Cuba Turning To "Market-Socialism"?

[The Vegan Marxist]

If this is true, then Raul has betrayed Marx's view of Socialism & is now going down a revisionist line by embracing the "liberalization" of socialism.

Reuters: “Cubans brace for ‘reorganization’ of labour force”
By Marc Frank

HAVANA | Tue Jul 20, 2010

HAVANA (Reuters) – “Cuba is moving up to a million employees, or a fifth of its workers, off bloated public payrolls and into jobs where they actually have to work,” according to Communist Party and government sources.

The goal is to boost the island’s struggling economy by targeting what President Raul Castro has called “unnecessary workers” in a five-year project to reorganize its labour force in tandem with some economic liberalization.

“We hope to eliminate 200,000 jobs per year, as much as 100,000 of them over the coming year in the capital alone,” a Communist Party economist said, like others asking that his name not be used.

Castro said in a speech to young party supporters in April that payrolls would be cut to help modernize the economy and that there were possibly more than a million excess workers.

All state agencies were ordered in January to review payrolls with an eye to trimming unneeded positions, apparently with dramatic results.

“We have 304,000 employees, of which it is necessary to reorient 79,000,” Domestic Trade Minister Jacinto Angular Pardo said in an interview in the latest edition of Bohemia magazine.

“We will do this gradually over five years as part of a reorganization of the company system, distribution networks and forms of administration that rid the state of unnecessary burdens and improve efficiency,” he said.

The plan is just getting under way, so there have been few layoffs so far, sources said. They said those being let go are offered other jobs when available.

Hundreds of employees at the SEPSA security service in Havana were recently given the choice of jobs in agriculture, construction or the local version of the FBI, a worker said.

LIMITED OPTIONS

*”The plan is that those over retirement age will be let go and the rest offered up to three possible jobs,”* said a former party leader in eastern Holguin, with similar reports coming from various other provinces.

Options are limited because the state employs about 85 percent of the work force of 5 million and claims an unemployment rate of only 2 percent. Those who do not accept initial job offers will have to look for work at the Labour Ministry, get land through the government’s agriculture land-lease program and take up farming, or live off family remittances and illegal activity.

“They will get unemployment benefits for just six weeks,” but will not be totally out in the cold because all Cubans receive free health care and education, subsidized utilities, a subsidized food ration and automatic adjustment of mortgages to 10 percent of the top breadwinner’s income.

Still, said an employee at the state-run telephone company, “everyone is nervous, and in particular those above retirement age.”

Because of the job shakeup, the government is likely to accompany “the plan with economic reforms” that will allow more self-employment and other schemes, most of which are currently prohibited, analysts said.

“This plan probably signals additional policy reforms, because current policies are not generating new jobs,” said Phil Peters, a Cuba expert at the Lexington Institute in Virginia.

“There are lots of options: foreign investment, self-employment, cooperatives, or small- and medium-sized businesses. All would yield more jobs and tax revenue, a lower social welfare burden, and less black market activity,” he said.

The government’s plan in Havana calls for issuing more licenses for self employment in various trades that were frozen a number of years ago, the party economist said.

He said it also appears probable the state-run retail sector will be liberalized, which could absorb some of the extra workers.

http://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/reuters-cubans-brace-for-reorganization-of-labour-force/

[The Red Next Door]

Someone get rid of him now.

[Soviet dude]

Sounds like to me it is mostly just about restructuring the workforce to be more productive.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I believe Raul has wanted to do something like this for quite a while. He represents a layer that wants to move Cuba in the direction of Chinese "market socialism". He seems to be something of a Dengist.

The Cuban bureaucracy is in a dilemma.The system is unstable- you can't create socialism in one country. If they move towards capitalism, as they'd dearly like to, they'll be swept away by US capitalism and by their own people. Raul seems to be forced by technocratic elements in Cuba.

[manic expression]

A very similar process was carried out some years ago in the sugar industry. The Cuban government found that sugar production was losing its viability due to a number of factors, to the point that sugar mills were costing the government more than the revenue they generated. They set up a gradual program to get workers out of that shrinking industry and into new, more beneficial jobs. They did it gradually because they wanted no one to be fired and left without work, because that's not what socialist societies do. Eventually, sugar production was brought to an appropriate level, while workers were working in jobs that benefited them and the Cuban people.

This seems like a more generalized version of what Fidel did in the sugar industry. The plan is that those over retirement age will be let go and the rest offered up to three possible jobs. No one is being let go unless there are positions waiting for them, and if those options aren't chosen there are other alternatives.

The issue is that the talk of "market reform" is speculation. They're also saying self-employment and collectives are entirely compatible with what's been laid out, and self-employment and collectives go hand-in-hand with socialist society.

[RedSonRising]

This doesn't seem to me at all what's going on in China. There is no real liberalization going on, and the means of production are not changing hands in any way. What Raul seems to be doing is increasing efficiency by reallocating resources and is in no way risking the livelihood of the workers or limiting their choices within the workplace they choose thereafter.

Damn, everytime Raul does something (God forbid he enacts policy as a president) people love to jump all over him and claim he's some sort of revisionist dengist from bourgeois hell trying to reverse what gains he risked his life for alongside his brother way back in '59. The people find his small-time reforms popular and they seem to lessen the admitted problems within the system that critics love to exaggerate. This move implies absolutely nothing concerning a return to capitalism in Cuba. They may be utilizing market forces more as a way to distribute economic units, but that is not incompatible with a worker-controlled political apparatus making production decisions.

*(BTW, not criticizing you there, VM. Very good informative article and a valid question.)

[Invincible Summer]

The system is unstable- you can't create socialism in one country.

It's not like they have the means to extend themselves

[The Vegan Marxist]

What about cutting off thousands of jobs? Is this not a detrimental blow to proletarian struggle? And also, not saying that the "liberalization" was what China's market-socialism reflected, rather was a revisionist move on Raul's part.

[RedSonRising]

What about cutting off thousands of jobs? Is this not a detrimental blow to proletarian struggle? And also, not saying that the "liberalization" was what China's market-socialism reflected, rather was a revisionist move on Raul's part.

Doesn't the article say that every worker, besides those of age to retire, are going to be given work in one of three other occupational fields?

And referring to liberalization, what I was implying was that I fail to see how relocating resources and shifting production plans is in any way liberalizing the means or production and creating a capitalist class. Inefficient state-run businesses have been converted into worker-run cooperatives, and in this case there are only horizontal transfers of labor concentration.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yes, it does say that, but also that if unable to acquire a job, then one must partake in the possibility of family farming or resort to criminal activity. I'm not too sure how to take this article. It's not as blunt as I would like for it to be. Let's just see how it goes as this plan takes place. Hopefully Raul doesn't fuck up.

[Chimurenga.]

Yes, it does say that, but also that if unable to acquire a job, then one must partake in the possibility of family farming or resort to criminal activity.

Refer to Manic expressions post, as he gave a great reply.


The Cuban bureaucracy is in a dilemma.The system is unstable- you can't create socialism in one country. If they move towards capitalism, as they'd dearly like to, they'll be swept away by US capitalism and by their own people.

Who says that Cuba is "creating Socialism in one country"? Have you completely ignored historically the friend that Cuba has been to revolutionary struggles in Latin America and Africa for the past fourty, fifty years? Are you ignoring the role that Cuba plays in Bolivia and Venezuela today? If there was ever an influential model for Socialism, it's Cuba.


If they move towards capitalism, as they'd dearly like to,

This is completely ridiculous.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

And referring to liberalization, what I was implying was that I fail to see how relocating resources and shifting production plans is in any way liberalizing the means or production and creating a capitalist class. Inefficient state-run businesses have been converted into worker-run cooperatives, and in this case there are only horizontal transfers of labor concentration.

Did you miss this?


Because of the job shakeup, the government is likely to accompany “the plan with economic reforms” that will allow more self-employment and other schemes, most of which are currently prohibited, analysts said.

“This plan probably signals additional policy reforms, because current policies are not generating new jobs,” said Phil Peters, a Cuba expert at the Lexington Institute in Virginia.

“There are lots of options: foreign investment, self-employment, cooperatives, or small- and medium-sized businesses. All would yield more jobs and tax revenue, a lower social welfare burden, and less black market activity,” he said.

The government’s plan in Havana calls for issuing more licenses for self employment in various trades that were frozen a number of years ago, the party economist said.

He said it also appears probable the state-run retail sector will be liberalized, which could absorb some of the extra workers.

Slow conversion to market operation. Foreign investment. Tax revenue.

Somehow I doubt the "liberalisation of the retail sector" will be for the sake of bolstering retail-worker's run cooperatives. "Self-employment" seems to be trying to encourage capital accumulation and make it so that the state won't have to bother handling the employment situation.

It's also worthy to note the usage of terms like "social welfare burden". It's just like in a social-democracy where the costs of health care and social services are depending on capital from exploitation to expand and contract.

[manic expression]

Did you miss this?
That was a guy at the Lexington Institute, a libertarian think-tank, speculating on the policy. It's just conjecture, wishful thinking really. Capitalists have been saying the same thing about Cuba for decades. And aside from that..."probably", "appears probable", "likely"...wake me up when those "analysts" can point to something actually in place.

[REDSOX]

People should calm the fuck down and not make knee jerk reactions on the basis of some media reports which are either misleading or mischief making. I have seen nothing to indicate that cuba is going down the china vietnam or any so called market socialist road. They are trying to find solutions to the economic problems which they are going through and if they lay off state workers in one part of the economy they will move them to another part of the economy. Its just moving the deckchairs around and this sounds like something they did with the sugar industry. No panic

[Nolan]

Raul showing his true colors, and they ain't red.

In b4 Kassad "lol you stupid Hoxhaist Cuba isn't revisionist you just want an imperialist takeover"

[Wanted Man]

Damn, everytime Raul does something (God forbid he enacts policy as a president) people love to jump all over him and claim he's some sort of revisionist dengist from bourgeois hell trying to reverse what gains he risked his life for alongside his brother way back in '59.

Yeah, some people are almost giddy with anticipation about it, no matter if there is a realistic probability of this happening or not.

[Nolan]

Cuba could be a brothel for multinationals and as long as it claims socialism some people on here will apologize for it.

[theAnarch]

I love how people freaked out when Cuba allowed small farmers access to unused gov. land despite the fact that thats a demand of most third world revolutionaries.

Cuba does not exist in a vacuum, imagine the situation of revolutionary Russia but on a small Caribbean island that in 1990 lost 80% of its trade. the Cubans cant just go out and conquer new resources for industrial development and new markets for revenue (sense they are surrounded by capitalism Cuba has to exist in capitalism some what) thats not saying that they would if they could. so sometimes Cuba needs to take measures that move away from socialism to save the revolution as a whole.

[pranabjyoti]

In my opinion, the writers of this Reuters article have seen everything with their own LOOKING GLASS. After all, no such reform or liberalization has been observed in other part of the world so far with "three options before lay-off". We have to keep in mind that organizations like Reuters, UNA always want to "paint" some incidents in their own "color of choice". We have to look into the matter by removing the color.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I love how people freaked out when Cuba allowed small farmers access to unused gov. land despite the fact that thats a demand of most third world revolutionaries.

Cuba does not exist in a vacuum, imagine the situation of revolutionary Russia but on a small Caribbean island that in 1990 lost 80% of its trade. the Cubans cant just go out and conquer new resources for industrial development and new markets for revenue (sense they are surrounded by capitalism Cuba has to exist in capitalism some what) thats not saying that they would if they could. so sometimes Cuba needs to take measures that move away from socialism to save the revolution as a whole.

You make a nice point, for this is what Lenin did during Russia's rise to socialism. According to him, they had to make a temporary retreat back to capitalism in order to save struggle as a whole. But I'm not sure if this is what's particularly happening in Cuba though.

[Wanted Man]

Cuba could be a brothel for multinationals and as long as it claims socialism some people on here will apologize for it.

It seems to me that hoxhaists are already under the impression that Cuba is "a brothel for multinationals".

[Nolan]

It seems to me that hoxhaists are already under the impression that Cuba is "a brothel for multinationals".

Not as much as China or Vietnam, other countries that fly red flags and have their supporters here. Cuba for the most part still holds on to its state capitalist Brezhnevite structure. They allow some European and South American companies to work there.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Again, like I stated later on, we should just see how this goes before judging it. I mean, c'mon, the report even came from mainstream media. People are not taking this dialectically when it's needed the most (rosa, stfu).

[Kassad]

Again, like I stated later on, we should just see how this goes before judging it. I mean, c'mon, the report even came from mainstream media. People are not taking this dialectically when it's needed the most (rosa, stfu).

What's the point? Hoxhaists are already on the same side as Western imperialism and the CIA when it comes to calling for the overthrow of the Communist Party of Cuba. Opportunists don't have much of a problem citing mainstream media sources when looking for chances to bash the Castros and Cuba. You'll rarely see a Hoxhaist or an anti-Cuba "communist" start of talking about how much progress Cuba has made in the fields of education and healthcare, along with the massive growth of workers democracy and input in society. Nor will you see them mention how Cuba has endured a blockade that has lasted decades, nor will they mention how much the collapse of the Soviet Union was a detriment for socialist development in Cuba. No, of course not, because they're "revisionist."

Down with Raul Castro and the Cuban revisionists, I say! :rolleyes:

[Nolan]

What's the point? Hoxhaists are already on the same side as Western imperialism and the CIA when it comes to calling for the overthrow of the Communist Party of Cuba. Opportunists don't have much of a problem citing mainstream media sources when looking for chances to bash the Castros and Cuba. You'll rarely see a Hoxhaist or an anti-Cuba "communist" start of talking about how much progress Cuba has made in the fields of education and healthcare, along with the massive growth of workers democracy and input in society. Nor will you see them mention how Cuba has endured a blockade that has lasted decades, nor will they mention how much the collapse of the Soviet Union was a detriment for socialist development in Cuba. No, of course not, because they're "revisionist."

Down with Raul Castro and the Cuban revisionists, I say! :rolleyes:

I love this strawman and assumption of my position on Cuba. I've written papers in college discussing the very things you brought up.

Just stop imperialistbaiting.

[manic expression]

I love this strawman and assumption of my position on Cuba. I've written papers in college discussing the very things you brought up.
Well, if we're talking strawman arguments, it doesn't get any thicker than this:


Cuba could be a brothel for multinationals and as long as it claims socialism some people on here will apologize for it.Nope, no strawman here! :rolleyes: With respect, cut it out.

[Glenn Beck]

Sure is nuanced in here :rolleyes:


It seems to me that hoxhaists are already under the impression that Cuba is "a brothel for multinationals".

What I'd like to know is where the hell Cubans are going to get you know, uh, food in this brave new post-Soviet world without trading with the capitalist pig devils.

[Kassad]

I love this strawman and assumption of my position on Cuba. I've written papers in college discussing the very things you brought up.

Just stop imperialistbaiting.

Why is it that you continue to bait me and make accusations, yet you refuse to respond to my points? You've done this in more than one thread. Could it be because you're ideologically bankrupt? Or maybe Cliffites like yourself have trouble standing up to defend oppressed people and countries attempting to build socialism. Either way, you've danced around my points enough. Are you at the point where you'd like to admit how ignorant you are about Cuba?

[Ismail]

I don't care how much progress Cuba has made in education and health care. That makes it progressive domestically, but that does not make it socialist, regardless of what Brezhnevites and others with a social-democratic mentality think.

Hoxha noted the revisionist nature of Cuba in the 60's and 70's when it was a mercenary state of Soviet social-imperialism, and he led a country which was significantly poorer than Cuba. Did he have "trouble standing up to defend oppressed people" too? Even though arguably the most popular Hoxhaist party in the world is located in Ecuador, and others relatively popular in Benin, Turkey, Mali and the Ivory Coast?

[Lenin II]

I don't care how much progress Cuba has made in education and health care. That makes it progressive domestically, but that does not make it socialist, regardless of what Brezhnevites and others with a social-democratic mentality think.

Ismail, aren't you aware that socialism means free health care? The dictatorship of the proletariat means nothing. Anyone who flies a red flag, regardless of production relations, is socialist. Being pro-Soviet also makes a nation socialist, including glorious South Yemen and Nicaragua.

In a word, as we all know, the class nature of a state is determined by geopolitics. There is no other factor to consider.

[Crux]

Nope, no strawman here! :rolleyes: With respect, cut it out.
With respect, you're the guy that has come out with critical support of the regime in China and called the CPC a vanguard party. So I do think Captain Cuba has a point.

[Lenin II]

Here is an example of Hoxhaists "taking the CIA line" for example.

Clearly, a Trot analysis performed by the likes of Tony Cliff, CLR James, Adolf Hitler and J. Edgar Hoover.


Part V of VI: Castro, Che & Cuba


The “Cult of Che” & the Execution of Rojas


One of the last parts of Beck’s documentary contains a truly disturbing element far above the mere falsification of history we have seen so far. In this portion, Beck sets his sights on the Cuban Revolution with a sob story about the execution of a former soldier who served the regime of Cuba’s former brutal dictator Fulgencio Batista. The various enforcers of the Batista dictatorship are portrayed as loving humanitarians who gave their people everything and were “patriots and saviors.” While there is a general consensus on the negativity of the Batista regime across the planet Earth, in this documentary Beck seeks to rehabilitate and redeem the legacy of the former Cuban dictator, portraying those who died in the service of his regime as heroes and a martyrs, and those who executed them as the most heinous of villains.


Beck begins the segment by attacking the cult of Ernest “Che” Guevara, the politics of which have been watered down by commodity fetishism. He then makes a reference to the recent “Che” biopic by Steven Soderbergh, claiming “Nowhere is Che seemingly loved more than in Hollywood, USA.” It is quite odd to hear such a rabid advocate of so-called “free market” complain about capitalizing on a revolutionary figure to sell T-shirts and coffee mugs.

After this, the documentary turns to Barbara Rangel, a woman born in Cuba, the granddaughter of Colonel Cornelio Rojas, a man executed by firing squad (surely a merciful death compared to the many thousands tortured to death under Batista’s reign) in a famous black-and-white film clip from the Cuban Revolution. Speaking of Che Guevara, Mrs. Rangel claims that “They portray him [Che] in the movies as a hero and as a humanitarian. He was a cold killer.” Bizarrely, Beck literally tries to blame Che Guevara on the premature birth [!!] of Barbara’s mother’s baby. Barbara Rangel’s mother says about the executed Colonel, “Che Guevara took away the greatest thing in my life because my father was the greatest. He was a good father. Che Guevara took that away from me and that is why I have been suffering for 50 years. I will never forget what he did to me.” Rangal herself continues that her grandfather was “a freedom fighter” and “a descendant of patriots” who was “executed by cowards” but who “died like a hero.”


So, here emotional anecdotes are posited as an argument on the legitimacy of the legacy of Che Guevera, but also by association the legitimacy of the entire socio-economic system in Cuba post-January 1959.


Rangel’s story in no way contradicts the official image of Che Guevera; Che was a revolutionary, and incidentally being a revolutionary generally includes armed struggle, or the aspiration to engage in armed struggle.
Ms. Rangel’s grandfather was not a civilian, but a military man who served the regime that the 26th of July movement was engaging in armed conflict with. Cornelio Rojas, whether or not he was a “good father,” was a chief of police under the Batista regime. Now, in a regime known for the regular arrest and torture of political dissidents, the position of police chief carries with it a malicious connotation rather than a heroic one.


The discussion on the merits of the Batista regime and the actions of those who served it is not explored. Instead, a tear-jerking story of the execution of a “good father,” who just happened to be a police chief in a murderous dictatorship, is leveled at the legacy of an internationally recognized and cherished revolutionary figure.

What was Cuba like Under Batista?


Nick Gillespie, Editor-in-Chief of Reason.com, says that Guevera “became known as the butcher of La Cabana prison in revolutionary Cuba where he personally oversaw the execution of anywhere from 175 to several hundred people.” Gillespie, a man who is apparently qualified to psychologically diagnose a man he’s never met (or any man for that matter), pronounces sentence on the famous revolutionary: “You can probably call him clinically a sadist.” With all this talk about Che and Castro’s “brutality” towards the torturers and murderers of the Batista Regime, one wonders exactly the historical context of such actions. Let us for a moment take our eyes off of individuals such as Colonel Rojas in order to see the bigger picture—specifically, the bigger picture of exactly what type of regime Rangal’s father worked for.


For over 25 years, Fulgencio Batista “ruled Cuba with an iron fist, and the full blessing and endorsement of the United States government” (1). During Batista’s reign, he “subverted the constitution and terrorized political opponents. He enjoyed a wealthy lifestyle from the money generated by the influx of tourism and American corporations to the island, while the country’s poor became even more impoverished. He did so with the explicit support of American mobsters and with the acquiescence of the American government” (1).


Batista’s repression did not stop at corruption. Under Batista, “the average Cuban family had an income of $6.00 a week, fifteen to twenty percent of the labor force was chronically unemployed, and only a third of the homes had running water” (4). Under Batista, Cuba was effectively a colony of the United States. “At the beginning of 1959 United States companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar lands – almost all the cattle ranches – 90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions – 80 percent of the utilities – practically all the oil industry – and supplied two-thirds of Cuba’s imports” (4). Batista’s terrorism against Cuban civilians was not kind. Under Batista, “[h]undreds of mangled bodies were left hanging from lamp posts or dumped in the streets in a grotesque variation of the Spanish colonial practice of public executions” (5). In this period, it “has been estimated by some that as many as 20,000 civilians were killed” (5).
Pulitzer Prize-winning American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., when asked by the US to analyze Cuba, remarked that the “corruption of the Government, the brutality of the police, the regime’s indifference to the needs of the people for education, medical care, housing, for social justice and economic justice … is an open invitation to revolution” (2). During phony “elections” held by Batista in an unsuccessful attempt to lend his regime legitimacy, “the people showed their dissatisfaction with his government by refusing to vote. Over 75 per cent of the voters in the capital Havana boycotted the polls. In some areas, such as Santiago, it was as high as 98 per cent” (2).


Under the reign of Batista, “Brothels flourished. A major industry grew up around them: Government officials received bribes, policemen collected protection money. Prostitutes could be seen standing in doorways, strolling the streets, or leaning from windows… One report estimated that 11,500 of them worked their trade in Havana [alone]…Beyond the outskirts of the capital, beyond the slot machines, was one of the poorest – and most beautiful – countries in the Western world” (2).
In order to build the reputation of Cuba as a colony for gambling, prostitution and other criminal activities, “Batista established lasting relationships with organized crime, and under his guardianship Havana became known as “the Latin Las Vegas” [….] A summit at Havana’s Hotel Nacional, with mobsters such as Frank Costello, Vito Genovese, Santo Trafficante Jr., Moe Dalitz and others, confirmed Luciano’s authority over the U.S. mob, and coincided with Frank Sinatra’s 1946 singing debut in Havana. It was here that Lansky gave permission to kill Bugsy Siegel” (3).

Due to the corruption of this dictatorship, Castro’s rebels soon gained massive support. Batista feared his own overthrow. During the Cuban revolutionary period, “Many innocent people were tortured. Suspects, including children, were publicly executed and then left hanging in the streets for several days as a warning to others who were considering joining Castro” (2). Batista’s reign was so unpopular in fact, that even the CIA had decided to form a coup against him when he became too oppressive even for American interests. Upon Batista’s ousting by the 26th of July movement, and his subsequent unfortunate escape, “[t]ens of thousands of Cubans (and thousands of Cuban-Americans in the United States) joyously celebrated the end of the dictator’s regime” (6).


Even the imperialist and anti-communist US President JFK, the man who personally helped engineer the Bay of Pigs incident, once remarked, “I believe that there is no country in the world, including the African regions, including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba […].” He continued, “I believe that we [the United States] created, built and manufactured the Castro movement out of whole cloth and without realizing it [….] In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries” (7).

Under Batista, “some 1.5 million people (25% of the population) struggled to survive. Big sugar companies kept hundreds of thousands of acres uncultivated, while landless peasants were forced to plant on the sides of roads, until the brutal, machete-wielding rural police, the Guardia Rural, would drive them out” (8). And finally, in the Cuban rural areas under Batista, “75% of rural dwellings were huts made from palm trees, more than 50% had no toilets of any kind, 85% had no inside running water and 91% had no electricity. There was only 1 doctor per 2,000 people in rural areas and more than one-third of the rural population had intestinal parasites. Only 4% of Cuban peasants ate meat regularly; only 1% ate fish, less than 2% eggs, 3% bread, 11% milk; none ate green vegetables. The average annual income among peasants was $91 (1956), less than 1/3 of the national income per person. 45% of the rural population was illiterate; 44% had never attended a school” (8).


Castro Assuming Power was Widely Supported by the Cubans

In the cities, “25% of the labor force was chronically unemployed, 1 million people were illiterate (in a population of about 5.5 million) and 27% of urban children, not to speak of 61% of rural children, were not attending school. Racial discrimination under Batista was widespread, the public school system had deteriorated badly, corruption was endemic; anyone could be bought, from a Supreme Court judge to a cop, and police brutality and torture were common” (8).

Sources Cited:
(1) http://anonym.to?http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1768.html
(2) http://anonym.to?http://www.spartacus.scho…COLDbatista.htm
(3) http://anonym.to?http://historyofcuba.com/…acts/batist.htm
(4) http://anonym.to?http://www.jfklibrary.org…ES_60OCT06b.htm
(5) Invisible Latin America, by Samuel Shapiro, Ayer Publishing, 1963, pg 77
(6) http://anonym.to?http://www.history.com/th…alls-from-power
(7) http://anonym.to?http://www.spartacus.scho…/JFKdanielJ.htm
(8) http://anonym.to?http://www.thegully.com/e…ubastats59.html

Rangal’s father worked for Batista, who was known the world over as a military dictator indifferent to the plight of his people, one who is now conversely being painted as a Cuban patriot, as are those that served his regime. If Rangal’s grandfather was a patriot, why did he serve a government which was so despised for its brutality? Surely a patriot would sympathize with the general poverty and suffering of the people of the island nation? Certainly a great patriot, such as Rangal’s grandfather, would have objected to his homeland being kept firmly under the thumb of a foreign power, and reduced to a position of an exploited neo-colony? Patriots, if nothing else, bristle with nationalism at foreign intervention to the detriment of their own country, no?


Another Fake Quote
Glenn Beck attributes a fake quote to Stalin. “One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” There is no evidence Stalin said this. It is falsely attributed to him, but to this day no one has been able to find the source for it.

Che’s “Racism”
Beck continues by tossing out a few quotes from Che, such as the following: “We’re going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing.”


Other infamous quotes mentioned are: “The Negro is indolent and lazy, and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent,” and, “[t]he blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese.”


The American Party of Labor has already extensively covered accusations of racism from a person such as Glenn Beck. For further notes on this issue we recommend you read the first and third parts of this series.


The above quotations have a source which Beck does not mention. One is page 92 in Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson. It is worth noting that Ernesto “Che” Guevara made these statements when he was young and uneducated about socialist theory. To tear individual quotes that Che made during his youth before he had a chance to study Marxist ideas out of context is misleading. Notably, this occurs in a chapter entitled “An Unquiet Youth,” which on the same page says, “Ernesto had rarely been around black people.” The next chapter is fittingly also entitled, “I Am Not the Same I Was Before,” surrounded by quotation marks from Che himself. Due to his sudden ideological change into a revolutionary upon reaching adulthood, Che was clearly not a “raging” racist, homophobe or anti-Semite.


In fact, casual racism was probably typical of a person of working class Argentine origin, especially given that Argentina is the most “European” of all Latin American countries, as far as ancestry is concerned. What was not typical, however, was Che traveling to the Congo to help the Congolese people fight against European imperialist control. It’s far-fetched to believe that Guevera held racist attitudes towards a people that he risked his own life for, fighting for a country that was not his own, nor did he have any personal stake in bettering.
As far as the quotation “We’re going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing” is concerned, this quotation is allegedly taken from Che’s Congo diaries, on his participation in the armed revolution in that country. The Congo Diaries of Che Guevera are generally about Che’s bitterness at the failure of that revolution, and his analysis was that he mostly blamed it on the people of the Congo themselves. Now, one could say that this is his own way of taking no responsibility for his own actions or the failure of his revisionist and anti-Marxist “foco” theory, but this certainly does put the whole quote into perspective. Given Che’s general outlook on the revolution in the Congo, the above quotation wasn’t a racial comment per se, but rather bitterness at what Che saw as the Congolese people’s indifference to the revolution that he tried to start. Regardless, Beck jumps on the chance to paint Guevera as a common bigot.


As well, there many other quotes which Beck does not mention, which show that if Che was indeed racist, he later shed that view. In Cuba: A Revolution in Motion, Isaac Saney quotes Che speaking on December 28th, 1959 on the role of universities: “I have to say [the university] should paint itself black, it should paint itself mulatto, not only it’s students but also the professors; that it paint itself worker and peasant, that it paint itself people, because the University is the heritage of none, it belongs to the Cuban people […] and the people that have triumphed, that have been spoiled with triumph, that know their own strength and that they can overcome, that are here today at the doors of the University, the University must be flexible and paint itself black, Mulatto, worker and peasant, or it will have no doors, the people will break them down and paint the university the colours they want.”


Also, from the BBC: “Guevara, with limited knowledge of Swahili and the local languages was assigned a teenage interpreter Freddy Ilanga. Over the course of seven months Ilanga grew to ‘admire the hard-working Guevara’, who according to Mr. Ilanga, ‘showed the same respect to black people as he did to whites.’” Source: “DR Congo’s Rebel-Turned-Brain Surgeon” by Mark Doyle, BBC World Affairs, December 13, 2005


“…A quarter of a century after the revolution, employment, infant mortality and life expectancy rates were better for blacks in Cuba than for anywhere in the world, even the United States.” Source: Marable, Manning 2000. In Hisham Aidi, ‘Is Cuba a Racial Democracy?’ January 28.


” At this time, we must continue consolidating the just policy of promoting blacks and women in particular as cadres … The party must insist on the applications of this policy in all spheres of society.” From: Communist Party of Cuba , ‘The Party Unity, Democracy and the Human Rights that we Defend,” 1997. In addition, Article 42 in the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba reads that, “discrimination because of race, color, sex or national origin is forbidden and is punished by law,” and Article 295 of the Cuban criminal code establishes fines and sanctions of between six months and two years for discrimination and incitement of hatred on the basis of gender, race or national origin.



For a country with alleged racists in high positions of state authority, it seems Cuba did quite well to make some of the greatest progress on Earth for a majority black and mixed society. While in other societies, racists in positions of state legislative power result in racist state policies, in Cuba their allegedly racist legislators somehow produced policies that greatly benefited the very people that the legislators were allegedly prejudiced against. What are the odds of that?


The tarring of Che Guevera as a racist is typical projection, making use of the valid sensibilities of the masses of people against racism to inoculate them against Marxism-Leninism. Worst case scenario: Che Guevera was a racist. In this case though, from how things played out in Cuba, one can see that at the very least then Che must have been a racist who didn’t allow his personal prejudices to interfere with the affirmation of rights for all Cubans regardless of ethnicity or heritage, because he advocated and helped legislate measures against racism during his time in Cuba. So, in the case of leftism, the absolute worst case scenario is that we have individuals with personal prejudices, whereas in the case of the United States and all capitalist countries we have racism legislated, institutionalized and propagated from the highest organs. Institutionalized slavery, Jim Crow Laws and official segregation found in the history of the United States (and many other capitalist countries) trump any distasteful prejudices that a figure from the past may or may not have had.


Finally, the whole matter becomes extreme hypocrisy anyway, because it is most likely that if the same quotes were said by some conservative talk show host or professor (as they are on a regular basis, too numerous to cite every single incident and individual), and that person found themselves in hot water over said comments, pundits like Glenn Beck would be decrying the “political correctness” and “reverse discrimination” of it all.


One Last Note: Che’s Execution Was Engineered by a Nazi War Criminal



From the article: “Che Guevara’s capture by the CIA in the forests of Bolivia 40 years ago was orchestrated by Klaus Barbie, the Nazi war criminal called the ‘Butcher of Lyon’. Barbie was the Gestapo chief in Lyon whose crimes included the murder of 44 Jewish children, taken from an orphanage and sent to Auschwitz.
Barbie’s record was disregarded when he was recruited by US intelligence after the Second World War as a useful tool against communism. He evaded French justice by fleeing to Bolivia where, living under the alias Klaus Altmann, he was welcomed by fascist sympathisers. Meanwhile, in 1966 a disguised Guevara arrived in Bolivia to organise the overthrow of its military dictatorship.
Alvaro de Castro, a longtime confidant of Barbie, says: ‘He met Major Shelton, the commander of the unit from the US. Altmann [Barbie] no doubt gave him advice on how to fight this guerrilla war. He used the expertise gained doing this kind of work in World War Two. They made the most of the fact that he had this experience.’
In October 1967 the Bolivian army, with CIA help, captured the 39-year-old Guevara and killed him. Barbie was involved in torture again in Bolivia and dreamed of establishing a Fourth Reich in the Andes.”
Source: http://anonym.to?http://www.guardian.co.uk….secondworldwar

Source: http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/review-glenn-becks-revolutionary-holocaust-live-free-or-die-5/

[Wanted Man]

What I'd like to know is where the hell Cubans are going to get you know, uh, food in this brave new post-Soviet world without trading with the capitalist pig devils.

What Raul should have done: encourage isolationism, build 1 million bunkers, ban beards, declare state atheism, and execute his closest associates and their families (for being operatives of 6 different foreign intelligence agencies simultaneously).

Then, after Raul's death, his successor (carefully hand-picked to prevent revisionists from coming to power) can slowly open up the economy, restore bourgeois democracy and lose the elections to the neo-liberals, who will lead the country to ruin for good, all within about a decade. Just like in all the Warsaw Pact countries with revisionist leadership, strangely enough. Must be a coincidence.

Most amazingly, after these events, there will still be internet-based American "Raulists" who will claim that this is indeed a coincidence, and that only Raulism can effectively fight revisionism. They will claim to be relevant because another Raulist party (that actually does stuff) got 1% of the vote in another country.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What I'd like to know is where the hell Cubans are going to get you know, uh, food in this brave new post-Soviet world without trading with the capitalist pig devils.

Don't they trade with both Venezuela & China though?

[manic expression]

I don't care how much progress Cuba has made in education and health care. That makes it progressive domestically, but that does not make it socialist, regardless of what Brezhnevites and others with a social-democratic mentality think.
Too bad for you, the workers control the means of production. As has been said, in the warped mind of a Hoxhaist, the only measure of a society is its leading party's line on Stalin. Yours is the gold standard of an anti-materialist analysis.

And much to your dismay, the workers of Cuba aren't producing concrete bumps in the ground for the paranoid fantasies of someone no one took seriously.


Hoxha noted the revisionist nature of Cuba in the 60's and 70's when it was a mercenary state of Soviet social-imperialism, and he led a country which was significantly poorer than Cuba. Did he have "trouble standing up to defend oppressed people" too? Even though arguably the most popular Hoxhaist party in the world is located in Ecuador, and others relatively popular in Benin, Turkey, Mali and the Ivory Coast?You're a broken record on your best day. First, Cuba determined its own foreign policy; Brezhnev didn't want Cuba to go into Angola, but Castro did it anyway and initially without Soviet assistance. Second, the Soviet Union wasn't imperialist whatsoever, and every time people ask you to explain this, you can do nothing of the sort because you're politically bankrupt.

The "most popular Hoxhaist party in the world" has still never done anything of note. All the while, communists and their allies have been working to oppose imperialism and overturn capitalism all around Latin America. So your delusion aside, Hoxhaism is completely irrelevant outside of Albania. You admitted that your greatest achievement is a fountain (yes, a fountain) named after Hoxha in Burkina Faso. :lol: But then again, Hoxhaism did give some really generous words of encouragement to apartheid's friends, so at least you have that going for you. Pathetic.


With respect, you're the guy that has come out with critical support of the regime in China and called the CPC a vanguard party. So I do think Captain Cuba has a point.
What point? That he's on the CIA's side on TWO issues, not just one?

[Ismail]

Too bad for you, the workers control the means of production.Like hell they do.


And much to your dismay, the workers of Cuba aren't producing concrete bumps in the ground for the paranoid fantasies of someone no one took seriously.Because we all know that Albania's bunker program had any effect on any other segment of its society or economy.


You're a broken record on your best day. First, Cuba determined its own foreign policy; Brezhnev didn't want Cuba to go into Angola, but Castro did it anyway and initially without Soviet assistance.That's because Angola was particularly pro-Cuban. However Fidel Castro did agree to send plenty of Cuban troops to invade Somalia at the behest of the Soviets when it was moving into the Ogaden.


The "most popular Hoxhaist party in the world" has still never done anything of note.I doubt Ecuadorian Hoxhaists are going to go around RevLeft. They've done plenty of note in Ecuador, such as leading a guerrilla war in the 70's and 80's, and being popular among many workers and peasants in the country today.

[manic expression]

Like hell they do.
http://www.cubasolidarity.com/aboutcuba/topics/government/0504elecsys.htm

http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html


Because we all know that Albania's bunker program had any effect on any other segment of its society or economy.We all know that it was a cross-eyed policy on the part of a marginalized, paranoid leader.


That's because Angola was particularly pro-Cuban. However Fidel Castro did agree to send plenty of Cuban troops to invade Somalia at the behest of the Soviets when it was moving into the Ogaden.It's because Angola was about to be taken over by the SADF and their friends, and Cuba fulfilled its internationalist mission in defeating reaction and ensuring the sovereignty of the Angolan people (initially without Soviet approval or support). The internationalist mission in Ethiopia was for much the same purpose.


I doubt Ecuadorian Hoxhaists are going to go around RevLeft. They've done plenty of note in Ecuador, such as leading a guerrilla war in the 70's and 80's, and being popular among many workers and peasants in the country today."Being popular" meaning what, exactly? Getting 1% of the vote a few years back? Your sense of relevance is, once again, delusional. But you still have that fountain named after your guy!

[Ismail]

http://www.cubasolidarity.com/aboutcuba/topics/government/0504elecsys.htm

http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.htmlI counter with:
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/12cCuba1970s.html (http://home.flash.net/%7Ecomvoice/12cCuba1970s.html)
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/11cCuba1980s.html (http://home.flash.net/%7Ecomvoice/11cCuba1980s.html)


We all know that it was a cross-eyed policy on the part of a marginalized, paranoid leader.It enjoyed the support of the Albanian Politburo.


It's because Angola was about to be taken over by the SADF and their friends, and Cuba fulfilled its internationalist mission in defeating reaction and ensuring the sovereignty of the Angolan people (initially without Soviet approval or support). The internationalist mission in Ethiopia was for much the same purpose.You could make such an argument for Angola if you wanted to do so. There's no way you could make an argument similar to it for Ethiopia. The Mengistu regime adopted an Amharic-chauvinist policy, which was why it had many ethnic rebellions throughout the 70's and 80's not only among the Eritreans, but among the Tigrayans, Afars, Oromos and the Ogadeni Somalis. Somalia moved into the Ogaden because the people of the area wanted to join with Somalia, and the Somalis would have won by all accounts had the Soviets and Cubans not sent in troops to betray their ally and a gain, geo-strategically stronger ally in Ethiopia.


"Being popular" meaning what, exactly? Getting 1% of the vote a few years back?The MPD in Ecuador is still growing and has seats in the national legislature. "In the 2009 National Assembly elections it won 5 out of 124 seats with 4.05% of the vote."

[manic expression]

I counter with:
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/12cCuba1970s.html (http://home.flash.net/%7Ecomvoice/12cCuba1970s.html)
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/11cCuba1980s.html (http://home.flash.net/%7Ecomvoice/11cCuba1980s.html)
Too bad your links are hopelessly ill-informed:

In the 70s, a separate bureaucratic stratum, detached from and lording over the masses, had its rule formalized.

Wrong. In the 70's, the Cuban Constitution, which formalized the democratic organs I pointed out earlier, was adopted. The bureaucracy does not control the political system or climate in Cuba. Your links never delve into the actual history, but they make for good fiction.

Among other things, a society would have to have an abundance of goods and services available while, in reality, scarcity was prevalent in the weak Cuban economy.

So because the Cuban economy saw scarcity (like all economies will be until communism is reached), it could not be socialist. :lol:


It enjoyed the support of the Albanian Politburo.My point exactly.


Somalia moved into the Ogaden because the people of the area wanted to join with Somalia, and the Somalis would have won by all accounts had the Soviets and Cubans not sent in troops to betray their ally and a gain, geo-strategically stronger ally in Ethiopia.Wrong. Siad Barre had been talking about "Greater Somalia" for years. Somalia moved in because they saw an opportunity with the fall of Selassie. The Soviet Union only withdrew their aid to Barre when it became clear that he was only interested in expansionism. The internationalist mission was in response to this aggression.


The MPD in Ecuador is still growing and has seats in the national legislature. "In the 2009 National Assembly elections it won 5 out of 124 seats with 4.05% of the vote."Now let's see them actually do something. And by that, I mean something more than a fountain named after Hoxha.

[Ismail]

Wrong. Siad Barre had been talking about "Greater Somalia" for years. Somalia moved in because they saw an opportunity with the fall of Selassie. The Soviet Union only withdrew their aid to Barre when it became clear that he was only interested in expansionism. The internationalist mission was in response to this aggression.Well yes, Somalia was obviously interested in reuniting all Somalis who were cut off due to French and British colonialism, and the majority of Ogadeni Somalis wanted to join Somalia, hence why said Somalis did not resist the arrival of Somali troops.


Now let's see them actually do something. And by that, I mean something more than a fountain named after Hoxha.Sure thing. Here's some pictures: http://coffeemarxist.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/to-all-anti-hoxhaist-idiots/

[Crux]

What point? That he's on the CIA's side on TWO issues, not just one?
Sorry I forgot the infinetely clever "the U.S seem to dislike these guys therefore they must be good" international politics of the PSL.

[∞]

I thought by Market Socialism you guys where referring to mutualism and co-ops.:confused:

[manic expression]

Well yes, Somalia was obviously interested in reuniting all Somalis who were cut off due to French and British colonialism, and the majority of Ogadeni Somalis wanted to join Somalia, hence why said Somalis did not resist the arrival of Somali troops.
Somalia's claim to Ogaden came very much from its incorporation by Italian fascism. But nevertheless, you think a third of Ethiopia should have gone to Somalia, then? Moreover, the initial gains of the invaders were due to American aid in 1977. It's interesting how you ignore that.


Sure thing. Here's some pictures: http://coffeemarxist.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/to-all-anti-hoxhaist-idiots/:lol: I like the Che shirt...so much for defiance against those evil revisionists. It looks like abandoning supposed principles when convenient is your hallmark. This is just more proof of that.

[AK]

Did this thread seriously turn into a sectarian shitstorm between Marxist-Leninists and Hoxhaists (of all the tendencies)?

[Uppercut]

Did this thread seriously turn into a sectarian shitstorm between Marxist-Leninists and Hoxhaists (of all the tendencies)?

It seems so, and I like it. I'm debating whether I should look to the PSL or the APL if I'm going to join a party.

[Wanted Man]

Did this thread seriously turn into a sectarian shitstorm between Marxist-Leninists and Hoxhaists (of all the tendencies)?

Well, the difference is pretty clear-cut. Some people want to build a communist movement that can actually make a fist and lead a mass struggle. Whether this is done in the name of Maoism like in Nepal or something else is secondary to that. On the international level, there are also Hoxhaist parties that work with non-Hoxhaists (CP of Albania), Maoists who work with non-Maoists (CP of the Philippines), etc. In that sense, there is nothing wrong with Hoxhaists, Maoists, or anything else.

What is really ridiculous is when a bunch of guys on the internet read a Wikipedia article on Hoxha, and decide to proclaim themselves the representatives of "Hoxhaism" in the world. In every thread, they spend all their time denouncing every single communist party so far, except for themselves and a few other Hoxhaist parties in the world that haven't called it quits yet (that they also don't seem to know anything about beyond Wikipedia).

They would rather exist in perfect isolation, and so whenever anti-revisionist, Marxist-Leninist parties of different stripes establish contact and co-operation (http://icsbrussels.org/), it's actually a case of "revisionism", "Brezhnevites", "pan-socialism" (a term they made up; it has about the same meaning as "Stalinism", "anarcho-trotskyism", etc. on Revleft). I guess only the remaining Hoxhaist parties are good enough. The Cuba thing is just one aspect of this division.

They're nice enough people, and they have some historical knowledge, but I can't bring myself to take them seriously. By means of comparison, it's basically like this: imagine a bunch of people coming in claiming to be the only true anarchists, because they believe that non-vegans are evil, heterosexual sex is rape, organisation of any kind is wrong, class-struggle anarchism is just statism in disguise, political activity is wrong, etc.

[Obs]

All I want to know is, can I dislike Raúl and still be on the side of the Cuban communists? :confused:

[chegitz guevara]

No, you must be spanked.

[Lenin II]

Ismail, there is literally no reason to argue with Brezhnevite pieces of shit like Manic_expression. They have no arguments.

If someone is opposed to revisionism they are accused of collaborating with the US, regardless of how the revisionists themselves do that (Khrushchev advocating "peaceful coexistence" and making friends with Tito, the friend of imperialism and nation-chauvenism, and so on and so forth forever).

The pro-Soviet parties are utterly pathetic, worthless revisionist and reformist parties that support imperialism in Afghanistan and help the Indian government hunt down leftists, but somehow we are ultra-lefts on the way back to rightism.

This in spite of the fact that Enver Hoxha's Albania was literally the most anti-imperialist state to have ever existed.


For a Brezhnevite, geopolitics determine the class nature of a state, party, movement or individual. Period.

[scarletghoul]

It seems so, and I like it. I'm debating whether I should look to the PSL or the APL if I'm going to join a party.
I'm obviously not involved in the American scene but i haven't seen the APL really do much... PSL at least is pretty active and has some publicity

[Obs]

This in spite of the fact that Enver Hoxha's Albania was literally the most anti-imperialist state to have ever existed.
Literally!

[Wanted Man]

Perfect example of what I was saying:


Ismail, there is literally no reason to argue with Brezhnevite pieces of shit like Manic_expression. They have no arguments.

How is it even reasonable to refer to people as "Brezhnevites" in this sense? I don't know the PSL too well, but most CPs today reject revisionism. Manic_expression certainly doesn't seem like a "Brezhnevite" to me, never mind a "piece of shit". I can't speak for M_e, but I'm sure he would agree with most communists and with people like Ludo Martens, who have consistently identified revisionism as the main reason for the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, with the interference of imperialist powers exacerbating matters, profiting off the internal rot caused by revisionism.

Yet according to the most dogmatic Hoxhaists, Martens is a "Brezhnevite" because he dared to suggest that Stalin made grave mistakes at certain points, and those CPs are "pan-socialists" because they want to build a worldwide Marxist-Leninist movement that can actually challenge capitalism. And another major sin of theirs, apparently, is that they identify Cuba as socialist, and that they elevate solidarity with Cuba to a matter of prime importance, rather than simply denouncing Cuba as "state-capitalist" and only "supporting Cuba against imperialism" (I suppose that is a step up from some Maoists' and Hoxhaists' previous track record on "revisionist" countries).

[Hiratsuka]

I'll just wait and see what actually goes down instead of speculating.


the Soviet Union wasn't imperialist whatsoever,

Lol...

[RadioRaheem84]

Has there been any evidence to suggest that Castro is taking a Dengist line? Any evidence that points to him wanting Cuba to follow in Vietnam or China's footsteps? Anything that might link "reforms" to things other than mutalism or co-ops?

[Bright Banana Beard]

I remember Fidel actually praise Gorby's reforms but this isn't a evidence of taking a Dengist line.

[Ismail]

Did this thread seriously turn into a sectarian shitstorm between Marxist-Leninists and Hoxhaists (of all the tendencies)?Hoxhaists are Marxist-Leninists. Hoxha himself disliked the term "Hoxhaism" and used Marxism-Leninism to refer to his views, because the point was that he was a legitimate Marxist-Leninist like Stalin. The first to use the term used it as a pejorative (e.g. Maoists used "Hoxhaite").


How is it even reasonable to refer to people as "Brezhnevites" in this sense? I don't know the PSL too well, but most CPs today reject revisionism.As Hoxha said, Brezhnev and Co. condemned "revisionism against revisionism."

[Lyev]

Clearly, a Trot analysis performed by the likes of Tony Cliff, CLR James, Adolf Hitler and J. Edgar Hoover.



Source: http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/review-glenn-becks-revolutionary-holocaust-live-free-or-die-5/Sorry to clog up the thread with a stupid one-liner, but I don't think Hitler was a Trotskyist mate.

[Ismail]

Sorry to clog up the thread with a stupid one-liner, but I don't think Hitler was a Trotskyist mate."Adolf Hitler read Trotsky's autobiography as soon as it was published. Hitler's biographer, Konrad Heiden, tells in Der Fuehrer how the Nazi leader surprised a circle of his friends in 1930 by bursting into rapturous praises of Trotsky's book. 'Brilliant!' cried Hitler, waving Trotsky's My Life at his followers. 'I have learnt a great deal from it, and so can you!'" (A.E. Kahn, The Great Conpiracy Against Russia, p. 225.)

Of course this doesn't actually mean Hitler was a Trotskyist (he... wasn't), but it's obvious Lenin II was being sarcastic.

[Lenin II]

Yet according to the most dogmatic Hoxhaists, Martens is a "Brezhnevite"

More or less, although his 1995 India thesis is more or less more "pan-socialism" with pro-Soviet leanings, since it speaks of uniting what he calls the four main currents (pro-China, pro-Soviet, pro-Cuba and pro-Albania).


because he dared to suggest that Stalin made grave mistakes at certain points

No, this is an assumption you are making. In fact, Martens' book exposes many Maoist lies about Stalin, and the parts of his India speech I did like had to do with this matter. He does say many things that are objectively incorrect about Stalin. This is not the main reason we consider him a revisionist or a so-called "Brezhnevite," but rather because he is a supporter of the latter USSR, including the military interventions by it.

His new thesis also does not recognize the theory of social-imperialism and labels the USSR's actions as proletarian internationalism. This is the "main" reason, if one could nail one or two down. I expect many to rage at this.


and those CPs are "pan-socialists" because they want to build a worldwide Marxist-Leninist movement that can actually challenge capitalism.

They don't want to unite Marxist-Leninists, they wish to united Marxism-Leninism with revisionism ala the Second International.


And another major sin of theirs, apparently, is that they identify Cuba as socialist, and that they elevate solidarity with Cuba to a matter of prime importance, rather than simply denouncing Cuba as "state-capitalist" and only "supporting Cuba against imperialism" (I suppose that is a step up from some Maoists' and Hoxhaists' previous track record on "revisionist" countries).

The position you list above is the Marxist-Leninist position on Cuba and always has been. I'm not sure what "other" parties you're referring to, since support against imperialism has always been the line of anti-revisionists. I'm not aware of any that advocate an invasion of Cuba.

[Lenin II]

To Manic expression


I like the Che shirt...so much for defiance against those evil revisionists. It looks like abandoning supposed principles when convenient is your hallmark. This is just more proof of that.

Is this your only answer?

Che Guevara was a Marxist-Leninist. He had a few revisionist views, such as "focoism," but essentially he was an ML. Fidel Castro was and still is a Gorbachevite.

Che also criticized the post-Stalin USSR and the derailment of Cuba's economy by the Khrushchevites.

Funny you guys call the APL Cliffite or whatever your straw man is this week.

The American Party of Labor at least, unlike the PSL, it isn't a split from a split (WWP) from a split (SWP), et al forever.

As well, it isn't listed on the Encyclopedia of Trotskyism.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/trees/trotchart2.jpg

[AK]

Hoxhaists are Marxist-Leninists. Hoxha himself disliked the term "Hoxhaism" and used Marxism-Leninism to refer to his views, because the point was that he was a legitimate Marxist-Leninist like Stalin. The first to use the term used it as a pejorative (e.g. Maoists used "Hoxhaite").
Well that's pretty stupid considering you identify as a Hoxhaist...


Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,216
Tendency: Hoxhaists (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=7)
Rep Power: 16
Reputation: 1178
http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif

[Lenin II]

Well that's pretty stupid considering you identify as a Hoxhaist...

Only on revlib, not in real life.

In political work, we identify as "Marxist-Leninists."

Our own personal definition is not confined to the name that the tendency has on this forum, in other words.

[Robocommie]

Aw Jesus Christ, you know, this kind of bullshit really is the worst kind of tendency pissing contest.

"You're the heretic!"
"No, you are!"

[Ismail]

Well that's pretty stupid considering you identify as a Hoxhaist...Well yes, since "Marxist-Leninist" is a broad term that, if we use it as broadly as possible, encompasses users from me to Wanted Man to Barry Lyndon. Outside of the internet, however, Hoxhaists pretty much never use the term "Hoxhaism" to describe themselves outside of discussions with persons of other tendencies.

Hoxhaist groups in the world tend not to work with other Communist Parties of the "Marxist-Leninist" persuasion. As Hoxha said: "... the Party may not give up its independence, may not participate in any given united front and let herself be destroyed. On the contrary, she has to keep independent, to hold tight her principles and norms. She has to obtain unconditionally the role of the vanguard in the revolution by her righteous struggle and her correct stands... hegemony is not a gift, she has to fight for it." (Rruga e Partisë, 1967)

Also, talking to members of the Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist) in 1969 on revisionist tendencies within the party (the CPA-ML later stuck with Mao and had a falling-out between them and Hoxha): "The problem is that you must separate yourselves from these enemies not just organizationally, but, first of all, ideologically, because then the organizational division comes automatically. Hence, the ideological division with them is the main thing, and, in this direction, we think that the dots must be clearly placed above the i`s. The separation from the revisionists assists the consolidation of the ranks of the party and purging of incorrect views from its members."

So of course Pan-Socialist types accuse us of "ultra-leftism."

[manic expression]

Is this your only answer?
No, but it's enough for now.


Che Guevara was a Marxist-Leninist. He had a few revisionist views, such as "focoism," but essentially he was an ML. Fidel Castro was and still is a Gorbachevite.Like I said, no principles, just political bankruptcy. Che and Fidel were making the same revolution, building the same government, promoting the same ideals. "Essentially he was an ML". Yes, he was, because he wasn't a Hoxhaist who lined up behind apartheid's pets. The truth hurts, child.

Until you explain why you're OK with support of the DPRK, USSR and DDR, you're just trying to hijack Che to hide your own irrelevance and self-marginalization. It's a lot easier, of course, to whine on the sidelines about how "revisionist" communists are instead of actually working for revolution like Che did.

And your criticism of focoism is pretty stupid, seeing as Hoxha was a partizan. But that's par for the course when we're dealing with Hoxhaists.


Che also criticized the post-Stalin USSR and the derailment of Cuba's economy by the Khrushchevites.So did Fidel. History really sucks when it disagrees with you.


The American Party of Labor at least, unlike the PSL, it isn't a split from a split (WWP) from a split (SWP), et al forever.You want to compare resumes? Be my guest, just know the APL hasn't done squat next to the PSL...or the WWP. Hell, the SWP probably has more of a presence than you do. Now that's pathetic. Just like your bunkers, your support for apartheid and your opposition to beards. Keep calling me childish names, it just shows me you're out of ideas.

[manic expression]

Hoxhaists are Marxist-Leninists.
Marxist-Leninists use materialist analyses. You don't.


As Hoxha said,And no one listened to him, because no one cares. :lol: But you still have that fountain named after your guy! How glorious an achievement, to go along with your cuddling with apartheid's allies.


So of course Pan-Socialist types accuse us of "ultra-leftism."
Or maybe it's because you have no currency in the real world (the one exception being when you lie about liking Che), or because your ideology has never done anything for the cause of the workers...except line up behind imperialism whenever the bourgeoisie rings its bell.

[AK]

your ideology has never done anything for the cause of the workers
People have really gotta stop using this as an argument. It's pretty fucking stupid.

[Lenin II]

Marxist-Leninists use materialist analyses. You don't.

Marxist-Leninists perform class analysis. You don’t.


Until you explain why you're OK with support of the DPRK, USSR and DDR, you're just trying to hijack Che to hide your own irrelevance and self-marginalization. It's a lot easier, of course, to whine on the sidelines about how "revisionist" communists are instead of actually working for revolution like Che did.

Che was a member of the PSL, as we know. :lol: He was a big fan of Trots.


And no one listened to him, because no one cares.

Yeah, your boy Tito did a lot better in GLORIOUS Yugoslavia.

Brezhnev’s theories are the key to the liberation of the proletariat.

Economic reforms that abolish central planning don’t have any effect on production relations. This is the Soviet Union dammit! Everyone knows material conditions have nothing to do with Marxism! :lol:


But you still have that fountain named after your guy!

Also a successful revolution, and killing all the Trots in Albania, whereas you joined a Trot group based around “fuck you, everybody was socialist.” :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

Marxist-Leninists perform class analysis. You don’t.
In your warped mind, "class analysis" means banning beards. I'd like to hear more about your "class analysis", actually.


Che was a member of the PSL, as we know. :lol: He was a big fan of Trots.
You really think the PSL is a Trotskyist party? Well, it's not surprising coming from someone who's politically oblivious to the very core.

But thanks for dodging the fact that your principles go out the window when you're faced with a real revolutionary. Che is an inspiration to the communist movement and to the workers of all countries, and it's no coincidence that Hoxhaism is squarely against him and what he fought for. Your quickness to run away from this only condemns you as politically bankrupt.


Yeah, your boy Tito did a lot better in GLORIOUS Yugoslavia.
Good thing I didn't bring him up, then. But it's nice to see you make yourself into a caricature once again.


Brezhnev’s theories are the key to the liberation of the proletariat.
I wouldn't say so, but nevertheless he could get himself behind the cause of the proletariat. Your "boy" Hoxha, on the other hand, rationalized the actions of apartheid's best pals. UNITA and the SADF really appreciated his support.


Economic reforms that abolish central planning don’t have any effect on production relations. This is the Soviet Union dammit! Everyone knows material conditions have nothing to do with Marxism!
Which private enterprises existed in the Soviet Union before the late 80's? Like I said, Marxists stick with materialist analyses...while you base your politics depending on someone's view of Stalin and nothing else.


Also a successful revolution, and killing all the Trots in Albania, whereas you joined a Trot group based around “fuck you, everybody was socialist.” :rolleyes:
So you think "killing all the Trots in Albania" (quite a formidable force, that) directly equals a "successful revolution". And you have the gall to talk of class analyses. :lol: If only more communists came out against facial hair, maybe then you could consider them true revolutionaries.

But no, not everybody is socialist, and certainly not the friends of apartheid. But you'd know a little something about that, now wouldn't you.

[chegitz guevara]

Well this thread turned remarkably stupid. It's disgusting that some comrades are proud of killing other comrades.

[Ismail]

Well this thread turned remarkably stupid. It's disgusting that some comrades are proud of killing other comrades.I won't quite go that far. As a semi-random sidenote, however, Hoxha's Albanian Trotskyist teacher in France who taught him Marxism and Law was later found to be collaborating with British intelligence and was probably lashed to death by Hoxha's partisans.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llazar_Fundo (I made the whole article months back, with some minor modifications by others since then)

Albania actually had a fairly sizable Trotskyist movement relative to the population (and Albanian communists by tendency). In fact some sources state that Hoxha had initial connections with the Trot "Youth Group" at the start of the anti-fascist period in Albania. Of course that didn't last too long.


And your criticism of focoism is pretty stupid, seeing as Hoxha was a partizan. But that's par for the course when we're dealing with Hoxhaists.Hoxha's partisans had nothing in common with focoism.

As Hoxha noted (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1968/10/21.htm) in 1968 to Ecuadorian communists:

Who was Che Guevara? When we speak of Che Guevara, we also mean somebody else who poses as a Marxist, in comparison to whom, in our opinion, Che Guevara was a man of fewer words. He was a rebel, a revolutionary, but not a Marxist-Leninist as they try to present him. I may be mistaken—you Latin-Americans are better acquainted with Che Guevara, but I think that he was a leftist fighter. His is a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leftism, combined with some ideas that were progressive, but also anarchist which, in the final analysis, lead to adventurism.

The views of Che Guevara and anyone else who poses as a Marxist and claims "paternity" of these ideas have never been or had anything to do with Marxism-Leninism. Che Guevara also had some "exclairicies" in his adoption of certain Marxist-Leninist principles, but they still did not become a full philosophical world-outlook which could impel him to genuinely revolutionary actions.

We cannot say that Che Guevara and his comrades were cowards. No, by no means! On the contrary, they were brave people. There are also bourgeois who are brave men. But the only truly great heroes and really brave proletarian revolutionaries are those who proceed from the Marxist-Leninist philosophical principles and put all their physical and mental energies at the service of the world proletariat for the liberation of the peoples from the yolk of the imperialists, feudal lords and others....

In our opinion, the theory that the revolution is carried out by a few "heroes" constitutes a danger to Marxism-Leninism, especially in the Latin-American countries. Your South-American continent has great revolutionary traditions, but, as we said above, it also has some other traditions which may seem revolutionary but which, in fact, are not genuinely on the road of the revolution. Any putsch carried out there is called a revolution! But a putsch can never be a revolution, because one overthrown clique is replaced by another, in a word, things remain as they were. In addition to all the nuclei of anti-Marxist trends which still exist in the ranks of the old parties that have placed themselves in the service of the counterrevolution, there is now another trend which we call left adventurism.

This trend, and that other offspring of the bourgeoisie, modern revisionism, constitute great dangers to the people, including those of the Latin-American countries. Carefully disguised, modern revisionism is a great deceiver of the peoples and revolutionaries. In different countries it puts on different disguises. In Latin America, Castroism, disguised as Marxism-Leninism, is leading people, even revolutionaries, into left adventurism. This trend appears to be in contradiction with modern revisionism. Those who are ideologically immature think thus, but it is not so. The Castroites are not opposed to the modern revisionists. On the contrary, they are in their service. The separate courses each of them follows lead them to the same point.

The question whenever the Soviet revisionists fail to prevent the masses of the working class and the people from carrying out the revolution, this trend steps in and, by means of a putsch, destroys what the revisionists are unable to destroy by means of evolution. The Soviet revisionists and all the traitor cliques which led the revisionist parties preach evolution, coexistence and all those other anti-Marxist theories we know. From the terms it employs, left adventurism seems more revolutionary, because it advocates armed struggle! But what does it mean by armed struggle? Clearly—putsches. Marxism-Leninism teaches us that only by proceeding with prudent and sure steps, only by basing ourselves firmly on the principles of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine, only by making the masses conscious can victory be ensured in the preparation and launching of the armed uprising, and only in this way will we never fall into adventurism.

The authors of the theory that the "starter motor" sets the "big motor" in motion pose as if they are for the armed struggle, but in fact they are opposed to it and work to discredit it. The example and tragic end of Che Guevara, the following and prorogation of this theory also by other self-styled Marxists, who are opposed to the great struggles by the masses of people, are publicly known facts which refute their claims: We must guard against the people lest they betray us, lest they hand us over to the police; we must set up "wild" isolated detachments, so that the enemy does not get wind of them and does not retaliate with terror against the population! They publicize these and many other confusing theories, which you know only too well. What sort of Marxism-Leninism is this which advocates attacking the enemy, fighting it with these "wild" detachments, etc. without having a Marxist-Leninist party to lead the fight? There is nothing Marxist-Leninist about it. Such anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist theories can bring nothing but defeat for Marxism-Leninism and the revolution, as Che Guevara's undertaking in Bolivia did.

This trend brings the theses of the armed uprising into disrepute. What great damage it causes the revolution! With the killing of Guevara, the masses of common people, contaminated by the influences of these anarchist views, will think: "Now there is no one else to lead us, to liberate us!" Or perhaps a group of people with another Guevara will be set up again to take to the mountains to make the "revolution," and the masses, who expect a great deal from these individuals and are burning to fight the bourgeoisie, may be deceived into following them. And what will happen? Something that is clear to us. Since these people are not the vanguard of the working class, since they are not guided by the enlightening principles of Marxism-Leninism, they will encounter misunderstanding among the broad masses and sooner or later they will fail, but at the same time the genuine struggle will be discredited, because the masses will regard armed struggle with distrust. We must prepare the masses politically and ideologically, and convince them through their own practical experience. That is why we say that this inhibiting, reactionary theory about the revolution that is being spread in Latin America is the offspring of modern revisionism and must be unmasked by the Marxist-Leninists.

[manic expression]

Hoxha's partisans had nothing in common with focoism.
Except they utilized the same tactics. Are you saying that armed struggle against the Nazi occupation was OK but the same act against Batista was not? The hypocrisy is deafening.

But other than that, Hoxha's words show a complete misunderstanding of what happened in Cuba (imagine my surprise). The July 26 Movement was not just a band of guerrillas in the mountains, it had an extensive network of resistance cells in the cities which was pivotal at many points in the course of the Revolution.

But I think the course of this thread shows just why it's important for revolutionaries to show solidarity instead of wanton sectarianism. A productive discussion on Cuba got sidetracked by posters intent on slandering Cuba by any means (and with worldviews stuck in the 1970's at that). That the Hoxhaists have abandoned their arguments on the majority of issues brought up only drives home the bankruptcy of anti-socialist politics, and why our movement is far better off without small-minded bickerers.

[Ismail]

Except they utilized the same tactics. Are you saying that armed struggle against the Nazi occupation was OK but the same act against Batista was not? The hypocrisy is deafening.They didn't utilize the same tactics. In each area the National Liberation Front had its own councils, had internal elections for their military leaders, had the leading role of the Communist Party of Albania realized, and had overall differing tactics and strategies for the defeat of the Italian and German occupiers.

[manic expression]

They didn't utilize the same tactics. In each area the National Liberation Front had its own councils, had internal elections for their military leaders, had the leading role of the Communist Party of Albania realized, and had overall differing tactics and strategies for the defeat of the Italian and German occupiers.
You just said a lot of words that mean very little. I've already talked about the J26M's urban presence, its leadership in the PCC is well-known, its democratic nature is well-known, its strategic aim and tactics which weren't all that different from the partisans are well-known. Suffice to say, you're arguing against the facts of history.

By the way, tactics means the use of forces in combat. Trying to extract political conclusions from that (even if the partisans fought that much differently in combat than the guerrillas) is ridiculous, if not a bit comical.

[chegitz guevara]

I won't quite go that far. As a semi-random sidenote, however, Hoxha's Albanian Trotskyist teacher in France who taught him Marxism and Law was later found to be collaborating with British intelligence and was probably lashed to death by Hoxha's partisans.

It was WWII. The USSR was collaborating with the British Empire.

[Obs]

killing all the Trots in Albania
This is enough to turn me off Hoxha forever. Fuck you, and fuck anyone who thinks killing other leftists is ever a worthy endeavour while there is still a class struggle going on in this world. Your sectarian bullshit gets us nowhere, you fucking moron.

Also, what's this I hear about banning beards? Beards kick ass, screw all y'all.

[Soviet dude]

While I agree with manic expression in regards to the idea that Hoxhaists are essentially ultra-Leftists of the American Maoism variety and have a wrong analysis of the the socialist countries, I don't approve of what manic expression is saying about socialist Albania and comrade Hoxha. That socialist Albania did some questionable things is not a reason to condemn them. So did Cuba.

[∞]

Oh, so this thread is about Hoxhaists, sorry...


I THOUGHT IT WAS ABOUT CUBA! And since everybody is going to ignore this, I might aswell post some pics to remind you and pay attention...

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-qCbWomMI7wPjz4noFqYFtFztnD7Or2XxVODR97X0vZti29k&t=1&usg=__DrnVsjWpDMR_JuS3jrS_poJJEPE=


http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZU0SfKXDjIN3jItc_Dt_T2xJafHyP5 ZPSiDc6MA1oOFwHSSU&t=1&usg=__ivpl8uL1hB7X4kdiC6BlPojoODY=


CUBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAA, CUBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAA!
:castro: :castro: :castro: :castro: :castro: :castro: :castro: :castro: :castro: :castro: :castro:

I don't want to hear "Socialism should be herp da derp." ON EVERY FUCKING THREAD

[Obs]

I like Cuban oranges.

[Kassad]

This is a verbal warning to everyone in the thread to stay on topic. The last couple posts have been nothing but spam. Cut it out or I'm going to start issuing infractions.