Castro to Privatize More Industries, Lay Off More Workers

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

An article I read this morning provides a polemical opening that I simply cannot resist: Raul now plans to privatize more industries and lay off more workers. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10834192) He explains: "We have to end forever the notion that Cuba is the only country in the world where you can live without working." Given it's commonly estimated that around 20 percent or more of Cuba's workforce is already unemployed, it's doubtful that the Cuban workforce would be of such an illusion.

Cuba's is probably the least criticized "socialist" regime in the world today on the part of the RevLeft community. American groups like the Socialist Workers Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation regard Cuba's model of "socialism" as exemplary and routinely dedicate themselves to the defense of the Cuban government. But I think it's the consistent development of such things as highlighted in the link above these days that are fortunately leading more and more people to question the said regime's interest in socialist revolution.

But honestly folks, the revisionism of the Castro regime is pretty obvious. Take for example a couple of Raul's 2008 declarations (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0812/p09s02-coop.html), wherein he blatantly redefined socialism as but liberal capitalism:


"Socialism means social justice and equality, but equality of rights, of opportunities, not of income."


"...egalitarianism is in itself a form of exploitation; exploitation of the good workers by those who are less productive and lazy."The latter statement is the polar opposite of "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

The essential thing, however, was pointed out in the first linked article, which explains the roots of Cuba's current economic crisis that is leading to these reforms:


Cuba's state-run economy has been gripped by a severe crisis in the past two years that has forced it to cut imports.

It has suffered from a fall in the price for its main export, nickel, as well as a decline in tourism.

Growth has also been hampered by the 48-year US trade embargo.

Does any of that sound like it would birth a crisis situation for an authentically socialist economy? No, all these are the economic problems of a capitalist system: problems of world commodity prices, of limits on trade with imperialist nations, and of inadequate cash-flow from wealthy foreign tourists. What's described there is an economy that, just below the surface, is fundamentally capitalist. The solution of the bourgeoisie to a capitalist economic crisis is always to impose deeper and wider exploitation, as contrasted with the solution of the proletariat, which is to abolish the old relations in which the crisis is rooted. The former, not the latter, is what describes the response of the Cuban government to the current economic crisis, including this latest part thereof.

These sorts of facts expose the supporters of the said government as either ill-informed or opportunist. To make the matter more painfully clear, however, consider the fact that the parties that regard Castro's Cuba as exemplary (e.g. the SWP and the PSL) feature political lines that are decidedly inconsistent with that of the regime in pretty important ways. For example, these respective parties fielded their own presidential candidates in 2008, whereas Fidel, by contrast, endorsed Obama (http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1348), explaining that "Obama's doctrines can be translated as a formula for hunger for true unity. I have seen his following and followers' dedication to this great man, when he has brought the KKK to endorse him and bring unity back to the USA, when he will halt the embargo on Cuba once and for all and bring us our just rights, he is a man of true standing and honor".

We can likewise see the opportunism of these parties that regard the Castro regime as exemplary in that, quite frankly, the said regime endorses none of them, but instead the blatantly revisionist Communist Party, which is nothing but a stand-in for the Democratic Party within progressive currents. You can note this by their letter of praise to the CP at their recent national convention.

[AK]

Remember guiz, Cuba is a socialist state where the working class is really in control.

[Matty_UK]

These sorts of facts expose the supporters of the said government as either ill-informed or opportunist. To make the matter more painfully clear, however, consider the fact that the parties that regard Castro's Cuba as exemplary (e.g. the SWP and the PSL) feature political lines that are decidedly inconsistent with that of the regime in pretty important ways. For example, these respective parties fielded their own presidential candidates in 2008, whereas Fidel, by contrast, endorsed Obama (http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1348), explaining that "Obama's doctrines can be translated as a formula for hunger for true unity. I have seen his following and followers' dedication to this great man, when he has brought the KKK to endorse him and bring unity back to the USA, when he will halt the embargo on Cuba once and for all and bring us our just rights, he is a man of true standing and honor".


We can likewise see the opportunism of these parties that regard the Castro regime as exemplary in that, quite frankly, the said regime endorses none of them, but instead the blatantly revisionist Communist Party, which is nothing but a stand-in for the Democratic Party within progressive currents. You can note this by their letter of praise to the CP at their recent national convention.

To be honest, I doubt Fidel knows a lot about how the Communist Party is "blatantly revisionist," and probably has better things to do with his time than research the political lines and sectarian bickering of supposedly more revolutionary left groups in the US, given than none of them really have any influence to speak of. Much simpler to just have a tokenistic endorsement of the official CP.

And his praise of Obama isn't too surprising, he even maintains that he admired Kennedy as a worthy opponent and a good man. Don't think the Cuban revolution could have survived for so long without some diplomatic tact on behalf of it's leaders - he is clearly hoping that Obama will bring an end to the blockade, and taking a belligerent stance towards him certainly won't facilitate that.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This still has no details on what exactly will be done though, and this is pretty old news, this has been discussed before.

I hope it won't be too bad, but knowing revisionism...

[manic expression]

We've already been through this, and it's pure sensationalism on the part of the bourgeois press:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-turning-market-t138939/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../cuba-turning-market-t138939/index.html)

So the rumored reforms weren't capitalistic at all, and apparently they aren't being carried out anyway. It's sensationalism twice over: "Market reforms are on the way!" (even though they weren't market reforms)...and then, "The reforms are being shelved! Market reforms must be imminent!"


The latter statement is the polar opposite of "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".
No, it's a reiteration of "those who do not work, will not eat."

As far as Fidel endorsing Obama, it's not too hard to figure out what he was doing. He was throwing a monkey wrench into the American political process, screwing with both the Democrats' and Republicans' heads. Chavez very prudently did the same thing early in Obama's presidency. The imperialists lost their minds trying to figure out why Chavez gave Obama that book; it caused infighting within imperialism. Our comrades in Cuba and elsewhere have figured out how to disrupt and confuse capitalism with mere words, and Fidel's statement on Obama is a perfect example of this.

On Cuba's economy, your argument couldn't be more superficial. Just because an economy is affected by a decline in tourism doesn't mean there's a market for large-scale production or manpower, and it doesn't negate the state monopoly of foreign trade and the centrally-planned nature of the Cuban economy. Tourism dropped, and so an industry of the Cuban economy has been affected. To say that this means there is generalized commodity production is not only insane, it's a leap of logic on multiple counts. So really, it's just wishful thinking on your part, materialist analysis doesn't enter into it.


We can likewise see the opportunism of these parties that regard the Castro regime as exemplary in that, quite frankly, the said regime endorses none of them, but instead the blatantly revisionist Communist Party, which is nothing but a stand-in for the Democratic Party within progressive currents. You can note this by their letter of praise to the CP at their recent national convention.
Fidel also sent a message of praise to the PSL's conference back in 2008...but you know, no big deal or anything.

[Wanted Man]

How dumb is this thread? The article actually says that there are not going to be moves towards more market forces, nor that there are going to be mass lay-offs. What he is basically saying is that they don't want to artificially maintain state-paid jobs that don't actually do anything.

But then again, maybe Britain under New Labour was "socialist" because the NHS employed "hello nurses" simply to meet quotas for (not actually) "treating" patients. Maybe getting rid of these jobs was also an unforgivable concession to capitalism. :rolleyes: Apparently, the difference between capitalism and socialism is determined by policies like this, and not by the underlying economic system. Silly us.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

manic expression wrote:
Fidel also sent a message of praise to the PSL's conference back in 2008...but you know, no big deal or anything.

This is a point I'd forgotten about. Actually, that exposes the Castro regime's opportunism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I thought the difference between capitalism and socialism was that in that second one, workers collectively control the means of production.


"...egalitarianism is in itself a form of exploitation; exploitation of the good workers by those who are less productive and lazy."The lazy workers control hireing and fireing and use that to take surplus wealth from the hired workers..?

[bie]

I thought the difference between capitalism and socialism was that in that second one, workers collectively control the means of production.
I think you misunderstood that sentence and took it little bit too literal. "Collective control" doesn't mean that the productive individual units collectively decide what and when to produce and who fire or hire. This is a petit-bourgeoisie utopianism. For example, what will stop that units from competing with each other?"Collective control over means of production" means that the production process as a whole is controlled by the working class through the means of the central plan.

The lazy workers control hireing and fireing and use that to take surplus wealth from the hired workers..?
I am sure that someone ever have introduced you to the concept of socialist accumulation. Surplus value is being extracted from workers but its spending is under workers control. Means extracted from production go to cover expenses of expanding a production basis (investments), public and social services (healthcare, education, infrastructure etc.). In other words the surplus value returns toi workers by the means of free and accessible public services.

I see here is a lot of misunderstanding about what the socialism is.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I see there is a lot of misunderstanding about what socialism is.True - in the US the right-wing always claims that nationalization and government services equal socialism, but I don't know where they get that idea.

[bie]

True - in the US the right-wing always claims that nationalization and government services equal socialism, but I don't know where they get that idea.
It is a smart trick. First they create an image of "evil socialism" or "evil communism" with all sort of "horror stories" invented by individuals like R. Conquest, and later they attack everything to the left for being "socialist". But I can't understand why instead bursting that bubble by telling what historic socialism really was and what is, instead of concentrating on its obvious advantages, especially comparing to the "achievements" of capitalism in the former socialist countries (eg. in Russia life expectancy decreased by 7 years from the victory of counterrevolution) - you capitulate to that propaganda by saying "no, no that wasn't socialism". This is entirely wrong position. You seem to have the common vision of what socialism really was (or is) with the American right-wing.

(Obviously nationalization and state services do not equal socialism, socialism needs the political system of workers democracy i.e. dictatorship of proletariat).

[REDSOX]

The ultras are getting excited again.

As has been pointing out so many times on these boards cuba is not abandoning socialism now or ever. For a start in the constituiton of cuba it states that socialism is irrevocable and irreversible. Furthermore cuba is only continuing what they have been doing for 20 years rejigging the state workforce whilst allowing some self employment in the CONTEXT of a world economic crisis that the world finds itself and to which cuba is not immune. If cuba was moving towards capitalism this is what would happen

Decontrolling of prices
Privatisation (not of dog grooming SERVICES or shoe shiners) but big industry
Mass unemployment
The emergence of a bourgeois class
End of state monopoly on trade
The multinationals running riot in cuba
In other words the chinese route

But its not happening and it will not happen in cuba

[Thirsty Crow]

True - in the US the right-wing always claims that nationalization and government services equal socialism, but I don't know where they get that idea.
The guy didn't get it :laugh:
As far as the topic at hand goes, it seems that OP's accusations of "revisionism" and "opportunism" are not grounded in reality, in ayn case, the reality of the existing state of affairs which affect Cuba.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The guy didn't get it :laugh:


Who didn't get it?


(Obviously nationalization and state services do not equal socialism, socialism needs the political system of workers democracy i.e. dictatorship of proletariat).

I think that is quite clear.

[Jimmie Higgins]

True - in the US the right-wing always claims that nationalization and government services equal socialism, but I don't know where they get that idea.

I'm being an asshole:(. Sorry, I was up all night working the graveyard shift and I start to loose my normal earnestness and sincerity after a couple of cups of coffee. I'll be less sarcastic once I get some sleep.

[Soviet dude]

It's funny when the RCP and the ISO agree, which is happening even more often nowadays. The charge of Crypto-Trotskyism ringers truer by the day.

[Sendo]

Third Worldists, Hoxhaists, and Trotskyists can be the greatest opportunists. They all love to be vindicated by the imagined or real failures of existing workers' states. REDSOX is right. Analysis of the words of heads of states and diplomats is irrelevant; what matters is action and effect. That is a materialist analysis of history and current events. I'll get worried once Cuba has unemployment figures, childhood malnutrition resurfaces, medical copays go beyond nominal fees for drugs, urban agriculture initiatives are abandoned in favor of importing American GM food, and anything REDSOX mentioned.

Get a grip.

[Sendo]

It's funny when the RCP and the ISO agree, which is happening even more often nowadays. The charge of Crypto-Trotskyism ringers truer by the day.

Dragon Rider/MRD is now affiliated with or a supporter of Monkey Smashes Heaven, the greatest Engrish political group on earth.

[Kassad]

Dragon Rider/MRD is now affiliated with or a supporter of Monkey Smashes Heaven, the greatest Engrish political group on earth.

No, she's not. She was contemplating a political change, but then decided to stick with the Revolutionary Communist Party and Bob Avakian.

[The Vegan Marxist]

^ Either way, they're both nuts. But that's all I'm going to say on the matter.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Yeah, I'm definitely not a reactionary "third worldist" and certainly no Trotskyist or ISO-type. Beyond agreeing with a theory of social-imperialism (one which is very different from that of the ISO, mind you), I can't really think of anything my views have in common with those of the ISO.

[Barry Lyndon]

Yeah, I'm definitely not a reactionary "third worldist" and certainly no Trotskyist or ISO-type. Beyond agreeing with a theory of social-imperialism (one which is very different from that of the ISO, mind you), I can't really think of anything my views have in common with those of the ISO.

I can think of one- denouncing and slandering every revolutionary movement and regime that does not conform with your narrow sectarian stripe.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Before more sectarian nonsense and infighting resume, is there any information on what kind of action and change is contemplated in Cuba? So far there's been vague political statements from leadership and empty speculation from media sources and think tank liars.

Is there any substantive information at all available? I'd be interested in some actual information and details.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I can think of one- denouncing and slandering every revolutionary movement and regime that does not conform with your narrow sectarian stripe.If insisting that workers power means that workers actually collectively make decisions and run society together is narrow and sectarian, then I'll be happy to be called sectarian. I guess Marx was sectarian too.:rolleyes:

We are talking about the fundamental definition of socialism, not some arbitrary demand that workers organized is some particular way. Cuba is not a worker-run society by any estimation and therefore is not socialism. You can justify the regime (I have no idea how "regime" and "socialism" can ever exist at the same time) anyway you want to, but it is simply not socialism as described by Marx and fought for by generations of radicals. If Cuba is the goal that people are fighting for, then we are not fighting for the same things.

Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc should be defended against imperialism, but not defended as socialism.


REDSOX is right. Analysis of the words of heads of states and diplomats is irrelevant; what matters is action and effect. That is a materialist analysis of history and current events.
Really? A material analysis like this...

For a start in the constituiton of cuba it states that socialism is irrevocable and irreversible.

Judge a society by how is operates in reality, not how it claims to operate... unless you also think that the US provides "life, liberty, and the pursuit of freedom".

[Sendo]

No, she's not. She was contemplating a political change, but then decided to stick with the Revolutionary Communist Party and Bob Avakian.

Thanks for the correction. I assumed that Cuba would be slammed for its tourist industry and its dealings with the West.

In any case, I have felt a change in her line and subtle changes in her line as well as a username change. I didn't know the RCP was anti-Cuba. Is this the case? Or is this a recent development or just a personal feeling?

[Barry Lyndon]

Thanks for the correction. I assumed that Cuba would be slammed for its tourist industry and its dealings with the West.

In any case, I have felt a change in her line and subtle changes in her line as well as a username change. I didn't know the RCP was anti-Cuba. Is this the case? Or is this a recent development or just a personal feeling?

Yes, the RCP is anti-Cuba. It considers them to be revisionist(ie not Maoist).

[Nolan]

I thought it would be whoever was after Raul, not the Castro bro. themselves who restored market capitalism in Cuba.

[Kassad]

Yes, the RCP is anti-Cuba. It considers them to be revisionist(ie not Maoist).

Actually, they're not Maoists anymore. As their manifesto, Communism: The Beginning of a New Stage states, and Monkey Riding Dragon has confirmed, there was a "cultural revolution" within the RCP that decided to reject the label of Maoism. They have forsaken the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and have declared that only Bob Avakian's synthesis can lead the international communist movement. They still uphold Mao's legacy, but they aren't Maoists anymore. Truly, I can't wait to see what happen when Chairman Avakian dies. They'll probably give him a viking funeral and the party will split into dozens of splinter groups all claiming to uphold the banner of Bob Avakian Thought!

[GPDP]

Mr. Kassad,

We still uphold Mao Zedong for the great theoretician and revolutionary he was. However, I'm better.

Bobby Avakian

This is either the best troll I've ever seen on this site, or Avakian has lost his fucking mind.

[AK]

Mr. Kassad,

We still uphold Mao Zedong for the great theoretician and revolutionary he was. However, I'm better.

Bobby Avakian
Successful troll is successful.

[S.Artesian]

An article I read this morning provides a polemical opening that I simply cannot resist: Raul now plans to privatize more industries and lay off more workers. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10834192) He explains: "We have to end forever the notion that Cuba is the only country in the world where you can live without working." Given it's commonly estimated that around 20 percent or more of Cuba's workforce is already unemployed, it's doubtful that the Cuban workforce would be of such an illusion.


Does any of that sound like it would birth a crisis situation for an authentically socialist economy? No, all these are the economic problems of a capitalist system: problems of world commodity prices, of limits on trade with imperialist nations, and of inadequate cash-flow from wealthy foreign tourists. What's described there is an economy that, just below the surface, is fundamentally capitalist. The solution of the bourgeoisie to a capitalist economic crisis is always to impose deeper and wider exploitation, as contrasted with the solution of the proletariat, which is to abolish the old relations in which the crisis is rooted. The former, not the latter, is what describes the response of the Cuban government to the current economic crisis, including this latest part thereof.


Right. Wrong. All of these things are the result, and continuing product of uneven and combined development that gave birth to the revolution in the first place, and persists in any and every "socialism in one country" isolated in the world market and from the international revolution.

Does not mean Cuba is socialist, was socialist, or will be socialist? no more than the fSU was socialist in 1921 or 1931. Or China was socialist in 1959, 1969, or 1979.

The problems, such as they are, do not define Cuba as capitalist. Just as the period prior to the manifestations of these problems did not define Cuba as socialist.


These sorts of facts expose the supporters of the said government as either ill-informed or opportunist. To make the matter more painfully clear, however, consider the fact that the parties that regard Castro's Cuba as exemplary (e.g. the SWP and the PSL) feature political lines that are decidedly inconsistent with that of the regime in pretty important ways. For example, these respective parties fielded their own presidential candidates in 2008, whereas Fidel, by contrast, endorsed Obama (http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1348), explaining that "Obama's doctrines can be translated as a formula for hunger for true unity. I have seen his following and followers' dedication to this great man, when he has brought the KKK to endorse him and bring unity back to the USA, when he will halt the embargo on Cuba once and for all and bring us our just rights, he is a man of true standing and honor".

Right. Wrong. It's possible in the real world, outside the thought-control so essential to Avakianism to actually defend a social struggle, the class engaged in that social struggle without mindlessly, slavishly genuflecting before every utterance of a "great man." Heaven forbid any Avakianite should ever manifest that critical quality-- that would be the end of his or her good standing in that particular organization.

So Cuba is introducing market reforms? No shit. Big surprise. Especially since Cuba has been introducing those market mechanisms ever since the end of the "special period" brought on by the collapse of the fSU. So Cuba is not socialism? No shit again. You're kidding me, right? To those of us who've been paying attention, Cuban state was never socialist, but was in fact established by a revolution that expropriated the bourgeoisie and "imported" more or less, organization of its economy and society along the template of the fSU. So Cuba has actually played an "un-revolutionary" role in the world? No shit three times. Again those who paid attention to these things noticed that over the course of the last 40 years.

We also noted that Cuba, on its own, without the hypothesized diktat of the fSU, sent its troops to battle the US/Apartheid South Africa/China alliance that was backing Savimbi in Angola. That Cuba.. whatever else is said.. helped defeat that imperialist back assault.


For that reason alone, Cuba has a place of honor in the history of the struggle for emancipation.

And no, Cuba did not act at the behest of the fSU; and no the fSU was not directing Cuba to act so that it might insure itself access to minerals, to value, in Angola.

Go ahead and pick your sides in that battle. MPLA and Cuba or Savimbi and his apartheid/imperialist backers. I'll go with Cuba. Purely a personal prejudice I have against apartheid.

Doesn't change anything else, but Cuba's action was an action the humanity of which cannot be denied.

[the last donut of the night]

Fidel also sent a message of praise to the PSL's conference back in 2008...but you know, no big deal or anything.
[/FONT]

Could you link me to that, please? Seems really cool.

[Barry Lyndon]

If insisting that workers power means that workers actually collectively make decisions and run society together is narrow and sectarian, then I'll be happy to be called sectarian. I guess Marx was sectarian too.:rolleyes:

We are talking about the fundamental definition of socialism, not some arbitrary demand that workers organized is some particular way. Cuba is not a worker-run society by any estimation and therefore is not socialism. You can justify the regime (I have no idea how "regime" and "socialism" can ever exist at the same time) anyway you want to, but it is simply not socialism as described by Marx and fought for by generations of radicals. If Cuba is the goal that people are fighting for, then we are not fighting for the same things.

Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc should be defended against imperialism, but not defended as socialism.

What can I expect from a member of an organization whose primary source on Cuba is a reactionary anti-communist liar like Sam Farber, who wrote a whole book arguing that the Bolsheviks should have given up power after the Russian Civil War so that they would not degenerate into Stalinism(which of course would have opened to door for the capitalists to march right back in). Everything he writes about Cuba is laced with nothing but hostility and contempt for any revolution that succeeds.

Read this contemptuous piece of ISO trash. It could have been written by the Cuban American National Foundation":
http://socialistworker.org/2009/01/07/contradictions-of-cubas-foreign-policy

Cuba is an imperfect workers state, but it is a workers state, and in my view one of the closest things to a socialist society that exists today. The workers wield a lot of power through their large national union(whose newspaper is Trabajadores), and a network of grassroots organizations. The depth of support and commitment that the workers have for Cuban socialism is indicated by the fact that Cuba not only survived the collapse of its Soviet ally but did not become a starving wreck like North Korea.

Such a great case that the ISO can make to workers- 'well, every single attempt to create socialism has degenerated into a Stalinist hellhole, but when WE lead a revolution, we'll make it work, really!'.

If you can't lend your support to a heroic revolutionary island that has managed to eliminate illiteracy and desperate poverty, selflessly sends doctors all over the world to relieve the suffering of the wretched of the Earth, played a major role in the defeat of apartheid and the liberation of Africa, all at the doorstep of a relentlessly hostile US superpower that has tried to strangle and destroy that revolution at every turn, then you should really question why you are a communist or a socialist at all.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

But then again, maybe Britain under New Labour was "socialist" because the NHS employed "hello nurses" simply to meet quotas for (not actually) "treating" patients. Maybe getting rid of these jobs was also an unforgivable concession to capitalism. :rolleyes: Apparently, the difference between capitalism and socialism is determined by policies like this, and not by the underlying economic system. Silly us.

Oh, so would those NHS 'hello nurses' be reactionary for resisting job cuts then? The state needs to be more efficient or something.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What can I expect from a member of an organization whose primary source on Cuba is a reactionary anti-communist liar like Sam Farber, who wrote a whole book arguing that the Bolsheviks should have given up power after the Russian Civil War so that they would not degenerate into Stalinism(which of course would have opened to door for the capitalists to march right back in). Everything he writes about Cuba is laced with nothing but hostility and contempt for any revolution that succeeds.Sectarian bullshit - first, Sam Farber is not a member, so why are you attacking him to attack us? Why not just take on our perspective on Cuba... probably because it would mean having to justify a society with no working class control as socialism. So rather than defend something that clearly isn't socialism as described by Marx or Lenin (or any other pre-USSR socialists other than the social-democrats and maybe some fucked-up fabians or utopians or something) you attack some individual writer and compare all critics of Cuba to right-wing critics of Cuba. A more eloquent defense of the self-emancipation of the working class than I have ever seen. :rolleyes:

Besides that, you are "proving" he is wrong about Cuba with the "evidence" of his argument on something else (the USSR)? You might as well argue that Niel Armstrong never went to the moon because he once gave bad driving directions.


Cuba is an imperfect workers state, but it is a workers state, How does the working class directly and collectively make decisions?


and in my view one of the closest things to a socialist society that exists today. On what basis, a good social welfare system... so is Sweden the next closes thing to a socialist society that exists today?


Such a great case that the ISO can make to workers- 'well, every single attempt to create socialism has degenerated into a Stalinist hellhole, but when WE lead a revolution, we'll make it work, really!'. See this is where we have different views of what socialism is... "We" will not make the revolution, the working class will. "We" hope the ideas that we (among other groups of Marxists and anarchists) argue for: of socialism from below, working class power in society, working class self-emancipation, etc are the ideas that are the most influential in the revolution.

And yes, one attempt at making socialism turned into a Stalinist hellhole... then the rest tried to emulate the hell-hole model because it was quite good at allowing countries to catch up with the already established capitalist countries.


If you can't lend your support to a heroic revolutionary island that has managed to eliminate illiteracy and desperate poverty, selflessly sends doctors all over the world to relieve the suffering of the wretched of the Earth, played a major role in the defeat of apartheid and the liberation of Africa, all at the doorstep of a relentlessly hostile US superpower that has tried to strangle and destroy that revolution at every turn, then you should really question why you are a communist or a socialist at all.It was a heroic victory... against imperialism and for national self-determination. But the working class did not take power and has not and so therefore it is not the socialism I am fighting for. If you want to argue that a country where the working class is not in direct control and where even the "leader" of the Revolution did not say the Revolution was socialist until sometime after the Revolution and only then when the US tried to overthrow him... I'd say you need to figure out what you are fighting for and if that includes the socialism as described by Marx and struggled for by generations or radicals and workers.

I know what socialism means... do you... does Castro?

After the revolution but before the Bay of Pigs:

"...[communist] influence is nothing. I don't agree with communism. We are democracy. We are against all kinds of dictators... That is why we oppose communism."...1959

After:

I am a Marxist-Leninist and will be until the last day of my life....1961

Wow, that's some commitment. What changed between these years? The Bay of Pigs happened and Castro turned to the USSR for defense. That is not socialism. It's a national liberation leader doing what he saw as necessary in the politics of the Cold War.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Wow, that's some commitment. What changed between these years? The Bay of Pigs happened and Castro turned to the USSR for defense. That is not socialism. It's a national liberation leader doing what he saw as necessary in the politics of the Cold War.

Maybe or not. But treating national liberation like it's some kind of fucking joke damn sure isn't socialism either.

[AK]

Maybe or not. But treating national liberation like it's some kind of fucking joke damn sure isn't socialism either.
I dunno about you, but I'd much rather help the working class liberate itself than liberate the whole nation.

[S.Artesian]

Wow, that's some commitment. What changed between these years? The Bay of Pigs happened and Castro turned to the USSR for defense. That is not socialism. It's a national liberation leader doing what he saw as necessary in the politics of the Cold War.


Something else changed in those years, something you're leaving out-- and that was the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, national and international, with the confiscation of their property, and their emigration/expulsion from the country. That's a bit more than a technicality, a "defense pact," and a lot more than an intra-class struggle where one section of the bourgeoisie trumps the other section. An entire class was expropriated. Its social basis for reproduction was confiscated. That amounts to a social revolution, not simply a "national liberation."

Now how do we account for that social revolution, warts, scars, pits, pitfalls and all?

I have an answer, perhaps not a popular one, but one I think works. We can account for it through the survival of the former Soviet Union, that, no matter how fucked up [and it was supremely fucked up] it was, still sustained itself through the great power of the proletarian revolution of 1917- it was that strength of that revolution, expropriating the bourgeoisie there and then, that allowed it to sustain Cuba, and for Cuba in turn to expropriate its bourgeoisie.

Doesn't make Stalin a swell guy; doesn't make the fSU a former, nor Cuba a current, socialist paradise. It does mean there was a real social revolution that really expropriated a real bourgeoisie.

Word.

[AK]

That amounts to a social revolution, not simply a "national liberation."
But whose revolution? The class of administrators and managers - the modern petit-bourgeoisie. (we're talking about the final outcome here)

[Dimentio]

Actually, the blatantly right-liberal Swedish minister of business is more "progressive", since she wants to institute a citizen wage (even though that might be out of desperation given that her party is leaping the risk to fall out of parliament soon).

But Cuba is not a wealthy country and is in need to economise. What is mattering is not so much what you want to do as if you have the resources to achieve it. It could hardly be blamed on Cuban capitalists wanting some extra benefits. There might be ideological reasons as well about some kind of transition, but sometimes you simply have to cut down.

[S.Artesian]

But whose revolution? The class of administrators and managers - the modern petit-bourgeoisie. (we're talking about the final outcome here)


Good question. Let's eliminate what it wasn't. 1) It was not a revolution of the bourgeoisie, local, national, or international 2) class of administrators and managers? How is a class defined, formed, organized, and reproduced? Around a specific organization of property. So is the form of property introduced by the revolution, actually by the extension, let's admit of the fSU's form of property, the property of a new class? If so, then what is the mechanism by which this class accumulates property for its own expansion, its own reproduction? What is unique, determining, essential and consequently, negating about that organization of property, in and of and to itself?

Can it buy the means of production, and more importantly, can it sell the means of production as individuals. No. Can it buy labor and sell the products of the bought labor individually, for private gain? No. Can it use money to do either of the above, collectively. No.

Is there a collective basis to the property? Obviously even those who hold the "class of administrators" thesis, the basis must be collective-- that's why they are administrators and not owners. OK, we have a collective basis for property that is not a derivation of the proletarian revolution in some way shape or form. Uh--oh, better get rid of those volumes of Capital, the materialist interpretation of history, because here's a brand new class with a brand new property form that Marx not only completely missed, that he never saw germinating within capital [a mere oversight], but that he thought could only be established by proletarian social revolution.

So.. by process of elimination I'm left with the bitter-tasting truth that in this land of sugar-cane, that revolution-- big warts, carbuncles, pimples and all-- is essentially a proletarian revolution, based on the template of the Russian Revolution that remained a proletarian revolution all through its process of economic development, economic decay, struggle, stagnation, until its collapse.

You don't like it? OK, I understand. I don't like it... completely. I've spent a little time in Cuba some 10 years ago, and I liked some of what I saw, and believe me it's completely different than Sweden. But history just doesn't give a rat's ass what you or I like. It's there, it's square, sometimes it sucks, but it's the only history we have.

Yeah, I know, it ain't pretty, certainly not elegant... hey I've got a few warts on me myself-- but there it is... that's as close as I can get to making sense out what happened after the victory of the Russian Revolution in the Civil war and.... the defeat of the international revolution after 1921.

[AK]

Good question. Let's eliminate what it wasn't. 1) It was not a revolution of the bourgeoisie, local, national, or international 2) class of administrators and managers? How is a class defined, formed, organized, and reproduced? Around a specific organization of property. So is the form of property introduced by the revolution, actually by the extension, let's admit of the fSU's form of property, the property of a new class? If so, then what is the mechanism by which this class accumulates property for its own expansion, its own reproduction? What is unique, determining, essential and consequently, negating about that organization of property, in and of and to itself?

We could go by that way but we have different class analyses.

[S.Artesian]

We could go by that way but we have different class analyses.

OK, I gave you mine, which I think pretty much is in accordance to how Marx makes a class analysis.

I'm interested in yours, and how you arrive at the determination of class.

[Barry Lyndon]

a)Sectarian bullshit - first, Sam Farber is not a member, so why are you attacking him to attack us? Why not just take on our perspective on Cuba... probably because it would mean having to justify a society with no working class control as socialism. So rather than defend something that clearly isn't socialism as described by Marx or Lenin (or any other pre-USSR socialists other than the social-democrats and maybe some fucked-up fabians or utopians or something) you attack some individual writer and compare all critics of Cuba to right-wing critics of Cuba. A more eloquent defense of the self-emancipation of the working class than I have ever seen. :rolleyes:

b) Besides that, you are "proving" he is wrong about Cuba with the "evidence" of his argument on something else (the USSR)? You might as well argue that Niel Armstrong never went to the moon because he once gave bad driving directions.

c)How does the working class directly and collectively make decisions?

d)On what basis, a good social welfare system... so is Sweden the next closes thing to a socialist society that exists today?

e)See this is where we have different views of what socialism is... "We" will not make the revolution, the working class will. "We" hope the ideas that we (among other groups of Marxists and anarchists) argue for: of socialism from below, working class power in society, working class self-emancipation, etc are the ideas that are the most influential in the revolution.

f)And yes, one attempt at making socialism turned into a Stalinist hellhole... then the rest tried to emulate the hell-hole model because it was quite good at allowing countries to catch up with the already established capitalist countries.

g)It was a heroic victory... against imperialism and for national self-determination. But the working class did not take power and has not and so therefore it is not the socialism I am fighting for. If you want to argue that a country where the working class is not in direct control and where even the "leader" of the Revolution did not say the Revolution was socialist until sometime after the Revolution and only then when the US tried to overthrow him... I'd say you need to figure out what you are fighting for and if that includes the socialism as described by Marx and struggled for by generations or radicals and workers.

h)I know what socialism means... do you... does Castro?

After the revolution but before the Bay of Pigs:
...1959

After:
...1961

Wow, that's some commitment. What changed between these years? The Bay of Pigs happened and Castro turned to the USSR for defense. That is not socialism. It's a national liberation leader doing what he saw as necessary in the politics of the Cold War.

a) Every article Iv'e read on Cuba by the ISO is written by that joker. Either him or Paul D'Amato, an idiot who knows nothing about Cuba(or much of anything else, for that matter).

b) Given that the Russian Revolution is the ONLY revolution your organization considers a 'genuine' workers revolution, and that you consider yourselves Leninists, it is a bit problematic that you receive the services of someone who is such an obvious anti-Leninist.

c) I actually explained how they do, something you never bothered to rebut.

d) Sweden supports its welfare programs by playing the international capitalist speculation game and by being one of the biggest arms traders to Africa in the world, so that argument falls right on its ass.

e) I hope that the workers will have a revolution knowing that they can succeed, which the ISO declares is almost impossible(since there hasnt been a 'real' workers revolution in 90 years according to them).

f) This is the left version of 'monolithic communism'-'monolithic Stalinism'. In other words, the presumption that every Marxist regime that accepted aid from the Soviet Union automatically became its carbon copy. I hate to break it to you, but that lazy analysis doesn't really work, especially since Cuba has survived the collapse of its Soviet ally.

g) I think you need to think what you are fighting for when you find yourself on the same side as liberal anti-communists when it comes to the question of defending existing socialist regimes and revolutions.

h) Yes, because I'm sure you popped out of the womb reading 'Das Kapital'. :rolleyes:

Look, Iv'e heard this argument before. In the context of Latin America's history, in which US imperialism has toppled or assassinated any leader of remotely left-or socialist leanings, it makes sense that Castro would deny any trace of communist ideology when the power of the revolutionary Cuban state was still being consolidated. But, of course, revolutionaries should satisfy the ISO and loudly declare their intentions for the capitalists to hear well in advance.

[REDSOX]

Could someone please outline what industries castro is supposed to be privatising? Letting shoe shiners dog groom services small restaurants to exist in the private sector is no fucking big deal as far as i am concerned. Certainly trots in the past have seen no reason to nationalise these services

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Actually, the blatantly right-liberal Swedish minister of business is more "progressive", since she wants to institute a citizen wage (even though that might be out of desperation given that her party is leaping the risk to fall out of parliament soon).


If by "citizen wage" you mean "guaranteed income" (that is to say, a certain amount of money all citizen are given regardless, how in the hell is that progressive? All manner of insane liberals have argued for it; including Milton Friedman. It's usually an excuse to cut all benefit programs or targeted assistance. I fancy that insane psychopathic bastard that is Fraud Maud was inspired by Friedman rather than anything progressive.

[AK]

OK, I gave you mine, which I think pretty much is in accordance to how Marx makes a class analysis.

I'm interested in yours, and how you arrive at the determination of class.
I've always found this (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB7.html) to be one I agree with.

[Jimmie Higgins]

d) Sweden supports its welfare programs by playing the international capitalist speculation game and by being one of the biggest arms traders to Africa in the world, so that argument falls right on its ass.Yes, I know that Sweden is not socialist. Reforms from above or nice welfare programs do not = socialism.

As S.Artesian pointed out, "the expropriators (the capitalist) were expropriated" and this is a much better defense of Cuba as socialist IMO, I don't agree with it because I think socialism can't just be the negation of the normal capitalist relations, but has to be the creation of new relations based on worker's power. The negation of capitalism without the working class firmly in control over society, opens the door to new exploiters from within or without.


e) I hope that the workers will have a revolution knowing that they can succeed, which the ISO declares is almost impossible(since there hasn't been a 'real' workers revolution in 90 years according to them). So Marx and Lenin and Rosa Luxembourg and everyone else should have quit since there hadn't been a revolution in their times before 1917? That's a ridiculous argument that we should support bullshit that has little to do with real worker's power on the basis that worker's won't have a revolution unless there's some example of a revolution! I think the strength of radical ideas and experience with history and worker movements is enough proof that we, as workers, can control our own destinies. Arguing that Cuba and North Korea are socialist, only gives people the impression that any attempt at liberation leads to just another form of oppression - this is the favorite refrain of liberals whenever the idea of revolution is brought up.


f) This is the left version of 'monolithic communism'-'monolithic Stalinism'. In other words, the presumption that every Marxist regime that accepted aid from the Soviet Union automatically became its carbon copy. I hate to break it to you, but that lazy analysis doesn't really work, especially since Cuba has survived the collapse of its Soviet ally. No, not a carbon copy... I said they emulated that model as in socialism=nationalization and so on, rather than socialism=worker's power.


Look, Iv'e heard this argument before. In the context of Latin America's history, in which US imperialism has toppled or assassinated any leader of remotely left-or socialist leanings, it makes sense that Castro would deny any trace of communist ideology when the power of the revolutionary Cuban state was still being consolidated. But, of course, revolutionaries should satisfy the ISO and loudly declare their intentions for the capitalists to hear well in advance.I don't care what people do or do not tell the ISO about - the fact that you are arguing that "socialism" can happen behind the backs and without the knowledge of the working class is fucking absurd!

Surprise, workers, you're now the ruling class in society!