enough for you, right? Because the struggle of an oppressed people from imperialism and capitalism is merely "nice". How nice.

Jeez.

x359594

15th February 2010, 21:48

I think it's worth remembering the actual accomplishments of the Cuban Revolution. Cuba won independence after numerous wars and uprisings since the 1860s. Cuba defended its revolution over fifty years against constant US aggression. Cuba established a system of social justice and rights – the right to eat, have housing, medical care, education, etc… As a kind of gravy over the meat of success, Cubans danced – and still mambo -- on the world stage, as liberators of parts of Africa, slayers of the Monroe Doctrine, purveyors of emergency medical teams that saved Pakistanis, Hondurans and many others from the aftereffects of natural disaster. Cuban doctors rescued the vision of countless third world people. Cuban artists, athletes and scientists have etched their names on the honor roles of talent throughout the world. I think the credit for all that goes to the Revolution.

That said, by the mid 1980s, the Chinese and Vietnamese revolutions had already begun to morph into capitalist economies run by Communist Parties claiming adherence to socialism. With the collapse of the USSR, Cubans had to violate basic ethical tenets in order to survive. “Each person for himself” replaced collective sharing. Social morale, already weakening in the 1980s from inflexible bureaucracy and hideous economic inefficiency, grew starkly thinner. In 1991, the state was forced to retract major clauses in its social contract with the people: it could not longer guarantee all an adequate diet, real employment or many of the multiple perks that Cubans alone enjoyed: free rent remained, but the amount of subsidized food per person shrunk drastically.

As Cuban foreign trade plunged by almost 30% and standards of living fell and Cubans began to adopt “survival hustles.” Buying and selling illegally to get certain goods became daily behavior patterns, hardly a stimulant for maintaining high socialist morale.

In addition, Cuba legalized the dollar and adopted foreign tourism as its dubious money earner. As it did so, the gang of exiles that had plotted violence in previous decades, returned with ever fiercer armed attacks. By 1997, hotel and tourist site bombings became frequent. In one bombing, an Italian tourist-businessman died. Violence against tourist locations, reasoned the Miami-based financiers of the attacks, would threaten the fragile basis of Cuba’s main revenue source.

Aside from sagging moral among a significant sector, Cuba faces a dramatic shortage of teachers – 8,000 officially – an agricultural system that forces the government to import more than 70% of its food, a wage structure that makes little sense when measured against productivity or fairness and a parasitic Havana of 2 million people who produce little and consume a lot, albeit not as much as they want.

Under Raul, and with Fidel’s literary support, Cuba’s Communist Party has begun to face these challenges. Raúl Castro initiated a reform process, including democratizing the Party itself – including the need to reflect diverse opinions. This is a tacit admission that, for its first 50 years, the Cuban Revolution did not create a democratic society and did not enjoy a free press, much less tolerate the existence of independent unions and dissident left political formations, whether political parties or informal groupings, but still the goal is to bring a socialist society into exitence despite all the forces arrayed against it.

KlÃ©ber

15th February 2010, 22:01

Hey, RED DAVE...PROVE IT. It's easy to slander a socialist society you don't understand, but it's not so easy to provide some sort of basis for this beyond "because I said so", which is your only argument as of now.
You don't have evidence that Cuba is democratic. On the contrary, you gleefully praise the suppression of any socialist opposition to the Castro clique as somehow necessary to keep out foreign imperialism, which is seeping in through the private and tourist sectors under the auspices of the Cuban government.

No one was "taking away their own rights" (echoes of Rousseau here), it's simply an oxymoron for workers to strike against working-class state power. It would be a class striking against itself.
If it is not such a big deal then it shouldn't have been banned. Also the ban was the decision of Fidel's bourgeois clique, not the workers as a whole.

They were indeed socialist. They simply didn't write a letter to the White House informing the American imperialists of this.
Provide a source then, that shows the M26J, or Castro, were socialist before 1959. No such evidence exists. Even if Castro was a secret communist like you probably thought Obama would be, he wouldn't have made that fact public because he needed counter-revolutionaries like Huber Matos around for the liberal nationalist support.

Good thing, then, that the J26M wasn't unconscious. Oh, and if we're going by your logic, then I guess the workers of 1848 were all reactionaries, because they didn't call themselves communists! :lol:
They were constrained by bourgeois liberal ideology. Note that Karl Marx extensively criticized the liberal misleaders, although that would make him a "counter-revolutionary" according to you. If Karl Marx had been like you, and said "we can't criticize the movement guys! we gotta be loyal and follow the leaders 100% or else we are enemies of the republic!" then we never would have had Marxism.

Except they acted as imperialism's fifth column against the Cuban Revolution, and were appropriately crushed by the Cuban workers for being the counterrevolutionaries we know them as today. Good to know you support them.
You have absolutely no evidence for this. Political opposition is not the same as military opposition.

The J26M engaged in a great deal of political activity before, during and after the overthrow of Batista. Their urban cells distributed agitprop amongst the Cuban masses, and the guerrillas also waged ideological warfare as well.
So what? Doing "activity" and propaganda doesn't make you socialist!

Of course I have. The justification is clear to all: the Trotskyists and anarchists (your ideological pals, remember) were acting as counterrevolutionaries in a time in which the Cuban Revolution was in grave danger from imperialist aggression. Just as the anarchists of Russia were rightly suppressed by the Russian workers, so too were the reactionary "leftists" of Cuba suppressed by the Cuban workers.
The Left SR's and Nabat' group staged armed uprisings in 1918, while a war was going on. That is why they were suppressed. The POR(T) and Cuban anarchists neither militarily threatened the government, not was there a war going on. The Cuban anarchists and Trotskyists cheered the defeat of the Bay of Pigs invasion. So your claim they represented a fifth column is completely groundless.

Now fast forward a few decades. The US is in the midst of a civil war: the proletariat is fighting off a desperate bourgeoisie (that's right, a revolution here in apathetic America). Let's say that some of our comrades -- yes, they're still comrades -- start a third-camp against us. They may be anarchists, Trotskyists, Maoists, whatever. However, their actions come to draw revolutionary fervor away from the movement. They actively call against this movement and in fact, make it seem worse than it actually is.
What do you mean "Call against this movement?" Why can't you just say what you think instead of providing a rambling hypothetical scenario with no historical evidence? How is criticizing revisionism a call against the workers' movement? How the hell does criticizing revisionism hurt the cause? If anything, free speech for socialists allows critics to right the course of the movement and keep it on the path to socialism. Trotsky predicted what would happen to the USSR, that the bureaucrats might overpower the working class and restore capitalism, and that came true, so I'll listen to him instead of someone who has no explanation whatsoever for the failure of the Russian (or any other) Revolution.

So let's continue the fairy tale of your little fantasy world: you rounded up the anarchists and Trotskyists, you killed them, okay, congratulations, clap clap for you. Then capitalism got restored. Maybe there was something to criticize there.

I would expect anyone to censor such publications in these very pivotal times. When the proletariat is on the verge of victory and defeat, we must muster all our forces together. Dissent, sadly, will not be accepted in this time. The liberal notion of 'free speech' is the same used to condemn anti-racist coalitions when far-right groups protest in our communities.
Absolutely ridiculous. Comparing us to the far right? Wow. Great argument.

There is a difference between free speech as a principle extending all the way to Nazis and free speech as a principle extending to fellow revolutionary socialists.

Some "nice" reforms?

Let me tell you that Cuba, while facing an enormous embargo and the constant risk of imperialist destruction, has eliminated child malnutrition. Basically, no child in Cuba starves nowadays.If Cuba is really socialist, then you should be able to find recent and comprehensive data from the Cuban government which shows the lifestyles and privileges of officials so that they can be kept accountable. But actually, no such information exists. The maximum wage was abolished two years ago and I have every reason to suspect that the Cuban elite are living the lives of mafia capitalists at the expense of the Cuban people. Why else are their salaries and privileges not public information? The bourgeoisie keeps its public servants transparent and accountable, isn't it ironic that the working class would not?

manic expression

18th February 2010, 08:11

You don't have evidence that Cuba is democratic. On the contrary, you gleefully praise the suppression of any socialist opposition to the Castro clique
First, I do, you're just incapable of reading evidence. Second, I praise the suppression of counterrevolutionaries by the workers. Yeah, it sucks for counterrevolutionary-supporters like yourself, but that's the way the ball bounces.

If it is not such a big deal then it shouldn't have been banned. Also the ban was the decision of Fidel's bourgeois clique, not the workers as a whole.It would be a big deal, because it would be contrary to the interests of the workers to strike against themselves. Since you don't care about working-class solidarity, it's only natural you wouldn't think this is a "big deal".

Provide a source then, that shows the M26J, or Castro, were socialist before 1959. No such evidence exists.Fidel outlined his connections to Marxism-Leninism in his speeches many times. You can read one here:

http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/1961/esp/f221261e.html

Further, actions make a socialist socialist, and that's why Fidel is one of the greatest socialists of his generation. You'd do well to learn that.

They were constrained by bourgeois liberal ideology.So they weren't part of progressive, revolutionary and pro-working class forces? Nice logic.

You have absolutely no evidence for this. Political opposition is not the same as military opposition.In trying to undermine a government that is facing military opposition, it is very much the behavior of a fifth column. You make empty protests to the charge because you have no response worth hearing.

So what? Doing "activity" and propaganda doesn't make you socialist!An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory. Oops.

What do you mean "Call against this movement?" Why can't you just say what you think instead of providing a rambling hypothetical scenario with no historical evidence? How is criticizing revisionism a call against the workers' movement? How the hell does criticizing revisionism hurt the cause? If anything, free speech for socialists allows critics to right the course of the movement and keep it on the path to socialism. Trotsky predicted what would happen to the USSR,Trying to slander the workers' movement with empty phrases is anti-socialist. Calling a country run through working-class democracy anything but that is anti-socialist. Celebrating counterrevolutionaries who tried to bring down the Revolution is anti-socialist. You do the math (good luck).

Trotsky carried out many of the same acts that the Cuban Revolutionaries carried out, and for the same purposes. Anarchists in Russia were suppressed, even when they weren't always a "military threat" (as you say). This is precisely what you're desperately trying to slander the Cuban Revolution for, which only makes your mental contortions all the more absurd.

So let's continue the fairy tale of your little fantasy world: you rounded up the anarchists and Trotskyists, you killed them, okay, congratulations, clap clap for you. Then capitalism got restored. Maybe there was something to criticize there.When were they killed? Or are you just making crap up again?

Capitalist wasn't restored. Sorry.

There is a difference between free speech as a principle extending all the way to Nazis and free speech as a principle extending to fellow revolutionary socialists.In Cuba, it always did extend to those who pushed a revolutionary socialist line. It didn't extend to those who tried to undermine the revolutionary government and destroy the Revolution in its darkest hours. That's the difference.

If Cuba is really socialist, then you should be able to find recent and comprehensive data from the Cuban government which shows the lifestyles and privileges of officials so that they can be kept accountable. But actually, no such information exists. The maximum wage was abolished two years ago and I have every reason to suspect that the Cuban elite are living the lives of mafia capitalists at the expense of the Cuban people. Why else are their salaries and privileges not public information? The bourgeoisie keeps its public servants transparent and accountable, isn't it ironic that the working class would not?So you're basing this on your suspicions. :lol: You are, admittedly, without any basis for these claims. I've dealt with this issue before, and you abandoned your points because you lack any intellectual integrity in your charges. There's no need for me to deal with your suspicions a second time when they've already been disproved.