Should we argue with Cuban emigrants? [Archive]

KlÃ©ber

15th March 2010, 13:48

The political system isn't democratic, try to set up some organized socialist opposition to the regime, Trotskyist, anarchist, or Hoxhaist for that matter, and you won't last very long. It's a military dictatorship, not a proletarian one. The Cuban government might tolerate some pet bloggers, but there is no political freedom for the working class to stand together and challenge Raúl's market reforms. Some aspects of the economy still resemble the state capitalist economy set up by the October Revolution, but that's because the Cuban bourgeois clique around Fidel brought in Soviet advisors to copy that model of development; it wasn't set up by the Cuban working class. The CDR's and other transmission belt mass organizations are no more democratic than the soviets under Gorbachev. Socialism is not going to come from the crooked PCC any more than salvation could only come through the church in medieval times.

Cuban emigrants are a pretty diverse group. There is a notable minority of left-wing ones, who are not too vocal about their Cuban background because there has been traditionally a campaign of intimidation, sometimes violence and even political assassinations by far-right Cuban exiles against more moderate ones who favor an end to the embargo. Also, the stereotypical cigar-puffing mafioso white bourgeois Cuban exile is a minority now, since Mariel most of them have been working class and since 1992 people are trying to find better unemployment than they could in the Special Period, but of course, unemployed workers in Miami don't troll YouTube comments like the kids of emigre families who have been told since a young age that Castro took away their happy life. You should discuss your views with people from one of those countries, just be careful to 1) not be a blind apologist for the revisionist Castro regime and 2) give them the benefit of the doubt that they or their family have some legitimate grievance which they understand to be the fault of the Cuban government. Ironically, despite being right-wing when they think about Cuban politics, Cuban-Americans (at least outside of Miami) often identify with the Democrats and liberalism, Obama has also gone out of his way with anti-Venezuela rhetoric to appeal to them. It can be easy to score a partial victory and convince someone that the embargo and political pressure against Cuba were bad and what remains of them has to go.

RedSonRising

15th March 2010, 18:55

The political system isn't democratic, try to set up some organized socialist opposition to the regime, Trotskyist, anarchist, or Hoxhaist for that matter, and you won't last very long. It's a military dictatorship, not a proletarian one. The Cuban government might tolerate some pet bloggers, but there is no political freedom for the working class to stand together and challenge Raúl's market reforms. Some aspects of the economy still resemble the state capitalist economy set up by the October Revolution, but that's because the Cuban bourgeois clique around Fidel brought in Soviet advisors to copy that model of development; it wasn't set up by the Cuban working class. The CDR's and other transmission belt mass organizations are no more democratic than the soviets under Gorbachev. Socialism is not going to come from the crooked PCC any more than salvation could only come through the church in medieval times.

You keep referring to Raul's "Market Reforms", however the only reforms he is making are transfers of decision-making power from centralized to municipal participatory institutions and allowing personal property (not any means of production) which was previously disallowed. Increasing legislation and institutional outlets for political freedom under Raul are in fact precipitating these popular reforms. When I visited the island, the people I questioned were happy with the small but meaningful changes in practice being made.

You are incorrect in calling it a military dictatorship, since the armed forces that assumed power were of working and peasant classes who were integrated into the Guerrilla army, and as a branch themselves do not have any interest in military production or investment beyond security, in contrast to an imperialist country with a structure which feeds the military-industrial complex such as the US.

A wide-ranging study on the changing relationship between Cuban workers, management, and the government over the revolution's series of decades reveals much more than simply Soviet-style copycatting. The Cuban revolution established an overly-centralized system of bureaucratic control for the sake of security and interests of power, but one cannot deny the existence of popularly accessed forms of electoral democracy in Cuba and proletarian empowerment.

As far as Cuban defectors go, you cannot blame them for being unhappy with their condition, however the analysis used to examine the causal relationships within any problems with the system must contextualize Cuba's international status and capacity as an island nation before pointing any fingers. What would Cuba look like without an embargo? We only know that it has survived with a population that is restricted and poor, but healthy, sovereign, and literate.

chegitz guevara

15th March 2010, 19:25

Arguing with gusanos is generally a waste of both people's time, and frequently, it can degenerate into violence.

Antifa94

15th March 2010, 19:48

RadioRaheem84

15th March 2010, 19:52

Cuba is a wasteland. Supporters of it support a hollow, totalitarian society. It's miserable there. A worker's utopia should be a seething mass of varied ideologies, as opposed to Cuba, a dictatorial, anti-intellectual, homogenous society.

Do you paint your house with that broad brush?

It's a military dictatorship, not a proletarian one.

Cuba is not a bastion of socialism and democracy but it's no North Korea.

Antifa94

15th March 2010, 19:57

I realized I never answered the question. No, we shouldn't argue with the emigrants, because the majority of them are "oppressed" capitalists who can't fulfill their greed there.

KlÃ©ber

15th March 2010, 20:36

You keep referring to Raul's "Market Reforms", however the only reforms he is making are transfers of decision-making power from centralized to municipal participatory institutions and allowing personal property (not any means of production) which was previously disallowed.
The market reforms have really been going on since the beginning of the "Special Period" in 1991, there has been a massive growth of petty bourgeois activity and the tourism sector. Urban shanties, prostitution and petty crime, practically unknown during the days of Soviet support, have also reappeared. The most important reform in my opinion, of those from two years ago, was not that workers were allowed to engage in conspicuous consumption (note that the average Cuban can not afford the goods and services, like cell phones and trips to tourist resorts, that it became legal to buy 2 years ago, so obviously some rich elite exists that can buy those things), but that the maximum wage was abolished, ending the cap on private accumulation of wealth. Of course, since the Cuban government doesn't publish the relevant income statistics, it isn't immediately obvious how strongly this contributes to social inequality.

Increasing legislation and institutional outlets for political freedom under Raul are in fact precipitating these popular reforms. When I visited the island, the people I questioned were happy with the small but meaningful changes in practice being made.
Indeed, here is a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4j_5G-0amw) with some interviews along those lines.
There was also plenty of popular support for the reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping. The Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies tried to portray their own self-enrichment as the spontaneous will of the masses. In China in particular, a number of people benefited from the reforms in the 1980's and enriched themselves, which facilitated conspicuous consumption and the growth of an American-style thinking that anyone can "achieve" bourgeois success if they try hard enough. In the end, though, it was obviously a fraud, capitalism always produces more losers than winners. If the Cuban workers don't have a political party to fight for their class, these "reforms" won't be in their interests.

You are incorrect in calling it a military dictatorship, since the armed forces that assumed power were of working and peasant classes who were integrated into the Guerrilla armyThe armed forces that took power in 1959 were not proletarian in character, the leaders included people like Huber Matos. Castro's clique professed a liberal nationalist ideology and only after taking power did they decide to embark on "socialism." As for being made up of workers and peasants in form, that's true of every army and doesn't determine the social character.

A wide-ranging study on the changing relationship between Cuban workers, management, and the government over the revolution's series of decades reveals much more than simply Soviet-style copycatting. The Cuban revolution established an overly-centralized system of bureaucratic control for the sake of security and interests of power,That's too simplistic and evasive of an explanation. Whose security? Whose power? If the repressive state apparatus is only for defense against imperialism, why was it deployed against the Cuban workers themselves in peacetime and groups like the POR(T) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html) banned?

but one cannot deny the existence of popularly accessed forms of electoral democracy in Cuba and proletarian empowerment.My manager at work waxes about "empowerment" too, token grants of workplace democracy are meaningless without political independence. Unless the PCC really opens itself up to criticism which means tolerating rival political parties, or at least socialist ones, Cuban "democracy" is a fraud.

the analysis used to examine the causal relationships within any problems with the system must contextualize Cuba's international status and capacity as an island nation before pointing any fingersYes, I totally agree, but if revisionists try to use the backwardness of the masses as a cover for their own backwardness, the fingers need to be pointed.

Cuba is not a bastion of socialism and democracy but it's no North Korea.
Maybe you are romanticizing Cuba or demonizing North Korea. The fact that power stays within the same family says it all IMO.

I realized I never answered the question. No, we shouldn't argue with the emigrants, because the majority of them are "oppressed" capitalists who can't fulfill their greed there.
Not really (see below).

Arguing with gusanos is generally a waste of both people's time, and frequently, it can degenerate into violence.
"Gusano" is not a good term to use. The Cuban bureaucracy can not admit that the working class would want to leave its state, and therefore must stereotype everyone who does as bourgeois "worms." They don't have an interest in revolution, but as revolutionaries we must find a way to make the million Cuban-American workers conscious of their own class position and social interests.

The Cuban-American community was actually founded not 50 years ago, but more than 100 years ago, by nationalist, socialist and anarchist exiles from Spanish and comprador pro-US imperialist rule, many of whom were Afro-Cuban. Since the Mariel boatlift, Cuban-Americans have again been a predominantly working-class community, and largely Afro-Cuban. Wealthy emigrants from the 1960's sneer at their poor cousins as "marielitos" so as communists, we should pry open the divide between workers and capitalists, rather than lazily lump them all together because of the vocal overrepresentation of more affluent and conservative Cuban-Americans or the propaganda of the Cuban state.

chegitz guevara

15th March 2010, 21:42

Not all Cuban Americans are gusanos. The mutherfuckers who killed 30 leftists in Miami between the 1970s and 1990s are. The mutherfuckers who attacked us in the street are. I know plenty of pro-revolution Cubans in the country, as well as a hell of a lot who don't give a shit, and only came here to get a better job, like millions of other immigrants. They aren't gusanos, and they aren't the ones we argue with.

Os Cangaceiros

15th March 2010, 21:50

The problem with arguing with Cuban emigrants is obvious: many of them were actually born and raised in Cuba, and when you argue against someone and tell them that they know nothing about their own country (especially if you yourself come from a relatively privileged existence in a First World nation, such as myself)...well, many times you look like an arrogant fool.

I've only really known one Cuban emigrant in my life, but he's one of my good friends/co-workers, and practically the definition of "working class". He's worked in factories, warehouses and fishing boats his whole life (I only mention this because some people say that all gusanos are privileged elitists). He like many others emigrated to the United States to escape the shackles of an economic system that (like all other systems connected to a market economy, however restricted) has downturns. He hates Castro, but when I've explained socialist ideas with him, such as worker's control of the workplace and surplus value, he's taken an interest and agreed on many points about exploitation.

Personally I think the tactic of telling people "you don't know a good thing when you see it" isn't a good one.

manic expression

15th March 2010, 22:35

Hilarious. Someone criticizes the gusanos and the RevLeft Anti-Cuba Brigade moves in, utilizing similar rhetoric to boot! How perfectly fitting.

Arguing with gusanos is almost surely futile when it comes to persuasion, but there are other reasons for argumentation: if you want to argue in order to gain more knowledge, to demonstrate the correctness of the Cuban Revolution in front of whomever may be listening, to stand up for what you believe or another reason, then it is definitely worth it. Remember, however, that gusanos are known to try to intimidate anyone they disagree with, so use your best judgment.

red cat

15th March 2010, 23:15

Very informative posts indeed, but what does it have to do with the opinion of a person living in Cuba ? Whether Cuba is communist or not, a person who was raised in Cuba may give us arguments not only based on facts, but also biased by his own politics. These may or may not be linked to his personal experiences.

el_chavista

15th March 2010, 23:31

Marxism is about socializing the wealth of the advanced capitalist economy. In Cuba we found an example of a revolution in a backward country, isolated from the world market thanks to the US department of state.
Any how, the Cuban broad masses are better off than in the average Latin American country.

Jarc

15th March 2010, 23:31

In my honest, personal, opinion, Cuba is Communist in the sense of putting an end to Capitalist influence. They do it in controversial ways, yes, but as they say 'the government suits the people, and the people suit the times.' I only wonder if a reformer will take over after Castro is gone. Probably, unless he had a secret heir.

I personally argue for the idea of Cuba being thought of as Communist because it does grant freedoms, yes, and does not grant all freedoms, yes. It does what it can against a capitalist empire only a few miles away, with no food, barely enough aid, and yet manages national healthcare [while America can't seem to get its head around that concept...]. I think Castro wants whats best for the people, in the end, and that he will be thought of as an aid to the nation, building it up, strengthening it, and giving it everything it never had before. It may not be rich, but money doesn't buy everything. The people in Cuba are not like the people of N.Korea {no offence to the Juche Communists out there}. They do have more than most third world nations. The problem lies in Castro's implementation of Marxist thought. He was raised in a burgoisie imperial world, and days of nationalist extremism were present [as exemplified by H!tler {I won't honor him by fully writing his name}]. He needed to unite a deeply divided, confined nation. We musn't forget Trujillo {or whatever his name was} to the east, killing innocent people. Castro only killed those who killed before, much like the American system.

But I suppose everything is wrong to somebody somewhere, because 'you only look out of your own eyes, never the other person's.'

RedSonRising

16th March 2010, 03:13

The market reforms have really been going on since the beginning of the "Special Period" in 1991, there has been a massive growth of petty bourgeois activity and the tourism sector. Urban shanties, prostitution and petty crime, practically unknown during the days of Soviet support, have also reappeared. The most important reform in my opinion, of those from two years ago, was not that workers were allowed to engage in conspicuous consumption (note that the average Cuban can not afford the goods and services, like cell phones and trips to tourist resorts, that it became legal to buy 2 years ago, so obviously some rich elite exists that can buy those things), but that the maximum wage was abolished, ending the cap on private accumulation of wealth. Of course, since the Cuban government doesn't publish the relevant income statistics, it isn't immediately obvious how strongly this contributes to social inequality.

Indeed, here is a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4j_5G-0amw) with some interviews along those lines.
There was also plenty of popular support for the reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping. The Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies tried to portray their own self-enrichment as the spontaneous will of the masses. In China in particular, a number of people benefited from the reforms in the 1980's and enriched themselves, which facilitated conspicuous consumption and the growth of an American-style thinking that anyone can "achieve" bourgeois success if they try hard enough. In the end, though, it was obviously a fraud, capitalism always produces more losers than winners. If the Cuban workers don't have a political party to fight for their class, these "reforms" won't be in their interests.

The armed forces that took power in 1959 were not proletarian in character, the leaders included people like Huber Matos. Castro's clique professed a liberal nationalist ideology and only after taking power did they decide to embark on "socialism." As for being made up of workers and peasants in form, that's true of every army and doesn't determine the social character.

That's too simplistic and evasive of an explanation. Whose security? Whose power? If the repressive state apparatus is only for defense against imperialism, why was it deployed against the Cuban workers themselves in peacetime and groups like the POR(T) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html) banned?

My manager at work waxes about "empowerment" too, token grants of workplace democracy are meaningless without political independence. Unless the PCC really opens itself up to criticism which means tolerating rival political parties, or at least socialist ones, Cuban "democracy" is a fraud.

There is still no evidence of any transfer of means of production into private hands, so no dengist betrayal is taking place. Reforms that allow the commodities such as cell phones you highlight to become accessible are popular, therefore they must be in the same camp as the revisionist reforms in the USSR and China? That logic doesn't hold. The party has been opening itself up to criticism recently, and I fully agree with you on the principle that constructive criticism is necessary. I can dig up some other videos on University Students engaging in a criticism of the government before the national assembly under Raul that I posted in another thread if you'd like.

Caps on maximum wealth are oppressive, in my opinion; the "everyone gets paid the same" idea doesn't really hold popularly, especially in a place where wages are low and resources scarce. When it comes to socialism and capitalism, the deciding factor is the decision-making process concerning the means of production.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9CJec-NWjS0C&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=workers%27+control+in+cuba&source=bl&ots=RnJtPOGstP&sig=rJZiGF8wydvvG7pX0zQNbFzDFYI#v=onepage&q=workers%27%20control%20in%20cuba&f=false

This is a pretty honest look at periods in Cuba where there was, and sometimes was not, worker democracy within the economy. To me it still looks like a work in progress, but not one that needs another political upheaval to perfect.

The significance of the Cuban armed forces was not their class, but their class character. Proletarians fighting in the US army and peasants and urban workers uniting to overthrow an imperialist dictatorship do not correlate socially. The fact that Castro didn't declare himself a marxist immediately and have US bombs drop over Havana as a result doesn't mean that forces within the July 26th movement were not social-revolutionary in character.

As far as security reasons, it would be preposterous to assume that the US has not still been engaging in espionage and has long harassed the island with sabotage, murder, and general terror on top of the embargo. While I don't agree with the propaganda war excuse, there are real threats that many within and outside of the government think need suppressing to prevent reactionary change on the barely surviving island. The restrictions are unfortunate.

The dominance of the centralized Communist party severely weakens democracy in Cuba, but it has a presence within the structure of the system. Some Cubans see progress and meaning in their municipal/national votes, and others don't. It would be overly presumptuous to assume that centralized politics mean no electoral benefit, and its participatory model has allowed the population to engage in local organization.

the last donut of the night

16th March 2010, 03:53

Arguing with gusanos, as one comrade pointed out, is a waste of time, much like trying to argue with a rural, Brazilian landowner about the MST. It's fruitless.

KlÃ©ber

16th March 2010, 04:15

There is still no evidence of any transfer of means of production into private hands, so no dengist betrayal is taking place.
"Dengist betrayals" don't come out of nowhere, the bureaucracy dips its hands in the cookie jar of petty bourgeois activity, and the biggest ones slowly legalize their increasing corrupt exploitation of the workers until they arrive at outright market capitalism. All that is only possible because the bureaucrats control the means of production to begin with, through their political dictatorship over the state and thus the administration of the public sector.

Caps on maximum wealth are oppressive, in my opinion; the "everyone gets paid the same" idea doesn't really hold popularly, especially in a place where wages are low and resources scarce.
Before the abolition of the max wage, the minimum was 100 pesos and the maximum was 800; 1:8 is already permitting a huge degree of social differentiation (Lenin had called even 1:4 a "capitalist differential" that needed to be reduced), and the full extent differentiation was probably greater, since the min/max ratio doesn't take into account corruption, un/underemployment and second salaries. The book you linked to estimated income inequality was as high as 1:10 on page 45.

When it comes to socialism and capitalism, the deciding factor is the decision-making process concerning the means of production.
Well, we don't even know how much money the decision-makers are accumulating, so it is hard to classify their class status ;P

http://books.google.com/books?id=9CJ...20cuba&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=9CJec-NWjS0C&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=workers%27+control+in+cuba&source=bl&ots=RnJtPOGstP&sig=rJZiGF8wydvvG7pX0zQNbFzDFYI#v=onepage&q=workers%27%20control%20in%20cuba&f=false)
This is a pretty honest look at periods in Cuba where there was, and sometimes was not, worker democracy within the economy. To me it still looks like a work in progress, but not one that needs another political upheaval to perfect.
It's a book with lots of good information, although it doesn't cover the political issues in the early 1960's when the anarcho-syndicalists and Trotskyists were forced out of the unions and their organizations were broken up during peacetime.

This book notes that income inequality probably rose during the 1970's and women tend to earn less than men for the same work. "Probably" because transparent income statistics aren't publicly available, which speaks volumes about how democratic the Cuban economy is. Also, there is some interesting coverage of conflicts between the union and state industrial bureaucrats on the one hand, and the workers themselves on the other; this shows that a divergence of social interests clearly exists, and therefore the workers need independent representation.

The significance of the Cuban armed forces was not their class, but their class character. Proletarians fighting in the US army and peasants and urban workers uniting to overthrow an imperialist dictatorship do not correlate socially.
The 1959 revolution was a popular upsurge, under bourgeois nationalist leadership, against a pro-US semi-colonial regime. That's why the Cuban Trotskyists supported it.

The fact that Castro didn't declare himself a marxist immediately and have US bombs drop over Havana as a result doesn't mean that forces within the July 26th movement were not social-revolutionary in character.
The US was supporting Batista against the rebels, and did bomb Cuba anyway. The M26J was never proletarian in character; while the coalition included PSP members, they didn't murmur a peep about socialism until after their military victory and attractive offers of alliance from Moscow.

While I don't agree with the propaganda war excuse, there are real threats that many within and outside of the government think need suppressing to prevent reactionary change on the barely surviving island. The restrictions are unfortunate.
What is most unfortunate is that the working class is effectively gagged and prevented from challenging any rightward drift by the ruling stratum.

RedSonRising

16th March 2010, 06:15

"Dengist betrayals" don't come out of nowhere, the bureaucracy dips its hands in the cookie jar of petty bourgeois activity, and the biggest ones slowly legalize their increasing corrupt exploitation of the workers until they arrive at outright market capitalism. All that is only possible because the bureaucrats control the means of production to begin with, through their political dictatorship over the state and thus the administration of the public sector.

Before the abolition of the max wage, the minimum was 100 pesos and the maximum was 800; 1:8 is already permitting a huge degree of social differentiation (Lenin had called even 1:4 a "capitalist differential" that needed to be reduced), and the full extent differentiation was probably greater, since the min/max ratio doesn't take into account corruption, un/underemployment and second salaries. The book you linked to estimated income inequality was as high as 1:10 on page 45.

Well, we don't even know how much money the decision-makers are accumulating, so it is hard to classify their class status ;P

It's a book with lots of good information, although it doesn't cover the political issues in the early 1960's when the anarcho-syndicalists and Trotskyists were forced out of the unions and their organizations were broken up during peacetime.

This book notes that income inequality probably rose during the 1970's and women tend to earn less than men for the same work. "Probably" because transparent income statistics aren't publicly available, which speaks volumes about how democratic the Cuban economy is. Also, there is some interesting coverage of conflicts between the union and state industrial bureaucrats on the one hand, and the workers themselves on the other; this shows that a divergence of social interests clearly exists, and therefore the workers need independent representation.

The 1959 revolution was a popular upsurge, under bourgeois nationalist leadership, against a pro-US semi-colonial regime. That's why the Cuban Trotskyists supported it.

The US was supporting Batista against the rebels, and did bomb Cuba anyway. The M26J was never proletarian in character; while the coalition included PSP members, they didn't murmur a peep about socialism until after their military victory and attractive offers of alliance from Moscow.

What is most unfortunate is that the working class is effectively gagged and prevented from challenging any rightward drift by the ruling stratum.

I can understand where your points are coming from, and I could keep reposting disagreements, but I'd rather say let's wait for some news out of Cuba to see if Latin American social movements will affect the political atmosphere; with Raul and the US as variables, we cannot be sure of what will happen; many of these discussions boil down to the interpretation of certain events, but thanks for debating respectfully. If you hear anything further on any shifts towards capitalism or any developments in political freedom, it would be nice to share. Cuban secrecy makes it very hard to interpret many intricacies of the political economy, but I see hope in utilizing the values and progressive reforms made by the Cuban government to reverse the state capitalist elements present in the structure.

Yazman

18th March 2010, 02:13

It doesn't matter where they lived or where they were born.

You can argue with me about Australian politics - for me to say you can't or you're not allowed to just because you don't live here would be a fallacy at best, and being an arrogant fuckhead.

Agnapostate

18th March 2010, 02:40

I'm an opponent of the command economy and authoritarian social structures. But the sheer reactionary nature of certain Cuban-Americans (and their descendants who have been brainwashed with their dogma), does still tend to get on my nerves. While I'd not go out and promote Cuban doctrines myself, many of my Leninist acquaintances in the PSL do just that, which once led to this amusing encounter (http://news.collegemedianetwork.com/opinion/marylou-cabral-psl-hypocritical-for-criticizing-macdonald) involving Marylou Cabral, who's been a PSL candidate for several offices, and a "Cuban-American" student at Cal State Long Beach, where she's a student. The "Cuban-American" complains:

I encountered Cabral personally in the spring of 2009 on campus, when she handed me a flier, reading “worker’s democracy in Cuba.” I immediately handed the flier back to her, declaring that I am a Cuban-American who knows the sad realities that persist in Cuba. Cabral immediately began to belittle me by shouting to her colleagues that I was a “typical right-wing Cuban,” which was a comical assessment of somebody whom she did not even know.

The most dehumanizing tactic she implemented in her attack, however, was when she and her colleagues began to chant in unison “gusano, gusano, gusano.” The word means “worm” in Spanish and is used by the Cuban communist regime, particularly by Fidel Castro, to dehumanize those Cubans who have fled the oppression that Castro implemented after the victory of the revolution in 1959. It was an extremely humiliating and cruel ordeal that continues to torment me to this day.

I lol'd. ;)

Nolan

18th March 2010, 02:57

I lol'd. ;)

Heck yeah that was satisfying to read. :thumbup1:

KlÃ©ber

18th March 2010, 03:02

Whaa? That's really unfair. The Cuban-American community is a lot more diverse than that.

Nolan

18th March 2010, 03:03

Whaa? That's really unfair. The Cuban-American community is a lot more diverse than that.

Of course. The gusanos are only a minority really. Among Cuban-Americans, there are Marxists and anarchists as radical as anyone on this site. Most of the younger generation are apolitical or democrat or republican, like most americans, and don't give a shit about Cuba.

KlÃ©ber

18th March 2010, 03:06

If you want to talk a bout émigré group call them that word. Don't call racial-national generalization word.

Agnapostate

18th March 2010, 03:10

Whaa? That's really unfair. The Cuban-American community is a lot more diverse than that.

I spoke of certain Cuban-Americans.

If you want to talk a bout émigré group call them that word. Don't call racial-national generalization word.

"Racial-national"? Cubans are hardly a race, though I've pointed out that the rightist Cuban-Americans that I speak of are at times attracted to elements of white populism and even white nationalism because of their anger at dispossession through expropriations that benefited blacks. When last I said that, you insisted that this sort of mindset was in the extreme minority, though that remained an assertion without evidence.

RadioRaheem84

18th March 2010, 03:17

Right Wing Cubans dissatisfied with Castro are largely white and had some ties to family wealth back on the island.

Nolan

18th March 2010, 03:19

Right Wing Cubans dissatisfied with Castro are largely white and had some ties to family wealth back on the island.

Uhm, well I'd say the vast majority of Cuban Americans are dissatisfied with Castro. That includes non-rightists with working-class backgrounds.

Agnapostate

18th March 2010, 03:24

Uhm, well I'd say the vast majority of Cuban Americans are dissatisfied with Castro.

There would be obvious selection bias there, of course. But plenty certainly have just cause for their dissatisfaction.

KlÃ©ber

18th March 2010, 03:27

Havana USA: Cuban Exiles and Cuban Americans in South Florida by María Cristina García is a good start for differences within the Cuban-American community.

The blanket term is really inappropriate, especially when you add racial connotations to it, because so many Cubans are black, not only a few within the emigrant bourgeois elite, but going back to before that, from previous revolutionary epochs, and especially now that the latest waves of migration have been proletarian

I didn't say the mindset was in an extreme minority, I said the actual Cuban exiled bourgeoisie is an extreme minority; the hundreds of thousands of Cuban-American workers who echo their reactionary ideology have false consciousness, but if you lump them all together as gusanos, you abandon even trying to win over workers of that cultural/national group to the revolutionary camp

Barry Lyndon

18th March 2010, 05:11

I don't give a damn if their Cuban or not. Being of Cuban descent doesn't make you automatically an expert on the country or the political situation. Many if not most Cuban-Americans have lived in Miami or New York City for their entire lives anyway, where they have been constantly inundated with anti-Castro and anti-socialist propaganda from their own community and the US media and government. They know as much about Cuba as Italian-Americans know about Italy.
Every society and group has a range of opinion, including Cubans. I know Cuban-Americans whose families came to the United States for economic, not political reasons and have a more favorable view of Fidel Castro himself, its just that the American blockade has made people's lives there rather rough. The rabid right-wing Cubans at this point are probably the minority, but they are the ones with the money(being the Batista-era elite) and get the media megaphone from the ruling class in this country to spew their bile.
I also know a number of people from different parts of Latin America and even Africa, who all have generally positive views of Cuba, and I didn't go seeking these people out at commie meetings, these are international students at the college I go to.
As for all these ultra-leftists whose knee-jerk reaction to this thread was to start bashing Cuba as 'state-capitalist', 'Stalinist', etc etc, what is wrong with you? Where are your leftist instincts? Are you so blinded by sectarianism and your obsession with ideological purity that you cannot bring yourself to defend one of the few surviving socialist states in the world? Not me, not anyone here, is defending everything that the Cuban government and Fidel Castro has ever done. It is a real revolution carried out by real human beings, and undoubtedly has made mistakes. Of course one would prefer that Cuba had no censorship, authoritarianism, corruption, one-party rule etc., with full workers control of the means of production. But maybe the fact that is not the case has at least something to do with a 50-year embargo? Threats of invasion and nuclear annihilation by a superpower that is 90 miles away, and hasn't hesitated to invade countries thousands of miles from its shores? Waves of CIA-sponsored right-wing terrorist attacks on its citizens(3,000 Cubans killed in such attacks-the equivalent of 60,000 Americans; imagine how the United States would behave under such circumstances)? 600 assassination attempts against Fidel Castro?
I used to be a Trotskyist and still greatly admire Trotsky, but this ultra-left tendency to denounce countries you see as 'Stalinist' or even 'capitalist' non-stop leads you to hold hands with the capitalist-imperialists and the Miami fascists that want to turn Cuba back into a sugar plantation and Mafia casino/brothel just like it was 50 years ago. No fucking way, Jose.
For my Marxist money, a Third World country that has succeeded in making its infant mortality in Havana lower then in Washington DC, has achieved almost universal literacy, has made great strides in women's rights and in tearing down institutionalized racism, selflessly sent thousands of its troops to defeat apartheid in Angola, and continues to send doctors to Haiti, Venezuela, Senegal, and countless other countries to relieve disease and misery worldwide, and whose steadfast example of defiance has inspired the revival of leftism in Latin America has the support of me as a socialist and should have it from any decent left-winger. I will make criticisms of Cuba but only in front of others I know to be its friends, never in front of its dedicated enemies.
Long live the Cuban Revolution! Viva Che! Viva Fidel! Venceremos! :cubaflag:

KlÃ©ber

18th March 2010, 14:14

As for all these ultra-leftists whose knee-jerk reaction to this thread was to start bashing Cuba as 'state-capitalist', 'Stalinist', etc etc, what is wrong with you? Where are your leftist instincts? Are you so blinded by sectarianism and your obsession with ideological purity that you cannot bring yourself to defend one of the few surviving socialist states in the world?
...
I used to be a Trotskyist and still greatly admire Trotsky, but this ultra-left tendency to denounce countries you see as 'Stalinist' or even 'capitalist' non-stop leads you to hold hands with the capitalist-imperialists and the Miami fascists that want to turn Cuba back into a sugar plantation and Mafia casino/brothel just like it was 50 years ago. No fucking way, Jose.
Ah, the logic of Kerensky. "Lenin criticizes us. We're at war with Germany. Therefore, Lenin is a German agent!"

You should read more Trotsky, since he said every bourgeois nationalist regime should be defended against imperialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm).

As for "state-capitalist," that's the truth, there have been 10:1 wage differentials for a while, and the maximum income cap was abolished 2 years ago. "State-capitalist" isn't a perfect definition in itself, since the USSR was always state capitalist too (Lenin said so anyway (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm)). However, revisionist bureaucrats love to rename their society to "socialist" so that they can pretend the inequalities are gone, while stealing from the workers. History shows us that the exploiters at the top are the ones who restored capitalist rule in the former USSR, so slavish adherence to what those people say is not going to help the workers. It would be contributing to the cause of revisionism and restorationism to go along with the lie that such an unequal society is socialist.

Cuba right now is like the US after 1815, one of the last isolated "democratic" states after the successful monarchist rollback in Europe. However, the bourgeoisie wasn't really in charge in 1815, it was still held back by a section engaging in pre-bourgeois sorts of activity (the slaveowners). Despite its deformations, the US should have been defended against European attempts to invade it and destroy the republic. But that doesn't mean we should make a religion out of it and say the US was "democratic," or "socialist."

Care to explain how criticizing the market reforms, social inequality, and suppression of dissent makes me "hold hands with imperialism?" Do you think I support the embargo or something? Please, don't be so presumptuous. What really helps the bourgeois worldview is agreeing with them that an exploitative military dictatorship is the best thing socialists can ever hope to achieve. What really helps imperialist penetration and bourgeois restoration in Cuba is the "reforms" and resurgent dominance of the tourism sector going on under the Castro clique themselves.

Not me, not anyone here, is defending everything that the Cuban government and Fidel Castro has ever done.
Then there is no need to react as if a magic charm is being wrenched from your hands when something gets criticized.

manic expression

18th March 2010, 15:56

Don't be silly, Kleber, the rhetoric of present-day Trotskyists has little to do with what Trotsky actually wrote. If modern Trotskyism bore any resemblance to Trotsky's ideas, they wouldn't use empty labels like "state capitalism" (an argument that Trotsky specifically dismissed in The Revolution Betrayed), and they would support the actions of worker states instead of falling over themselves to parrot the imperialist viewpoint.

On wage differentials, there's no need to address it, for the fact is that Kleber has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, and he admits as much regularly. If you'd like to see his arguments taken apart, simply review this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-cuba-t129088/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../question-cuba-t129088/index.html)

Lastly, the fact is that Lenin engaged in imperialist defeatism, which meant undermining the imperialist powers of all countries (for the workers of Russia, that meant Russia). What are the anti-Cuba ideologues doing? Slandering a worker state that is under siege by imperialism. The correct analogy, instead, would be the SR's trying to pretend they aren't party to the Whites.

PS, Lenin never used "state capitalism" in the manner in which Kleber now uses it. Lenin meant a market economy under the undisputed control of the working class, but this is obviously not what Kleber is saying, making his point mere opportunism. How many more manipulations of Lenin's words will we see before this thread is over?

Barry Lyndon

18th March 2010, 16:22

so I didn't have to make that point myself.

As for the specific charges against Cuba, particularly the market reforms, I am aware of them and those are wrong and detrimental to Cuban socialism, since they create inequalities and have revived some of the pre-revolutionary evils like prostitution. What you left out, however, is that the development of the private sector(particularly tourism) was agreed to very reluctantly by Fidel and co., but the alternative choice was a total economic breakdown, with Cuba's Soviet ally gone. Even so, foreign-owned hotels operating in Cuba have to give half their revenue to the government, which spends it on developing hospitals, schools, housing projects, etc. That is still a world away from what happens in much of the Third World. But, perhaps, Cuba should retain its ideological purity and starve, which would undoubtedly lead to an all-out capitalist restoration. Would you prefer that?

I became pretty exasperated with most Trotskyist groups because all they did was sit on the sidelines and snipe about how Cuba or Venezuela or some other progressive country(fill in the blank) was under "nationalist petty-bourgeois leadership", make a long list of the mistakes and realpolitik decisions that the leadership made, often uncritically parroting imperialist propaganda and making some offhand comparison to Stalin, and that a "real" revolution could only occur when the workers turn to a "revolutionary workers party"(fill in ultra-sectarian Trotskyist groupsucle). The fact that all 39 flavors of the Trotskyists have failed to get an actual working class following, anywhere, does not deter them from lecturing others on how to make revolution.

What really helps the bourgeois worldview is agreeing with them that an exploitative military dictatorship is the best thing socialists can ever hope to achieve.

Actually, what helps the capitalists is telling workers who are interested in socialism, "Well it hasn't existed for over 80 years and has been a total miserable failure everywhere its been tried, but when WE take power we'll make it work, really!" Basically, you conceded half the debate by refusing to defend anything positive gained by existing socialist regimes. Good luck with that argument.

vyborg

18th March 2010, 16:41

Barry I can see your points, but you agree that workers' democracy would be a help for cuban economy? that allowing comrades to discuss freely it would be better than limiting to wave red flags when Fidel speaks?
that's the point, how to defend the gigantic conquests of the revolution in Cuba

KlÃ©ber

18th March 2010, 19:26

If modern Trotskyism bore any resemblance to Trotsky's ideas, they wouldn't use empty labels like "state capitalism" (an argument that Trotsky specifically dismissed in The Revolution Betrayed)
No, state capitalism is not a sufficient definition. A proletarian revolution in a backwards oppressed country can not establish socialism on its own, besieged by imperialism and unable to readily apply the most advanced production methods. The USSR's industrial sector was state capitalist while Trotsky was War Commissar too. Trotsky was just criticizing the revisionism of the bureaucratic elite, who had no confidence in the world revolution, and an objective interest in abolishing what remained of workers' power. It was those objective interests that destroyed the USSR, not the subjective influence of Gorbachev coming out of nowhere.

What are the anti-Cuba ideologues doing? Slandering a worker state that is under siege by imperialism.
I'm just pointing out that it is not socialist. You are an "ideologue" too, don't pretend you are some glorious defender of the Cuban state sitting behind a mahogany desk.

PS, Lenin never used "state capitalism" in the manner in which Kleber now uses it. Lenin meant a market economy under the undisputed control of the working class,
Wrong, you claimed this before, but the quote is from 1918, long before NEP, and he's talking specifically about pay inequalities in state industry (in response to Bukharin who argued any level of inequality was compatible with socialism). "If we pay 2,000 in accordance with the railroad decree, that is state capitalism." In Lenin's time, statistics about social differences within the USSR were actually published and discussed.. There was even a law limiting the income of party members known as Partmaximum (which was abolished in 1931). Lenin even considered 1:4 to be a capitalist differential, that needed to be reduced.

On wage differentials, there's no need to address it, for the fact is that Kleber has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, and he admits as much regularly. If you'd like to see his arguments taken apart, simply review this thread:
That thread is a great way to see how manic expression repeats himself, ignores giant parts of my argument, etc. The reason I stopped replying was that you weren't even trying with your last post. I asked for a quote by Fidel Castro saying he was a Marxist before 1959, you linked to a speech from 1961 and said I would "do well" to study the words of this Great Man. please. The other thread we debated in was even better, you should post a link to that one, too.

Also, your only evidence about wages in Cuba was an independent study from 26 years ago, didn't even cover the full spectrum of wages, it only addressed a few industrial occupations, half of the figures were guessed due to lack of data, and it was from long before the special period (not to mention abolition of the max wage). It was obvious you hadn't even read the book you linked to, since the authors themselves expressed regret and frustration with the incompleteness of the information. And yet you claimed, repeatedly, that this outdated, highly limited, non-Cuban source proved that the Cuban government publishes transparent and extensive information about the wages and privileges of officials. Incredible.

that a "real" revolution could only occur when the workers turn to a "revolutionary workers party"(fill in ultra-sectarian Trotskyist groupsucle)
You need to read about the organizational history of Marxism. Do you really think Lenin went around telling people "We're going to build a superpower and industrialize really fast, and have big armies and military parades and cool uniforms! Oh and Kerensky is doing what he can under pressure, he made mistakes, (doesn't every human being?) but hes the first socialist revolutionary president russia has ever had! how dare anyone criticize that!!"

But, perhaps, Cuba should retain its ideological purity and starve, which would undoubtedly lead to an all-out capitalist restoration. Would you prefer that?
I never said anything like that, and you know it's not true, so come off it. Read the Trotsky article I linked to. All I'm saying is socialism has not yet been constructed, the roots of the classes have not been extirpated.

Actually, what helps the capitalists is telling workers who are interested in socialism, "Well it hasn't existed for over 80 years and has been a total miserable failure everywhere its been tried, but when WE take power we'll make it work, really!" Basically, you conceded half the debate by refusing to defend anything positive gained by existing socialist regimes. Good luck with that argument.
I don't know what planet you are living on, but "socialism in one country" failed, most people want nothing to do with a kitsch ideology, and advanced workers generally don't get turned on by youtube videos of military parades.

manic expression

18th March 2010, 19:42

No, state capitalism is not a sufficient definition. A proletarian revolution in a backwards oppressed country can not establish socialism on its own, besieged by imperialism and unable to readily apply the most advanced production methods. The USSR's industrial sector was state capitalist while Trotsky was War Commissar too. Trotsky was just criticizing the revisionism of the bureaucratic elite, who had no confidence in the world revolution, and an objective interest in abolishing what remained of workers' power. It was those objective interests that destroyed the USSR, not the subjective influence of Gorbachev coming out of nowhere.
First, you need to define what you mean by "state capitalism", because you keep switching from the present Trotskyist use and Lenin's original use, which is disingenuous. Second, you can look at Cuba (or the USSR) to see that your hypothesis on "a backwards oppressed country" daring to make a revolution is self-defeating, myopic and wrong. Third, Gorbachev enabled objective reactionary interests while disabling objective progressive interests. But keep ignoring history.

I'm just pointing out that it is not socialist.No, you're claiming that it is not socialist, with no evidence.

Wrong, you claimed this before, but the quote is from 1918, long before NEP, and he's talking specifically about pay inequalities in state industry (in response to Bukharin who argued any level of inequality was compatible with socialism). "If we pay 2,000 in accordance with the railroad decree, that is state capitalism." In Lenin's time, statistics about social differences within the USSR were actually published and discussed.. There was even a law limiting the income of party members known as Partmaximum (which was abolished under Stalin). Lenin even considered 1:4 to be a capitalist differential, that needed to be reduced.What you keep dodging, however, is the fact that the quote is using a definition of "state capitalism" that is diametrically opposed to the definition you are using. Let's let Lenin do the talking:

Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm

So, by using that quote, you're arguing that Cuban state is represented by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry. Interesting.

That thread is a great way to see how manic expression repeats himself, ignores giant parts of my argument, etc. The reason I stopped replying was that you weren't even trying with your last post. I asked for a quote by Fidel Castro saying he was a Marxist before 1959, you linked to a speech from 1961 and said I would "do well" to study the words of this Great Man. please. The other thread we debated in was even better, you should post a link to that one, too.This is just Kleber's way of saying he eventually was forced to admit that he bases his arguments on absolutely nothing. I highly encourage everyone to read it if they take his arguments seriously at all.

Also, your only evidence about wages in Cuba was an independent study from 26 years ago, didn't even cover the full spectrum of wages, it only addressed a few industrial occupations, half of the figures were guessed due to lack of data, and it was from long before the special period (not to mention abolition of the max wage). It was obvious you hadn't even read the book you linked to, since the authors themselves expressed regret and frustration with the incompleteness of the information. And yet you claimed, repeatedly, that this outdated, highly limited, non-Cuban source proved that the Cuban government publishes transparent and extensive information about the wages and privileges of officials. Incredible.So because the Cuban state didn't air-mail wage data to your door with a red bow, you can claim whatever you want about it. Yet again, we see that your conclusions are based on absolutely nothing.

You need to read about the organizational history of Marxism. Do you really think Lenin went around telling people "We're going to build a superpower and industrialize really fast, and have big armies and military parades and cool uniforms! Oh and Kerensky is doing what he can under pressure, he made mistakes, (doesn't every human being?) but hes the first socialist revolutionary president russia has ever had! how dare anyone criticize that!!"Lenin supported industrialization of the Soviet Union, Lenin supported building up Soviet military capabilities, Lenin took part in parades, Lenin presided over a government that used uniforms. But I guess that makes him some terrible capitalist to you. :lol: More anti-Leninism from Kleber.

red cat

18th March 2010, 19:46

Amidst all this argument, let us not forget that whether Cuba be state capitalist or semi-colony or socialist, it is always to be defended against direct American imperialism. Refusing to do so is plain reactionary.

KlÃ©ber

18th March 2010, 20:30

First, you need to define what you mean by "state capitalism", because you keep switching from the present Trotskyist use and Lenin's original use, which is disingenuous.
Lenin and Trotsky understood the economy to be state-administered capitalism but they also considered the working class to be in charge of that state. Trotsky did not like it when people just said "The USSR is state capitalist" to imply that it was no better than the imperialist USA. This is why he said of Max Shachtman "If this be Trotskyism, then I, at least, am no Trotskyist."

I'm not using it in the sense that the IMT or the Maoists/Hoxhaists use it, to say that the USSR/Cuba is a bourgeois state. I think it's a heavily deformed workers' state under revisionist leadership. There is an important element of token workers' democracy in Cuba but not enough to ensure the country against market capitalist restoration backed by the European imperialist sponsors of the Castro clique. I'm just using the term "state capitalism," which adequately describes an industry where the managers have no maximum wage, in reaction to the claim that Cuba or any other country is "socialist" which is patently false.

Second, you can look at Cuba (or the USSR) to see that your hypothesis on "a backwards oppressed country" daring to make a revolution is self-defeating, myopic and wrong.
Trotsky's whole theory of the Permanent Revolution is based precisely on the idea that the proletariat of such a country can and should rise up. 1959, however, was not a proletarian revolution, it was the victorious struggle of a nationalist poor peasant army under an eclectic radical bourgeois leadership.

Third, Gorbachev enabled objective reactionary interests while disabling objective progressive interests. But keep ignoring history.
But according to you there were no objective reactionary interests for him to represent. he just came outta nowhere.

No, you're claiming that it is not socialist, with no evidence.
We both have "claims," don't turn this into a word game. I produced plenty of evidence in the other threads, and it was a lot newer than 26 years old, to show how much social differentiation exists in Cuba. The fact that they abolished the maximum wage should be proof enough to anyone with common sense. If you know so much about Cuba, present the income figures.

So because the Cuban state didn't air-mail wage data to your door with a red bow, you can claim whatever you want about it. Yet again, we see that your conclusions are based on absolutely nothing.
What information does exist shows that there is a range of at least 1:8 or 1:10, and Lenin considered 1:4 to be a capitalist differential.

vyborg

18th March 2010, 22:32

I'm not using it in the sense that the IMT or the Maoists/Hoxhaists use it, to say that the USSR/Cuba is a bourgeois state.

Please drink responsibily. Otherwise you write something like this...

KlÃ©ber

18th March 2010, 22:47

LOL thanks for correcting me, I got Tony Grant and Ted Cliff mixed up for a minute there :o I meant the way the British SWP uses the term.

vyborg

18th March 2010, 22:50

You meant the IST....:) that took this position decades ago (even if they have hidden it during the Vietnam war...)

KlÃ©ber

18th March 2010, 22:54

Oh geez. I don't see what the big deal is, Lenin and Trotsky thought they were deformed workers' states and state capitalist :P

Vladimir Innit Lenin

19th March 2010, 11:54

You know something's up when there are so many tendencies you are getting them confused...;)

vyborg

19th March 2010, 12:00

LOL, I'd better have all revolutionary in the same organization for sure...

red cat

19th March 2010, 12:47

Oh geez. I don't see what the big deal is, Lenin and Trotsky thought they were deformed workers' states and state capitalist :P

Which state did Lenin think was a deformed workers' state ?

vyborg

19th March 2010, 13:25

Which state did Lenin think was a deformed workers' state ?

Lenin spoke of Russia of 1918-1920 as a tsarist state only dressed in red. of course he was conducting a polemic against the too optimistic leaders inside the party

red cat

19th March 2010, 13:30

Lenin spoke of Russia of 1918-1920 as a tsarist state only dressed in red. of course he was conducting a polemic against the too optimistic leaders inside the party

Link please ?

vyborg

19th March 2010, 13:52

I'm very far away of my books right now but it is sufficient that you surf the net and you will find plenty of quotation. for example a note of the 20 of december of 1922 or CW vol 33, pp. 287-288 and so on

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 14:02

I made a post on a Pol Pot video on youtube (not glorifying him or anything, just pointing out that he is indirectly respnosible for the Cambodian killings) and some guy claiming to be raised in Cuba replied, going with the typical anti-communist arguement "you're just some stupid kid that knows nothing about the horrors of communism and you hate democracy", etc. etc.

But with all the research I've done, Cuba's electoral system seems very democratic and direct, especially with all the younger voters. Yes, there are problems (food rationing for one) but above all, all their citizens receive healthcare and an education and at least nobody starves like in other third world capitalist countries. I pointed this out and I am currently waiting for his reply.

But back on topic, do you think it is right to argue with Cuban emigrants? I kinda feel like a dick arguing with someone that actually lived there and telling him/her that they're wrong.

Okay man, just because you come from a country doesn't make you an expert on that nation's politics. I mean, if some TEA Bagger came from the South and went to France, you know he would be arguing that the government is too big and everything was great under Bush and went to hell under Obama.

Would it be good if some educated French man knocked him down with statistics and evidence? Yeah.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 14:22

Also what's with the Cuba bashing? If I had to live anywhere in South America I'd live in Cuba. If I lived in say, Haiti, or Mexico, or Brazil, I could starve to death. In Cuba you have guaranteed housing, food, water, medicine, income, etc.

Also I don't agree that Cuba is state capitalist, since I equate that with fascism, I consider it a deformed Workers State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformed_workers%27_state) that uses market socialist (http://www.jcp.or.jp/english/jps_weekly/2002-0827-fuwa.html) mechanisms.

Also just look at how ridiculously petty complaints about Cuba are: http://www.thecubablog.com/topics/car-hire/

The people there are complaining that they cannot use their cars as taxis, another blogger complains about potatoes:

The year I was born the first Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba was held and the centralization of trade and services became absolute. The only thing one could acquire—outside the ration market—were some books, newspapers and movie tickets. All other products and services fell under the austere sign of the restricted, enclosed within the subsidized quota we received every month. Even to buy a razor blade, one had to present the ration card where the seller marked the number corresponding to the sharp blades.

Something similar happened with food and especially with the fruits of our fertile fields, distributed in limited quantities to each consumer. The potato was one of those most controlled by the State. During my entire life this tasty tuber was exclusively available on the counters of the ration markets; they arrived every three or four months to do us the honor of their presence and their taste. I dreamed of purees spread with butter with fried potatoes hanging over the plate. I thought their soft texture was harvested from the remote Siberian planes and not from the furrows of my own country.

The private farmers were compelled to sell their potatoes to the state, which strongly penalized those who violated this strict requirement. So we got used to seeing them appear on our plates a few times a year and keeping them in our culinary fantasies. That was until a few weeks ago when Raul Castro’s government decided to liberalize their sale and removed them from the increasingly empty ration market. Now we do not need to show a document to buy pounds of potatoes, but we must wait for them to return, before we can put them in our bags and take them home.

http://www.desdecuba.com/generationy/?paged=3

I'm not sure what these people's point is. If they lived in any other south american country, trust me, they'd have bigger things to worry about then how the state redistributes its fucking potatoes. Things like high starvation rates, and having no medicine, and possibly no food at all.

Also I love how these people dress themselves as freedom fighters. It is such BS, because you know as soon as the imperialists have power they are going to start repressing Communists just like they did in Russia. Yeltsin was all pro-freedom and democracy in Russia until it went against the free market. Then he sent in the tanks:

Between 21–24 September Yeltsin was confronted by significant popular unrest, encouraging the defenders of the parliament. Moscow saw what amounted to a spontaneous mass uprising of anti-Yeltsin demonstrators numbering in the tens of thousands marching in the streets resolutely seeking to aid forces defending the parliament building. The demonstrators were protesting the new and terrible living conditions under Yeltsin. Since 1989 GDP had declined by half. Corruption was rampant, violent crime was skyrocketing, medical services were collapsing, food and fuel were increasingly scarce and life expectancy was falling for all but a tiny handful of the population; moreover, Yeltsin was increasingly getting the blame.

By early October, Yeltsin had secured the support of Russia's army and ministry of interior forces. In a massive show of force, Yeltsin called up tanks to shell the Russian White House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_White_House), Russia's parliament building.

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

manic expression

20th March 2010, 10:29

Lenin and Trotsky understood the economy to be state-administered capitalism but they also considered the working class to be in charge of that state. Trotsky did not like it when people just said "The USSR is state capitalist" to imply that it was no better than the imperialist USA. This is why he said of Max Shachtman "If this be Trotskyism, then I, at least, am no Trotskyist."
Lenin understood the economy to be under the direct control of the working class. Trotsky rejected the term "state capitalist" outright, calling it essentially an oxymoron in practice. He dedicates a whole section in The Revolution Betrayed to this. You should do your homework.

I'm not using it in the sense that the IMT or the Maoists/Hoxhaists use it, to say that the USSR/Cuba is a bourgeois state. I think it's a heavily deformed workers' state under revisionist leadership. There is an important element of token workers' democracy in Cuba but not enough to ensure the country against market capitalist restoration backed by the European imperialist sponsors of the Castro clique. I'm just using the term "state capitalism," which adequately describes an industry where the managers have no maximum wage, in reaction to the claim that Cuba or any other country is "socialist" which is patently false.
If you say it's a deformed worker state, then you would have to concede some ancillary points: first, if you knew the first thing about Trotsky's analysis, you'd know that Trotsky saw the problem of deformed worker states as one of abuse of power, not one of capitalist social relations. He specifically rejects the idea that Soviet bureaucrats were acting as capitalists time and again in The Revolution Betrayed. Do your homework. Second, you would need to concede that the Cuban Revolution was, indeed, a working-class revolution that established a worker state. Yet this, alone, refutes your position, for you have held all along that Fidel was never a socialist. Funny that. Third, you would have to tell us how it became "deformed". Good luck, let me know when you put together an argument.

Trotsky's whole theory of the Permanent Revolution is based precisely on the idea that the proletariat of such a country can and should rise up. 1959, however, was not a proletarian revolution, it was the victorious struggle of a nationalist poor peasant army under an eclectic radical bourgeois leadership.
Lots of lies, no facts. The fact is that the J26M was the vanguard of the Revolution: it carried heavy support within the urban working class and within the peasantry, it was a socialist movement (even though Fidel kept outwardly neutral to fool the imperialists, I've posted evidence of this before but you've ignored it because you're a hack), it carried out the working-class revolution in Cuba.

But this begs the question: you say Cuba is a deformed worker state, but where did the "worker state" come from? Trotsky clearly tells us that the deformed worker state of the USSR had its roots in the genuine working-class October Revolution. Thus, you are admitting that there was a genuine working-class revolution in Cuba, evidently led by the J26M. I look forward to seeing you trip over your lies.

But according to you there were no objective reactionary interests for him to represent. he just came outta nowhere.
Of course there were. I never stated otherwise. The objective reactionary interests were more immediately represented by Yeltsin, Walesa, Havel and a gaggle of other right-wing reactionaries throughout the Soviet bloc. The leadership of the forces of progress were paralyzed. But keep ignoring history, and my arguments.

We both have "claims," don't turn this into a word game. I produced plenty of evidence in the other threads, and it was a lot newer than 26 years old, to show how much social differentiation exists in Cuba. The fact that they abolished the maximum wage should be proof enough to anyone with common sense. If you know so much about Cuba, present the income figures.
You produced no evidence, your claims are admittedly based on your suspicions. The thread I posted above shows this. I explained what the wage reforms are actually doing: making wages more flexible to recognize effective work on the part of workers (much like the Stakhanovite movement, really). Sorry, but them's the facts. Try again.

What information does exist shows that there is a range of at least 1:8 or 1:10, and Lenin considered 1:4 to be a capitalist differential.
Wrong. Your numbers are based on your personal suspicions.

KlÃ©ber

21st March 2010, 01:14

Link please ?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm

Lenin understood the economy to be under the direct control of the working class. Trotsky rejected the term "state capitalist" outright, calling it essentially an oxymoron in practice. He dedicates a whole section in The Revolution Betrayed to this. You should do your homework.
I answered these points already. You obviously haven't read the book, so don't even go there.

first, if you knew the first thing about Trotsky's analysis, you'd know that Trotsky saw the problem of deformed worker states as one of abuse of power, not one of capitalist social relations. He specifically rejects the idea that Soviet bureaucrats were acting as capitalists time and again in The Revolution Betrayed.
With the abolition of partmaximum in 1931, the difference between the bureaucratic aristocracy and the specialists whose high salaries Lenin had considered "state capitalism," got very fuzzy. Trotsky noted that the Soviet bureaucrats were living the lifestyles of successful Western capitalists with servants, limousines, domestic servants, second salaries, etc. On top of that they enjoyed outright aristocratic privileges like special restaurants and stores, and special lanes on the street. No, they weren't fully capitalist yet, they were still a bureaucratic caste, but Trotsky correctly predicted that they would transition into an outright ruling capitalist class if left unchecked by the proletariat. You ought to read the whole book, it's quite good.

The fact is that the J26M was the vanguard of the Revolution: it carried heavy support within the urban working class and within the peasantry,
Every army consists of members of the oppressed. The class character of the leadership is another matter.

it was a socialist movement (even though Fidel kept outwardly neutral to fool the imperialists, I've posted evidence of this before but you've ignored it because you're a hack)
Your evidence came from 1961, I asked for evidence before 1959. There is no evidence from before he took power that Fidel Castro was a socialist. The M26J included pesepistas but also outright anticommunists like Faustino Pérez and Huber Matos.

But this begs the question: you say Cuba is a deformed worker state, but where did the "worker state" come from?
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2251

Of course there were. I never stated otherwise. The objective reactionary interests were more immediately represented by Yeltsin, Walesa, Havel and a gaggle of other right-wing reactionaries throughout the Soviet bloc. The leadership of the forces of progress were paralyzed. But keep ignoring history, and my arguments.Who are these "forces" they represent? "Reactionaries" and "progressives" are just Great Men, who force their ideas about social systems onto history, but they don't represent social interests? That's an idealistic Hegelian analysis. You ought to read The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/index.htm). Politicians represent class forces. The fact that violent political conflicts happened in the USSR shows that social conflicts were going on. This means there were groups, like bureaucrats, petty bourgeois, and workers, with contradictory relations to the means of production, and these contradictions led to capitalism, so some social group had to exist with an objective interest in restoring market capitalism, therefore the society wasn't yet socialist.

And why were the "forces of progress" paralyzed with nobody to speak up for them? Couldn't have been the fact that they were gagged from writing and speaking by despotic censorship laws could it?

You produced no evidence, your claims are admittedly based on your suspicions. The thread I posted above shows this.
lol, how about you link to the other thread where I brought up charts and figures from recently (not 26 years ago) that you totally ignored.

I explained what the wage reforms are actually doing: making wages more flexible to recognize effective work on the part of workers (much like the Stakhanovite movement, really). Sorry, but them's the facts. Try again.
If you think the Stakhanovite movement was legit then you need to check the facts I'm afraid. The Cuban state abolished the maximum wage, that's the fact. Under the new reforms workers can get an across-the-board 5% bonus but managers get automatic 30% bonuses, not to mention that the overall salary cap is gone.

Wrong. Your numbers are based on your personal suspicions.
LOL, 1:8 is from the official minimum and maximum wages (back when there was a max wage); 1:10 is from the book RedSonRising posted earlier in this thread. 1:4 is merely a difference that Lenin considered bourgeois, in opposition to Nicky "enrich yourselves" B who argued in principle for unlimited salary differentials. Are you honest enough to admit that you take Bukharin's side in a debate against Lenin?

I sure do have suspicions that inequality is actually higher - duh, they got rid of the maximum wage. Post some actual up-to-date or at least comprehensive (meaning, including the highest figures for managers and officials, not just a smattering of low-paying occupations from 26 years ago) info about wages if you want to convince anybody.

manic expression

21st March 2010, 18:44

I answered these points already. You obviously haven't read the book, so don't even go there.
No, you've danced around the points. Read 'em and weep:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm#ch09-1

Our brief analysis is sufficient to show how absurd are the attempts to identify capitalist state-ism with the Soviet system. The former is reactionary, the latter progressive.

Oops.

With the abolition of partmaximum in 1931, the difference between the bureaucratic aristocracy and the specialists whose high salaries Lenin had considered "state capitalism," got very fuzzy. Trotsky noted that the Soviet bureaucrats were living the lifestyles of successful Western capitalists with servants, limousines, domestic servants, second salaries, etc. On top of that they enjoyed outright aristocratic privileges like special restaurants and stores, and special lanes on the street. No, they weren't fully capitalist yet, they were still a bureaucratic caste, but Trotsky correctly predicted that they would transition into an outright ruling capitalist class if left unchecked by the proletariat. You ought to read the whole book, it's quite good.
The Stakhanovites were living well, too. All of Soviet society was uplifted incredibly in the 1930's, thanks to the success of the first Five Year Plan.

Your standards are so foolish. You say that bureaucrats lived on certain streets and were therefore a separate caste...but this happens in many areas. If miners live in certain areas in a remote area, are they now a special caste? What of doctors and hospital workers who are allotted living quarters near hospitals? A special caste as well? How about dockworkers and sailors living near harbors...another "caste"? Have fun with that logic.

Every army consists of members of the oppressed. The class character of the leadership is another matter.
And the leadership of the Cuban Revolution was distinctly revolutionary. Their actions after the victory is proof of this. Oh, and nice side-step from your original point, it's always a pleasure to watch you dance.

Your evidence came from 1961, I asked for evidence before 1959. There is no evidence from before he took power that Fidel Castro was a socialist. The M26J included pesepistas but also outright anticommunists like Faustino Pérez and Huber Matos.
Why does the date of the evidence make any difference? It simply showed the ideological alignment of Fidel and the leaders of the Revolution. By your logic, Lenin was always a Social-Democrat and nothing more. :lol: More anti-Leninism from Kleber. And those anti-communists came to the same position that you hold: opposing the Cuban Revolution and the march of the Cuban workers.

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2251
Good for you. Too bad it doesn't say anything useful. Try again, I'm sure there are more anti-socialist hit pieces for you to use as a distraction.

Who are these "forces" they represent? "Reactionaries" and "progressives" are just Great Men, who force their ideas about social systems onto history, but they don't represent social interests? That's an idealistic Hegelian analysis. You ought to read The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/index.htm). Politicians represent class forces. The fact that violent political conflicts happened in the USSR shows that social conflicts were going on. This means there were groups, like bureaucrats, petty bourgeois, and workers, with contradictory relations to the means of production, and these contradictions led to capitalism, so some social group had to exist with an objective interest in restoring market capitalism, therefore the society wasn't yet socialist.
Your mistake is to assign no value to leadership, and engage in the most insipid form of economism yet seen. First, leadership: are you to argue that Lenin, Trotsky and the rest of the Bolsheviks had no agency in the October Revolution and the events that followed? The Civil War had nothing to do with Trotsky's decisions? The Reds won the war because class forces determined it to be so? This is mechanical, un-Marxist thinking, thinking torn apart by Marx himself on many occassions. We'll get to this later. The fact of the matter is that individuals have agency, and that decisions made by those individuals oftentimes carry a great deal of gravity throughout the pages of history. Perhaps if you opened a history book once in awhile, you'd learn this. As for your typical manipulation of Marx's words, it would do you well to read them: Men make their own history, but not as they like it. Write that on the board a hundred times, then open your mouth.

More to the point: are you saying that the initially indecisive Soviet response to the genocide in Baku was entirely due to class forces? Are you saying that the decision to demolish the Berlin Wall was made solely because of social contradictions in the DDR and USSR? Are you saying that Glasnost and Perestroika were instituted because of class relationships and nothing else? If you aren't, then you're contradicting yourself; if you are, then you don't know what you're talking about. It's your choice.

Lastly, socialism is not classless, and was never meant to be. The dictatorship of the proletariat, too, is not classless. Your charge that class conflict still existed in 1991 (gasp) means nothing, it's simply another piece of empty slander against socialism.

And why were the "forces of progress" paralyzed with nobody to speak up for them? Couldn't have been the fact that they were gagged from writing and speaking by despotic censorship laws could it?
They were paralyzed because Gorbachev and his clique pretended to promote "openness" by allowing reactionary nationalists free reign to push their garbage, while not allowing communists to respond effectively. Your desperate attempt to pin Gorbachev's folly on preexisting Soviet law is cute, if silly.

lol, how about you link to the other thread where I brought up charts and figures from recently (not 26 years ago) that you totally ignored.
If they gave your claims a shred of validity, perhaps you'd have a point. But you don't.

If you think the Stakhanovite movement was legit then you need to check the facts I'm afraid. The Cuban state abolished the maximum wage, that's the fact. Under the new reforms workers can get an across-the-board 5% bonus but managers get automatic 30% bonuses, not to mention that the overall salary cap is gone.
Post some of "the facts", then we'll talk. Anyway, yes, it abolished the maximum wage as part of a wider effort to make wages more flexible. I already posted sources which explain the real underpinnings of the reform, and why it is essentially the opposite of what you say. Your assertions about the extravagance of managers are, again, based on absolutely nothing except your own suspicions. We'll be seeing this theme quite a lot.

LOL, 1:8 is from the official minimum and maximum wages (back when there was a max wage); 1:10 is from the book RedSonRising posted earlier in this thread. 1:4 is merely a difference that Lenin considered bourgeois, in opposition to Nicky "enrich yourselves" B who argued in principle for unlimited salary differentials. Are you honest enough to admit that you take Bukharin's side in a debate against Lenin?
Post an example of a 1:8 wage differential in Cuba. Go for it. And just so we're all crystal clear, outline the precise conditions surrounding this differential. I'm just bursting with anticipation of a remotely relevant example of what you're saying. Best of luck in giving your arguments the slightest bit of support.

And yet more manipulation of Lenin's words. You cite Lenin's own policy on wages, and then state that Lenin agrees with your opposing assertion that all wage differences are bourgeois. Keep twisting Lenin's words.

I sure do have suspicions
You can say that again. :lol:

Agnapostate

25th March 2010, 21:40

I liked this (http://www.debatepolitics.com/history/67722-che-guevara-hero-menace.html). The most epic part came in this post (http://www.debatepolitics.com/history/67722-che-guevara-hero-menace-19.html#post1058635072):

Spoken like one more little American raised Cuban boy who speaks like an authority to a country he's never been to. But since I have no time to debate people who only repeat what they hear from the very people who obviously were profiting from American rule of Cuba before they got told to take a hike, I'll make this just one long post and you can verify every single part of it if you like.

The reality of the Cuban "democratic" system before the revolution and even before Batista is that there was no democratic system. Free elections in Cuba is a myth like in most of Latin America. Generally, whatever party serves to U.S. interests is the one which is most likely to win. Democracy or no democracy. This is confirmed in the PRI - Which inexplicably held power for 70 years - and the Pinochet government in South America. It was no different in Cuba, the only legacy democracy in Cuba left was a long line of puppet governments who catered to U.S. companies. From the United Fruit Company to the AEP, Cuba was a country where large profits could be made at the expense of a mostly uneducated populace.

This ultimately explains why the Cuban Revolution has been so successful in terms of staying in power. There are people in Cuba who still remember times where nobody but the rich could go to university. People who still remember being out of work for 5 months of the year because the only mass employer in Cuba were sugar cane growers. People who lived in towns of 20 or even 30,000 where the majority of the population couldn't read.

Whether you accept the negative repercussions of the Cuban revolution or not, there is no question that it is unique in terms of revolution and coups. Cuba did not experience famine, genocide or even mass disappearances. Revolutions are characteristically followed by such. Specially when the country is completely isolated economically and/or switches political systems. North Korea, Russia, China all experienced this when becoming socialists. Cuba didn't. That is u.n.i.q.u.e. in history.

Not only is it unique because of that but because it was a revolution supported in large numbers by the urban population. The 26th of July Movement was primarily made up of university kids in the cities engaging in guerrilla warfare in the cities while Castro's forces put pressure on the South. When Batista saw that he could no longer control the people he fled. Soon followed by all those people in Cuba who had benefited from his puppet government.

Finally, showing just how unique the Cuban revolution is historically, is the fact that the populace supported the swift changes almost overnight. Fidel didn't need to have the military patrolling the streets of Cuba to start social programs. He didn't need hold thousands of Cuban kids hostage to get work accomplished. Cubans simply supported his revolution. The proof is in the history books, the videos of the time, the writings about Fidel Castro even by American politicians like Nixon who saw him as a force to be reckoned with because of the support he had behind him.

And this support has persisted. Whether the younger generation in Cuba has become disillusioned with how it has turned out for them is another issue. But the Cuban revolution gave most Cubans the chance that no democracy in Latin America would have ever dreamed of. It turned the sons of campesinos into doctors, lawyers etc. It gave heavy farming equipment to guajiros who before had to spend countless hours on their field. It gave women equal footing with men in the work place. This is not debatable.

Now I do not know your family, but from the looks of it they sound like people who left shortly after the revolution. Which would explain why your entire argument is based on what you've heard instead of what you've seen or even read. They sound like people who obviously benefited from an economy which very few Cubans did. GDP is not indicative of the social conditions in a country. Proof of this are found all over the place today. Take Greece, the GDP in Greece is 30,000pc yet the country is facing the greatest financial crisis in its history. Explain that? I bet you can't. Because GDP is nothing more than a red herring in these discussions.

However, the social conditions of a country are indicative of whether or not a revolution is going to happen. And in Cuba the social conditions were perfect for a revolution. People were disenfranchise. Beyond Habana and cities like Santiago, there was very little infrastructure in the country. Cuba's national highway wasn't even built then. Do you understand now why the revolution is so important to Cuba in terms of what it gave them?

Regardless of whatever you've heard, and wish to repeat (I'll keep saying that from now because your posts are indicative that you are nothing more than a parrot - if you'd like un perico) there is no such thing as rich parts of Cuba. Ask your 'parents' where Cayo Hueso and El Cerro are. Not rich by any stretch of the imagination. Cars like these ones,

http://www.laurig.com/aliisanet/carib3gallery/images/2cuba004.jpg

http://www.deadprogrammer.com/photos/odessa-old-and-new-cars.jpg

are now a common sight in Cuba(look behind the old car in Cuba and count the number of new ones). More than that, Cuban people are buying them. And they're not from the 50s, they're not from the 60s. They are brand new. This ridiculous assertion you have that there are parts of Cuba that are richer than others is ridiculous. There are parts which are more developed than others. But then again what country doesn't have this? The U.S. does, Canada does so does Japan etc. No. You're simply wrong even on the cars.

But why stop there? As long as we're talking about being wrong, tell me. What do you know about Orlando Zapata Tamayo? Please tell me because you obviously don't even know why he was put in jail. The guy had a criminal record spanning assault with a deadly weapon(a machete), fraud etc. In other words, he was a common criminal. Nothing more, nothing less.

The worst part about your entire post is that you bring up your great uncle like I'll be impressed or something. The Cuban Communist Party pre-Revolution was like the Argentinian Socialist Party. They were there to give the populace the belief that there was opposition. The public was hyped up with rhetoric it couldn't comprehend and then when voting time came, the same people remained in power. The workers, the trabajadores, los descamisados, all the same thing at the end of the day never got anybody who represented their interests elected. The fact that your great uncle went over to Miami after Fidel took power is proof that Cuba was a farce in terms of democratic tradition. It always has been.

Finally there is your quote about me being a statist. Oh little Cuban boys who talk about countries they've never been to! I do not support the Castro government. What I do support is the idea that at the end of the day, Cubans at the end of the day support a Castro government more than they would a Miami friendly government which is commanded from D.C. - But then again, this is because :

1. I've been to the country and spoken to Cubans actually living in the country.
2. I actually have knowledge of Cuba prior to the revolution.
3. I didn't have to hear it from other people.

But please little Cuban boy who's never been to Cuba. Tell us all, what is the history of democracy in Cuba. I'm sure some here will find the words of somebody who's never even been there more than enough to convince them. Whatever you do though, read a book first. Don't repeat what you hear and most of all, no comas tanta pinga.

From the husband of a Cuban-American, but the black husband of a black Cuban-American, as opposed to the misinformed descendants of the expropriated white elite. :lol: