Was fidel castro a true communist?

[Dimitri Molotov]

was he a true marxist? why was he such a "bad" leader? what did he do good? would you support him? i read somewhere cuba has free education and health care and the only reason they suck is because of the US embargo.

[The Ben G]

Well, his Marxism-Leninism is rocky at best, but I wouldn't call him a bad leader. The literacy rate of Cuba has gone from about 17% to about 95% under his rule, Infant mortality has gone down, they have one of the best health care system in the world, etc..

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Last source I saw said their literacy rate was around 99%, and their health-care system was ranked one higher then the USA's. Sure, I've read a few negative things about Cuba as well (discrimination towards homosexuals, even towards foreigners who volunteered for their unbelievable quotas back in the day), but nobody is perfect. Pros and cons...

[Chimurenga.]

Yes, and he still is.

[Comrade Niko]

"discrimination towards homosexuals"
Well thats everywhere, pretty much... But Cuba still kicks ass. viva la Che. :)

[Q]

There is a saying among union organizers: "You are a good organizer if you can make yourself redundant", as workers will lead themselves. In that regard Fidel has failed miserably as it took him almost fifty years to resign and that only due to health reasons.

[TheSamsquatch]

I was talking to a guy the other day from Argentina that actually did travel to Cuba, and swears that it is a real Communist society. Everybody seems to have a different opinion on Castro, but from what i've heard he really did a lot for the country.

[sozialistentony]

Socialist in nature, not communist. I don't see anything special about Cuba. I see great progresses among a large amount of failure.

To be honest, I constantly think of what the world would be like if Guevara wasn't fucking assassinated by those imperialist bastards. What would happen if he triggered revolutions across the world as planned? Then cuba may be much different. In my eyes, Fidel is much more socialist than communist. And even then, his socialism is shaky considering it's a captialist world we live in.

El Che es vive! Hasta la siempre victoria!

[FSL]

There is a saying among union organizers: "You are a good organizer if you can make yourself redundant", as workers will lead themselves. In that regard Fidel has failed miserably as it took him almost fifty years to resign and that only due to health reasons.

And yet, after his resignation Cuba didn't "collapse".

[Q]

And yet, after his resignation Cuba didn't "collapse".

Well, his brother is still at the steering wheel so far... Also, bureacracies have a tendency of recreating themselves, older layers always look for younger ones to step in their shoes should they retire. This is of course something distinctively different from workers self-rule.

[Tablo]

As a Communist I would say he fails. As the leader of a country I would say he gets an B-(since in comparison he is a massive improvement on the typical bourgeois pricks that run our world.). He dramatically improved the living conditions of the populace without help from the local super power(USA) and made Cuba an example for the rest of Latin America. While I feel he is a prick with no serious dedication to the working class, only an idiot would ignore the amazing improvements in Cuba. Fuck Fidel, I love the working class.

[Thirsty Crow]

Are there studies showing to what extent do workers participate in democratic processes at the workplace, and what dynamics are at work between the state and workers' organizations (unions, workplace assemblies etc.)?

[JTB]

Well, his Marxism-Leninism is rocky at best, but I wouldn't call him a bad leader. The literacy rate of Cuba has gone from about 17% to about 95% under his rule, Infant mortality has gone down, they have one of the best health care system in the world, etc..
Well, that explains all the people on rafts trying to escape...

[A.R.Amistad]

I think Celia Hart is a far better communist than Fidel. :thumbup1:

[Scary Monster]

Well, that explains all the people on rafts trying to escape...

This is true though. I have a friend whos dad tried to swim to the US, but died. This confuses me though. Some people say Cuba is a great place to live, and looking at all the info on Cuba, its one of the most well-off countries in Latin America. Others risk dying, trying to escape from Cuba, even though Immigration from Cuba is unrestricted, due to the Cuban Adjustment Act. But obviously, the US provides a more comfortable standard of living compared to the rest of the world, only because the US extracts cheap/slave labor and sucks countries dry of resources, allowing our "high standard of living" and material lifestyle.

On Castro- A leader cant be a "true communist" because if there needs to be a leader of a country to continually provide for the working class, then by definition, they arent communist! However, Im amazed by how much Cuba has accomplished under Castro. Cuba is a great example of what a country can achieve without imperialism (hell, Cuba sends doctors to other third world countries and sent troops to south africa to fight european and US-supported apartheid governments) nor depending upon a superpower, while still providing for all its citizens, despite a tough embargo. Im eventually gonna travel to cuba soon, to see everything for myself.

[Barry Lyndon]

This is true though. I have a friend whos dad tried to swim to the US, but died. This confuses me though. Some people say Cuba is a great place to live, and looking at all the info on Cuba, its one of the most well-off countries in Latin America. Others risk dying, trying to escape from Cuba, even though Immigration from Cuba is unrestricted, due to the Cuban Adjustment Act. But obviously, the US provides a more comfortable standard of living compared to the rest of the world, only because the US extracts cheap/slave labor and sucks countries dry of resources, allowing our "high standard of living" and material lifestyle.

On Castro- A leader cant be a "true communist" because if there needs to be a leader of a country to continually provide for the working class, then by definition, they arent communist! However, Im amazed by how much Cuba has accomplished under Castro. Cuba is a great example of what a country can achieve without imperialism (hell, Cuba sends doctors to other third world countries and sent troops to south africa to fight european and US-supported apartheid governments) nor depending upon a superpower, while still providing for all its citizens, despite a tough embargo. Im eventually gonna travel to cuba soon, to see everything for myself.

Another major reason that people flee from Cuba is because under special US laws Cubans are the only immigrants who are guaranteed US citizenship upon coming to North America's shores. That's a strong incentive, and its blatantly politically motivated to undermine Cuba. Contrast this to Haiti, where people are literally dying from hunger and are trying to get out of the country is much larger numbers, but are often physically blocked from doing so by the US Navy.:mad:

[ContrarianLemming]

Cuban law limits freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, and the press

So..no, he's not a true communist

[vampire squid]

"true communists" have never accomplished anything, so, no, to his credit, he's not a "true communist"

[Spawn of Stalin]

I think I'd agree with Ben G's analysis, I don't think he's a very good Leninist at all, but he's still a socialist and a progressive. Some of the achievements made by the revolution under his leadership are pretty damn remarkable, this is unquestionable, Cuba went from being just another colony to a beacon of hope for the oppressed peoples of the American continent in just a few years, and what has been accomplished in the years since the revolution is incredible, from what I've been told from many first hand witnesses, and from what I have read in publications which I trust, despite the blockade Cuba is now actually a desirable place for proletarians to live and work, and there aren't many places in the world where this is true. Like I said, Fidel's Leninism is highly questionable at times, but he is probably one of the greatest anti-imperialists who ever lived, and still one of the most inspirational figures alive today.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Cuban law limits freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, and the press

So..no, he's not a true communist

Oh the horror, he's not a liberal!

[JTB]

"true communists" have never accomplished anything, so, no, to his credit, he's not a "true communist"
Those who live at Twin Oaks seem happy enough

[JTB]

--------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Aeon135
Cuban law limits freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, and the press
--------------------------------------------
So..no, he's not a true communist Oh the horror, he's not a liberal!

No, he is not. He's a tyrant, and as such, and enemy of liberty and the People. Tyranny spits in the face of all that communism is supposed to stand for: liberty, equality, and a just, peaceable, and prosperous society.

Revolution and force can never create the society necessary for communism to flourish,. Such a society can only created through slow and peaceable reform and evolution of society and the hearts of those who comprise it. Tyranny can never beget liberty, nor dictatorship equality, nor violent clashes between social classes a classless society.

Beware those who promise revolution, for only rarely is it justified and never can it bring lasting peace. Violent uprising is a tool to be used at last resort to open the war for the peaceful evolution and reform of society towards a more egalitarian form. Revolution and violence can themselves never create that society and are only to be resorted to as a means of last resort to dispose of the worst of despots.

That is why every single revolutionary communist movement has failed and ended in murder, tyranny, oppression, and the suffering of the proletariat as one oppressor was merely replaced by another. Cuba, China, Cambodia- all reveal the utter failure of Marxism and the horror that those who invoke his name never fail to bring. The proletariat has seen its condition improve in nations like America and in Western Europe where the markets function(ed- there's a case to be made that America, at least, has backslid into crony capitalism) with reasonable regulation and social programs were designed to augment the market, where capitalism was not bound, but merely muzzled, and where the market was regulated, not planned and centrally governed. That is, not communism nor revolution, but a system much like Social Democracy is what brings prosperity, peace, and and a more egalitarian and just society. Only through such a system can the society develop that might some day continue to evolve towards a more decentralized and locally governed economy, and a post-national ethos where human interest, not nationalism, governs human interactions. only through such a system can communism or anything similar to it ever evolve.

[28350]

No, he is not. He's a tyrant, and as such, and enemy of liberty and the People. Tyranny spits in the face of all that communism is supposed to stand for: liberty, equality, and a just, peaceable, and prosperous society.

Revolution and force can never create the society necessary for communism to flourish,. Such a society can only created through slow and peaceable reform and evolution of society and the hearts of those who comprise it. Tyranny can never beget liberty, nor dictatorship equality, nor violent clashes between social classes a classless society.

Beware those who promise revolution, for only rarely is it justified and never can it bring lasting peace. Violent uprising is a tool to be used at last resort to open the war for the peaceful evolution and reform of society towards a more egalitarian form. Revolution and violence can themselves never create that society and are only to be resorted to as a means of last resort to dispose of the worst of despots.

That is why every single revolutionary communist movement has failed and ended in murder, tyranny, oppression, and the suffering of the proletariat as one oppressor was merely replaced by another. Cuba, China, Cambodia- all reveal the utter failure of Marxism and the horror that those who invoke his name never fail to bring. The proletariat has seen its condition improve in nations like America and in Western Europe where the markets function(ed- there's a case to be made that America, at least, has backslid into crony capitalism) with reasonable regulation and social programs were designed to augment the market, where capitalism was not bound, but merely muzzled, and where the market was regulated, not planned and centrally governed. That is, not communism nor revolution, but a system much like Social Democracy is what brings prosperity, peace, and and a more egalitarian and just society. Only through such a system can the society develop that might some day continue to evolve towards a more decentralized and locally governed economy, and a post-national ethos where human interest, not nationalism, governs human interactions. only through such a system can communism or anything similar to it ever evolve.


I'm sorry, I think you're lost.
I believe the site you're looking for is refleft - home of the reformist left.

[Zanthorus]

Tyranny spits in the face of all that communism is supposed to stand for: liberty, equality, and a just, peaceable, and prosperous society.

Communism does not consist of french revolution slogans.


Cuba, China, Cambodia- all reveal the utter failure of Marxism and the horror that those who invoke his name never fail to bring.

The irony being that all the nations you mentioned were run by extremist social-democrats.

[JTB]

I'm sorry, I think you're lost.
I believe the site you're looking for is refleft - home of the reformist left.


I see. You seek to silence dissenting opinions.


Funny, someone recently made a thread about purges...

[JTB]

Communism does not consist of french revolution slogans.

Are you contending communism does not consist of liberty, equality, and a just society?


Then what, pray tell is the point of lamenting the bourgeois and seeking to eliminate the social classes? I was under the impression the point was to eliminate inequality and oppression and exploitation of the proletariat and create a classes (equal) society free of oppression (tyranny) and allow the masses to life freely.

Or are you saying all of your rhetoric is lies and you're another Stalinist piece of shit traitor to the People who only wants a revolution so you can seize power for yourself and become the next dictator?

There's a reason honest men opposed you Stalinist scum from the start.


The irony being that all the nations you mentioned were run by extremist social-democrats.

Actual, social democracy is what was seen in the USA and Western Europe prior their backsliding to crony capitlism and allowing money to corrupt and the private sector to run amok once more.

China, Cambodia, and Cuba are all fine examples of the real nature of you Stalinist scum- would-be tyrants who love revolution because it allows you to seize power for yourselves. You speak of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but your dictatorship is no different than that of any other dictator- a tyrannical oligarchy based only on the desire for power and domination marked with a distinct disregard for the common man.

[Glenn Beck]

I was under the impression the point was to eliminate inequality and oppression and exploitation of the proletariat and create a classes (equal) society free of oppression (tyranny) and allow the masses to life freely.

Or are you saying all of your rhetoric is lies and you're another Stalinist piece of shit traitor to the People who only wants a revolution so you can seize power for yourself and become the next dictator?

Why do these have to be mutually exclusive? :cool:

[28350]

I see. You seek to silence dissenting opinions.


Funny, someone recently made a thread about purges...

No, I seek to adamantly disagree with you. This is not something to agree to disagree over. You can have your own opinion but I don't support you influencing people with it.
If I wanted to silence you I'd negrep you and petition for your ban.

Also, purges have more to do with a group maintaining political power for themselves than they do with crushing dissent.


There's a reason honest men opposed you Stalinist scum from the start.

I can swing around the wrong words too, you fascist!

[mosfeld]

I used to be really pro-Castro, but really.. Why was there no vanguard party, or any party whatsoever for that matter, leading the Cuban revolution? Why did the working class or peasantry play virtually no role in the Cuban revolution? Why did Fidel Castro denounce the Cultural Revolution and call Mao a fascist? Why did he condemn Stalin and praise Gorbachev, saying that his aim was "to struggle for perfect Socialism"? Why did Castro proclaim "We have no plans for the expropriation or nationalisation of foreign investments here. Foreign investments will always be welcome and secure here" in 1958 or shortly after the revolution that Cuba was going to secure US credits? His sudden turn towards revisionism, when he proclaimed that the revolution in Cuba had been a "socialist one" had nothing to do with being a genuine Marxist-Leninist, it was a capitulation to Soviet social-imperialism instead of U.S. imperialism. He isn't a Marxist-Leninist.... (He's a Brezhnevite revisionist though.)

[sozialistentony]

Fucking progressive socialists?! REALLY?! I thought we were past the idea of beating 'democracy', or attempting to beat the captialists at their own game. Progressive socialism has no potential. Now violence ... different story. Let's use words for the neo-cons and the imperialists that kill children in foreign countries in an attempt to secure cheap oil prices! No, actually, let's kill them back. Because if they really want you dead they're going to kill you. Why show courtesy when it will not be returned? "Where words fail, violence does not."

I don't care about your rebuttal, by the way. Progressive socialism is like bringing a baseball bat to a bank robbery.

[Chimurenga.]

I used to be really pro-Castro, but really.. Why was there no vanguard party, or any party whatsoever for that matter, leading the Cuban revolution? Why did the working class or peasantry play virtually no role in the Cuban revolution?

Castro saw the opportunity to make revolution a different way and went for it. What about the working class or peasantry that joined the 26th Of July Movement? The working class and peasantry supported the Revolution and they supported Castro.


Why did Fidel Castro denounce the Cultural Revolution and call Mao a fascist?

Where has he ever said this?


Why did he condemn Stalin and praise Gorbachev, saying that his aim was "to struggle for perfect Socialism"?

What about this? http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1992/06/03.htm

Doesn't look like anything like condemnation. The USSR was the only friend that Cuba had. Look what happened after the USSR. To reject their trading would be foolish.


Why did Castro proclaim "We have no plans for the expropriation or nationalisation of foreign investments here. Foreign investments will always be welcome and secure here" in 1958 or shortly after the revolution that Cuba was going to secure US credits?

Easy, you're in a revolution. The biggest Imperalist empire is 90 miles away from you. Openly calling yourselves Communists (which some were) would've meant putting everyone and the revolution in jeopardy. Also, the political makeup of the 26th of July Movement varied so there was a risk of losing some men and women due to an ideology.


His sudden turn towards revisionism, when he proclaimed that the revolution in Cuba had been a "socialist one" had nothing to do with being a genuine Marxist-Leninist, it was a capitulation to Soviet social-imperialism instead of U.S. imperialism.

How was it a capitulation? Because Cuba accepted aid from the Soviet Union?


He's a Brezhnevite revisionist though.

Nope.

[Q]

Oh the horror, he's not a liberal!

As I explain here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/no-purges-second-t136740/index.html?p=1772556#post1772556) this is a bogus argumentation.

[BeerShaman]

Ahm, well, I've seen a documentary where he claims (Fidel) tha socialism in Cuba has been thrown down somehow. That it's over, in other words. Well, now if he was a good governor, or a real communist, that's another matter. Let others answer... (even if they are marxists:laugh:)

[Barry Lyndon]

'True communist', is a meaningless word. It's like 'true Christian', its just a way of not taking responsibility for the negative consequences for an ideology/belief system. It's totally subjective, there's nothing scientific about the term at all.

I personally see Stalin, Beria, Menghitsu, Ceacescu, Kim il Sung and Kim Jong Il as monsters and traitors to communist principles. However, I don't do this bullshit move of saying that they were not 'true communists', I'm sure that they believed themselves to be communists, its just that their view of communism was horribly distorted, sometimes beyond all recognition. One could make the case that Pol Pot was not a communist at all, given his desire to restore the feudal Khmer Empire and that he apparently barely mentioned communism in his own speeches and political programs.

As for Fidel Castro, I think that as communists go, he's one of the best. He may not be the theorist that certain leftists wish him to be, but I'm more interested in practice.
The Cuban Revolution stands out to me as virtually the only major socialist revolution of the 20th century that hasn't either collapsed outright(Soviet Union) or been totally eaten away from within by capitalist reforms(China). And has managed to carry on without becoming a starving wreck like North Korea. To hold out like that against all the odds, and only 90 miles away from the world center of imperialist reaction, is a remarkable feat. And a good part of the credit for that accomplishment goes to Fidel Castro.

When one really thinks about it, Castro is in part responsible for the saving of literally millions of lives- if one takes into account that Havana now has a lower infant mortality rate then Washington D.C., that the Cuban life expectancy has risen 20 years since the revolution, that Cuba has tens of thousands of doctors all over the Third World saving peoples lives every day for several decades now.

For all its faults, the Cuban Revolution in my view has demonstrated an extraordinary dedication to the ideals of a society devoted to providing for human need instead of profit, to anti-imperialism, to proletarian internationalism.

Vencermos!:hammersickle:

[ContrarianLemming]

Cuban law limits freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, and the press
Oh the horror, he's not a liberal!

gents, this is what an authoritarian communist looks like

Yes, him, he is a a reactionary, a red fascist, an enemy of liberty, an infantile idea to his kind

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

As I explain here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/no-purges-second-t136740/index.html?p=1772556#post1772556) this is a bogus argumentation.

Freedom of expression, press, association, religion are all bogus.

[Zanthorus]

Freedom of expression, press, association, religion are all bogus.

Of course a social-democrat with a violence fetish would think that.

Communists have always defended civil liberties in the interests of the working class.

[m1917]

Oh the horror, he's not a liberal!

it isnt a matter of beurocratization(that reads, the rule of all by a caste of privileged individuals), communism can only happen when the means of production belong to the majority(workers), how can u have a workers state, if the means of production is controlled by few men who use the superstructure to garantee their private will...

before lenin died, russia was a true workers state, because the workers there really took the means of production into their hands, democracy began on each factory with the factory comittee, wich started with factory takeovers by the workers before the revolution, continues on the worker's soviets(counsil), who decided more general affairs.... The representants in the soviets(before stalin dissolved all of it), where elected by the workers in the factories comittees and could be dismissed any time by the workers...

in Cuba, there was never such thing, because there, with a very backward, little in number and lost proletariat, there wasnt a revolutionary party such as the bolshevics in russia who gave the way to the proletariat followed by the peasants to take the political power into their hands, the fidel castro guerrilla, started a campain in the woods, he had no direct contact with the masses, only with some rural workers, just at the end of the uprise of the workers, they chose fidel to rule cuba, because of their incapacity to take the power on their hands... 50 pettit-borgeoise men can't take the power by themselves, that needs to be done by workers...

For me, cuba was never a worker's state, it is just a dictatorship disguised as socialism...

[GreenCommunism]

No, he is not. He's a tyrant, and as such, and enemy of liberty and the People. Tyranny spits in the face of all that communism is supposed to stand for: liberty, equality, and a just, peaceable, and prosperous society.

Revolution and force can never create the society necessary for communism to flourish,. Such a society can only created through slow and peaceable reform and evolution of society and the hearts of those who comprise it. Tyranny can never beget liberty, nor dictatorship equality, nor violent clashes between social classes a classless society.

Beware those who promise revolution, for only rarely is it justified and never can it bring lasting peace. Violent uprising is a tool to be used at last resort to open the war for the peaceful evolution and reform of society towards a more egalitarian form. Revolution and violence can themselves never create that society and are only to be resorted to as a means of last resort to dispose of the worst of despots.

That is why every single revolutionary communist movement has failed and ended in murder, tyranny, oppression, and the suffering of the proletariat as one oppressor was merely replaced by another. Cuba, China, Cambodia- all reveal the utter failure of Marxism and the horror that those who invoke his name never fail to bring. The proletariat has seen its condition improve in nations like America and in Western Europe where the markets function(ed- there's a case to be made that America, at least, has backslid into crony capitalism) with reasonable regulation and social programs were designed to augment the market, where capitalism was not bound, but merely muzzled, and where the market was regulated, not planned and centrally governed. That is, not communism nor revolution, but a system much like Social Democracy is what brings prosperity, peace, and and a more egalitarian and just society. Only through such a system can the society develop that might some day continue to evolve towards a more decentralized and locally governed economy, and a post-national ethos where human interest, not nationalism, governs human interactions. only through such a system can communism or anything similar to it ever evolve.

cooperating with the ennemy to overthrow the government is a crime in every fucking country in the world . cuba has alot of free speech whether you like it or not.

[Luisrah]

Of course a social-democrat with a violence fetish would think that.

Communists have always defended civil liberties in the interests of the working class.

I have never been to Cuba, but I just wanted to say that I think it is very difficult to set the line in this issue.

On one hand we defend freedom in the interests of the working class, but if everyone's simply free, then a counter-revolution will be an easy process for capitalism.

How do you propose these things to be adressed? Absolute freedom or repression of, atleast, capitalist propaganda and plots?

[Zanthorus]

Well the thing about freedom of expression is it's useless to you if you don't have a platform. If we're socialising the means of production and distribution we might as well socialise the means of information production and distribution as well.

[Luisrah]

No, he is not. He's a tyrant, and as such, and enemy of liberty and the People. Tyranny spits in the face of all that communism is supposed to stand for: liberty, equality, and a just, peaceable, and prosperous society.

Revolution and force can never create the society necessary for communism to flourish,. Such a society can only created through slow and peaceable reform and evolution of society and the hearts of those who comprise it. Tyranny can never beget liberty, nor dictatorship equality, nor violent clashes between social classes a classless society.

Beware those who promise revolution, for only rarely is it justified and never can it bring lasting peace. Violent uprising is a tool to be used at last resort to open the war for the peaceful evolution and reform of society towards a more egalitarian form. Revolution and violence can themselves never create that society and are only to be resorted to as a means of last resort to dispose of the worst of despots.

That is why every single revolutionary communist movement has failed and ended in murder, tyranny, oppression, and the suffering of the proletariat as one oppressor was merely replaced by another. Cuba, China, Cambodia- all reveal the utter failure of Marxism and the horror that those who invoke his name never fail to bring. The proletariat has seen its condition improve in nations like America and in Western Europe where the markets function(ed- there's a case to be made that America, at least, has backslid into crony capitalism) with reasonable regulation and social programs were designed to augment the market, where capitalism was not bound, but merely muzzled, and where the market was regulated, not planned and centrally governed. That is, not communism nor revolution, but a system much like Social Democracy is what brings prosperity, peace, and and a more egalitarian and just society. Only through such a system can the society develop that might some day continue to evolve towards a more decentralized and locally governed economy, and a post-national ethos where human interest, not nationalism, governs human interactions. only through such a system can communism or anything similar to it ever evolve.

What? Capitalism is destined to failure! It's constant overproduction is mathematical! It inevitably leads to crysis!

And you know what happens during the crysis that the bourgeoisie is responsible for? Lower salaries, higher taxes, less vacation time, no help when your ill, you don't get some time when a family member dies or you have a child etc. You start getting retired later, and start recieving less money too. In sum, the workers pay for what the bourgeoisie creates.

The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are antagonic classes. Whatever benefits one, hurts the other, and since the bourgeoisie hold the power with their riches, it's always the workers that pay.

If in the medieval ages the peasants talked to the King after seeing how great he lives and how poorly they live, and asked him to leave the throne and give his riches to the people, would he do it?
Well, it seems you think so.

[Luisrah]

Well the thing about freedom of expression is it's useless to you if you don't have a platform. If we're socialising the means of production and distribution we might as well socialise the means of information production and distribution as well.

Yes but I and you ,I suppose, have no doubt the bourgeoisie would have no problem in using force to bring back the things the way they were.
Add up the fact that a world revolution is hard to happen, and socialist countries will all be called dictatorships, and schemes will be made to make them look bad.

You know this happens, the bourgeoisie isn't stupid, and they really want things to continue the way they are. I know they use dirty tricks to do what they want, but it works, and how are we supposed to defend ourselves?
Every film depicting the great life you can have in a socialist country will be called a fake, for example.
Are we supposed to stand idle and let them reverse the progress of humanity?

Even if they don't have a platform in the country we're talking, they have in another. What do we do?

[GreenCommunism]

i forgot chavez is a dictator, a man elected 14 times.

[lombas]

I've been to Cuba and must say it's a pretty neat country.

It has downsides, like rationing and political prisoners (though the leaders of the opposition themselves remain kind off unharmed). It's very Catholic, which explains the anti-homosexuality. And it doesn't appear to be Sweden - which is pretty much due to it not being Sweden and being a Latin American country.

I would prefer to live in Cuba over Colombia or Equador, and that pretty much does the magic for me as to saying Castro did a good job. I wouldn't say he's a communist, but there is a good introduction of socialism in the country without unnecessary hardships.

[proudcomrade]

You know, I was just about to jump on this thread and rip old :castro: a new one, listing all of the problems that I have with various mistakes that he has made over the years & such. Then I came across the ugly battle that is the "Marx hated the lumpenproletariat" thread in this very section; and suddenly, I was reminded of something very positive, even praiseworthy, about our old facial-haired comrade that I have to mention here:

He never neglected Cuba's lumpenproletariat- not in the name of Marxist orthodoxy; not for any reason whatsoever. In fact, one of the first & most aggressive changes that he made to that country was to put in place a volunteer-led, nationwide program to guarantee free, comprehensive & totally accessible education to every Cuban, & part was specificially targeted at the lumpenproletariat, that the illiterate guajiros in the remotest fields be taken into the program & taught to read standard Spanish, then sent to vocational training. The program was an instant success. He managed to eradicate illiteracy by 1961. Follow-up work with the so-called lumpen got shoes onto their small children's feet in order to protect the new workers and students from falling behind due to parasites and tetanus. These programs, along with the land reform act, guaranteed elevation of the former "lumpen" class within just a few years, converting nearly the entire island into a working-class society on track toward becoming classless in the future.

This was pushed through at any cost, and around the embargo & the war that the Miami exiles were attempting to wage at Giron. They managed the social reforms anyway- all for the benefit of the lowest and most disadvantaged.

Say what you want; but we are, for the most part, looking at one of the greatest Communists of the 20th century. Even I have to admit it.

[RadioRaheem84]

For all that's said and done, Cuba under Castro's leadership has succeeded in bringing about a modicum of basic necessities for the average Cuban, which says a lot for the region.

Cuba I hear was wonderful before the collapse of the USSR, but afterward it's been struggling ever since. :(

[Barry Lyndon]

For all that's said and done, Cuba under Castro's leadership has succeeded in bringing about a modicum of basic necessities for the average Cuban, which says a lot for the region.

Cuba I hear was wonderful before the collapse of the USSR, but afterward it's been struggling ever since. :(

I think things were pretty hard in the 1990's, but they have been getting steadily better with Venezuela stepping in to help, mostly through supplying Cuba with oil, for which Cuba sends its doctors in return.