Fidel Castro: "Cuban economic Model doesn't work"

[Adi Shankara]

Fidel: 'Cuban Model Doesn't Even Work For Us Anymore'

It's the end of Cuba:

Sep 8 2010, 12:00 PM ET
There were many odd things about my recent Havana stopover (apart from the dolphin show, which I'll get to shortly), but one of the most unusual was Fidel Castro's level of self-reflection. I only have limited experience with Communist autocrats (I have more experience with non-Communist autocrats) but it seemed truly striking that Castro was willing to admit that he misplayed his hand at a crucial moment in the Cuban Missile Crisis (you can read about what he said toward the end of my previous post (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel-to-ahmadinejad-stop-slandering-the-jews/62566/)- but he said, in so many words, that he regrets asking Khruschev to nuke the U.S.).

Even more striking was something he said at lunch on the day of our first meeting. We were seated around a smallish table; Castro, his wife, Dalia, his son; Antonio; Randy Alonso, a major figure in the government-run media; and Julia Sweig, the friend I brought with me to make sure, among other things, that I didn't say anything too stupid ( Julia is a leading Latin American scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/bios/4230/julia_sweig.html)). I initially was mainly interested in watching Fidel eat - it was a combination of digestive problems that conspired to nearly kill him, and so I thought I would do a bit of gastrointestinal Kremlinology and keep a careful eye on what he took in (for the record, he ingested small amounts of fish and salad, and quite a bit of bread dipped in olive oil, as well as a glass of red wine). But during the generally lighthearted conversation (we had just spent three hours talking about Iran and the Middle East), I asked him if he believed the Cuban model was still something worth exporting.

"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore," he said.

This struck me as the mother of all Emily Litella moments. Did the leader of the Revolution just say, in essence, "Never mind"?

I asked Julia to interpret this stunning statement for me. She said, "He wasn't rejecting the ideas of the Revolution. I took it to be an acknowledgment that under 'the Cuban model' the state has much too big a role in the economic life of the country."

Julia pointed out that one effect of such a sentiment might be to create space for his brother, Raul, who is now president, to enact the necessary reforms in the face of what will surely be push-back from orthodox communists within the Party and the bureaucracy. Raul Castro is already loosening the state's hold on the economy. He recently announced, in fact, that small businesses can now operate and that foreign investors could now buy Cuban real estate. (The joke of this new announcement, of course, is that Americans are not allowed to invest in Cuba, not because of Cuban policy, but because of American policy. In other words, Cuba is beginning to adopt the sort of economic ideas that America has long-demanded it adopt, but Americans are not allowed to participate in this free-market experiment because of our government's hypocritical and stupidly self-defeating embargo policy. We'll regret this, of course, when Cubans partner with Europeans and Brazilians to buy up all the best hotels).

But I digress. Toward the end of this long, relaxed lunch, Fidel proved to us that he was truly semi-retired. The next day was Monday, when maximum leaders are expected to be busy single-handedly managing their economies, throwing dissidents into prison, and the like. But Fidel's calendar was open. He asked us, "Would you like to go the aquarium with me to see the dolphin show?"

I wasn't sure I heard him correctly. (This happened a number of times during my visit). "The dolphin show?"

"The dolphins are very intelligent animals," Castro said.

I noted that we had a meeting scheduled for the next morning, with Adela Dworin, the president of Cuba's Jewish community.

"Bring her," Fidel said.

Someone at the table mentioned that the aquarium was closed on Mondays. Fidel said, "It will be open tomorrow."

And so it was.

Late the next morning, after collecting Adela at the synagogue, we met Fidel on the steps of the dolphin house. He kissed Dworin, not incidentally in front of the cameras (another message for Ahmadinejad, perhaps). We went together into a large, blue-lit room that faces a massive, glass-enclosed dolphin tank. Fidel explained, at length, that the Havana Aquarium's dolphin show was the best dolphin show in the world, "completely unique," in fact, because it is an underwater show. Three human divers enter the water, without breathing equipment, and perform intricate acrobatics with the dolphins. "Do you like dolphins?" Fidel asked me.

"I like dolphins a lot," I said.

Fidel called over Guillermo Garcia, the director of the aquarium (every employee of the aquarium, of course, showed up for work -- "voluntarily," I was told) and told him to sit with us.

"Goldberg," Fidel said, "ask him questions about dolphins."

"What kind of questions?" I asked.

"You're a journalist, ask good questions," he said, and then interrupted himself. "He doesn't know much about dolphins anyway," he said, pointing to Garcia. He's actually a nuclear physicist."

"You are?" I asked.

"Yes," Garcia said, somewhat apologetically.

"Why are you running the aquarium?" I asked.

"We put him here to keep him from building nuclear bombs!" Fidel said, and then cracked-up laughing.

"In Cuba, we would only use nuclear power for peaceful means," Garcia said, earnestly.

"I didn't think I was in Iran," I answered.

Fidel pointed to the small rug under the special swivel chair his bodyguards bring along for him.

"It's Persian!" he said, and laughed again. Then he said, "Goldberg, ask your questions about dolphins."

Now on the spot, I turned to Garcia and asked, "How much do the dolphins weigh?"

They weigh between 100 and 150 kilograms, he said.

"How do you train the dolphins to do what they do?" I asked.

"That's a good question," Fidel said.

Garcia called over one of the aquarium's veterinarians to help answer the question. Her name was Celia. A few minutes later, Antonio Castro told me her last name: Guevara.

"You're Che's daughter?" I asked.

"Yes," she said.

"And you're a dolphin veterinarian?"

"I take care of all the inhabitants of the aquarium," she said.

"Che liked animals very much," Antonio Castro said.

It was time for the show to start. The lights dimmed, and the divers entered the water. Without describing it overly much, I will say that once again, and to my surprise, I found myself agreeing with Fidel: The aquarium in Havana puts on a fantastic dolphin show, the best I've ever seen, and as the father of three children, I've seen a lot of dolphin shows. I will also say this: I've never seen someone enjoy a dolphin show as much as Fidel Castro enjoyed the dolphin show.

In the next installment, I will deal with such issues as the American embargo, the status of religion in Cuba, the plight of political dissidents, and economic reform. For now, I leave you with this image from our day at the aquarium (I'm in the low chair; Che's daughter is behind me, with the short, blondish hair; Fidel is the guy who looks like Fidel if Fidel shopped at L.L. Bean)

[Adi Shankara]

Raul, who is now president, to enact the necessary reforms in the face of what will surely be push-back from orthodox communists within the Party and the bureaucracy. Raul Castro is already loosening the state's hold on the economy. He recently announced, in fact, that small businesses can now operate and that foreign investors could now buy Cuban real estate.

This is the end of Cuba. Raul Castro is going to betray the revolution, what all his comrades died for, what Che died for, what Granma stood for--so he can sell real estate to capitalists.

[Crimson Commissar]

And so the last bastion of the revolution is about to fall... I only hope that Raul Castro can realise what the fuck he's actually doing here and at least make some effort to maintain socialism in Cuba.

[Wanted Man]

People are getting so excited. :lol:

[Adi Shankara]

And so the last bastion of the revolution is about to fall... I only hope that Raul Castro can realise what the fuck he's actually doing here and at least make some effort to maintain socialism in Cuba.

At this point, I wouldn't even care if those so-called "hardliners" (more like ACTUAL communists) seized the Cuban communist party and had Raul executed. seriously, his service to the Cuban revolution was good, but here he is, throwing it all away.

[Weezer]

WWCD?

What Would Che Do?

In all seriousness, I can't believe it. This is so sad...

[Wanted Man]

This is it, you guys! I used to think that Cuba was a workers' paradise where nothing ever went wrong, who were about to move on to communism all by themselves; but now FIDEL HAS SAID SOMETHING TO A JOURNALIST THAT I DON'T LIKE. Surely, if anything determines whether a country is socialist, it's not qualitative economic distinctions, but statements made by retired leaders. It's all over! Our socialist dream is gone, comrades! I worshipped the Castro brothers 5 minutes ago, but now I hope someone puts them up against the wall. It's all over. Oh fuck, what are we going to do??? :crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying:

[Adi Shankara]

This is it, you guys! I used to think that Cuba was a workers' paradise where nothing ever went wrong, who were about to move on to communism all by themselves; but now FIDEL HAS SAID SOMETHING TO A JOURNALIST THAT I DON'T LIKE. It's all over! Our socialist dream is gone, comrades! I worshipped the Castro brothers 5 minutes ago, but now I hope someone puts them up against the wall. It's all over. Oh fuck, what are we going to do??? :crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying:

It's not that which bothers me. it's the sale of real estate to foreign business investors. thats how ALL capitalist regimes start. thats how it started in China.

[Wanted Man]

RAUL IS GOING TO BETRAY US!!! IT'S ALL OVER!!! The dream is gone, comrades!!!


It's not that which bothers me. it's the sale of real estate to foreign business investors. thats how ALL capitalist regimes start. thats how it started in China.

Are you sure about that?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Why is Fidel talking to this ruling class hack dolphin-fetishist "journalist" instead of leftists anyway? And will Ambinder be able to take his eyes off his beloved dolphins and his ogling of Fidel eating lasagna or whatever it that he eats to mention the dozens of American political prisoners in Cuba such as Assata Shakur?

[Saorsa]

Actually that's not how it started in China. You are, as usual, mistaken.

[bailey_187]

What other option does Cuba have though? It cant be easy trying to keep socialism (or a planned economy) in such a small island.

[Nolan]

Lol opposition from the bureaucracy. This person is a bit naive on how these things work in state capitalist countries.

[bailey_187]

Why is Fidel talking to this ruling class hack dolphin-fetishist "journalist" instead of leftists anyway?

Because no one will read Socialist Worker, Workers Weekly or whatever

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I wonder what the Cuban people will make of this.

[Nolan]

And so the last bastion of the revolution is about to fall... I only hope that Raul Castro can realise what the fuck he's actually doing here and at least make some effort to maintain socialism in Cuba.

He knows exactly what he's doing.

[Nolan]

I wonder what the Cuban people will make of this.

There's probably going to be a few protests, but I doubt anything big will happen like Tiananmen square.

[Weezer]

This is it, you guys! I used to think that Cuba was a workers' paradise where nothing ever went wrong, who were about to move on to communism all by themselves; but now FIDEL HAS SAID SOMETHING TO A JOURNALIST THAT I DON'T LIKE. Surely, if anything determines whether a country is socialist, it's not qualitative economic distinctions, but statements made by retired leaders. It's all over! Our socialist dream is gone, comrades! I worshipped the Castro brothers 5 minutes ago, but now I hope someone puts them up against the wall. It's all over. Oh fuck, what are we going to do??? :crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying:

I'm a Trotskyist, so my view of Cuba isn't perfect. These comments that Fidel made aren't some homophobic slander or the usual bullshit, Castro is more or less announcing to the capitalist world "Come and get some. You know you want it".

[Wanted Man]

Why is Fidel talking to this ruling class hack dolphin-fetishist "journalist" instead of leftists anyway?

I dunno. Have these unspecified "leftists" ever tried arranging a meeting themselves? Or were they more comfortable sitting behind their computers and writing articles along the same tendency as the OP of this thread on a regular basis? Truly, the left has outdone itself yet again. Not satisfied with pinpointing the "betrayal of the Cuban revolution" to one date, they have picked dozens of them just to be on the safe side.

Anyway, I think they should not ask him directly, but they should make a tabloid-style front page for their papers instead: WE WANT FIDEL - Why won't he come out to see his people???

[Nolan]

What other option does Cuba have though? It cant be easy trying to keep socialism (or a planned economy) in such a small island.

It's kinda hard to keep socialism when, you know, you're not trying to keep socialism.

[Adi Shankara]

What other option does Cuba have though? It cant be easy trying to keep socialism (or a planned economy) in such a small island.

Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankara maintained Marxist socialism from the country's founding until his assassination, and Burkina Faso was a deeply impoverished country with no infrustructure, no suitable agricultural land, and few natural resources, surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbors.

[Wanted Man]

I'm a Trotskyist, so my view of Cuba isn't perfect. These comments that Fidel made aren't some homophobic slander or the usual bullshit, Castro is more or less announcing to the capitalist world "Come and get some. You know you want it".

You're right, with Trotskyists it's a bit of a different story; you guys are the ones who are "critically supporting" Cuba while eagerly waiting for the right opportunity to withdraw this "support". It's completely ridiculous, because you're already firmly convinced that Cuba is either "deformed" and therefore going to hell in a handbasket, or that it's already there in the form of "state capitalism" and any change is only cosmetic.

In any case, what you're saying is wrong. If Cuba were to restore capitalism, it would certainly not be on the basis of some interview with Fidel in The Atlantic that's also about dolphins. How can Fidel even say "Come and get some" when he isn't in a position to give anyone anything? That is, unless you're of the school of thought that Fidel secretly still holds absolute power when he's not writing reflections or watching dolphin shows. In any case, most Trotskyists at least pretend that they are only interested in a country's economic status to make its Grand Judgement on whether that country is still socialist, so this is still pretty interesting.

[bailey_187]

Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankara maintained Marxist socialism from the country's founding until his assassination, and Burkina Faso was a deeply impoverished country with no infrustructure, no suitable agricultural land, and few natural resources, surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbors.

The revolution lasted for four years. They addressed urgent issues such as health, education, gender equality. The Cubans have done all that. You cant just say "do what Sankara did!111!!", the situation aint the same.

[Wanted Man]

Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankara maintained Marxist socialism from the country's founding until his assassination, and Burkina Faso was a deeply impoverished country with no infrustructure, no suitable agricultural land, and few natural resources, surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbors.

Completely idiotic comparison. If that's your only frame of reference when looking at anything, how is that going to help? The struggle in Burkina Faso was certainly inspiring, and Sankara was an important figure, but unfortunately Sankara was butchered by his own associates within four years, and all his gains were immediately reversed. There is no shame in that as far as Sankara is concerned, as you can always find military officers who will coup for money; but it's insane to compare that to Cuba.

I also can't imagine how any self-proclaimed anti-Stalinist can pretend that Burkina Faso was some kind of fully "Marxist socialist" country. After all, it was established by a military coup and nationalised key industries. In other cases, you and others would probably say: "Oh, so what, he nationalised some stuff and he introduced literacy campaigns. What does that have to do with true workers' control? It's certainly not good enough for me. He was just another Stalinist who came to power in a coup. The fact that he was couped by his own associates proves our point exactly."

Much like Che, the Palestinian struggle and the like (and Cuba itself, to a very limited extent as this thread proves), Sankara simply gets a pass because of the romantic image associated with "great national liberation heroes". You want to have your cake and eat it too; denounce all the nasty stuff with coups and Stalinism, but do everything possible to latch on to the romantic nationalist stuff (because you can't sell shirts without a pretty face on them). If that's what you want to do, that's fine, but at least be honest about it.

[bailey_187]

It's kinda hard to keep socialism when, you know, you're not trying to keep socialism.

ohh wow yeah lets have a Hoxhaist versus non-Hoxhaist debate on Cuba, that will be fun, new, and interesting. Sit the fuck down.

[Adi Shankara]

Completely idiotic comparison. If that's your only frame of reference when looking at anything, how is that going to help?

I admit that wasn't a good comparison.


The struggle in Burkina Faso was certainly inspiring, and Sankara was an important figure, but unfortunately Sankara was butchered by his own associates within four years, and all his gains were immediately reversed. There is no shame in that as far as Sankara is concerned, as you can always find military officers who will coup for money; but it's insane to compare that to Cuba.

agreed, and again, it was a bad comparison.


I also can't imagine how any self-proclaimed anti-Stalinist can pretend that Burkina Faso was some kind of fully "Marxist socialist" country. After all, it was established by a military coup and nationalised key industries. In other cases, you and others would probably say: "Oh, so what, he nationalised some stuff and he introduced literacy campaigns. What does that have to do with true workers' control? It's certainly not good for me. He was just another Stalinist who came to power in a coup. The fact that he was couped by his own associates proves our point exactly."

He wasn't a Stalinist at all; he didn't come to power in just a coup, it had the popular support of the majority of the country, and it was launched by a committee that had direct involvement with the people of Burkina Faso, called the Provisional Committee for Popular Salvation. None of his policies reflected Stalinist policies except for nationalization of the means of production, but that's hardly a stalinist attribute.


Much like Che, the Palestinian struggle and the like (and Cuba itself, to a very limited extent as this thread proves), Sankara simply gets a pass because of the romantic image associated with "great national liberation heroes".

Or maybe he's remembered by even the vast majority of his country as a reformer who lived like his people did, who introduced reforms in the economic system that reduced the dependence on subsistence agriculture, took away privileges of the elite, introduced village committees to dispense justice, created economic collectives to wean people off subsistence agriculture, and made women equal to men in a country where they were formerly seen as commodities. focusing just on his popular image greatly bastardizes his legacy.


You want to have your cake and eat it too; denounce all the nasty stuff with coups and Stalinism, but do everything possible to latch on to the romantic nationalist stuff (because you can't sell shirts without a pretty face on them). If that's what you want to do, that's fine, but at least be honest about it.

I'm not against coups when they have the popular support of people to when it comes to overthrowing a western puppet interest; he didn't support the Soviet Union, he didn't support China, nor the west; he third worldist in the classical sense.

[Nolan]

ohh wow yeah lets have a Hoxhaist versus non-Hoxhaist debate on Cuba, that will be fun, new, and interesting. Sit the fuck down.

"Non-Hoxhaist" in your case meaning "non-communist."

Oh come on guiz they can't do anything else it's just a small island

[bailey_187]

"Non-Hoxhaist" in your case meaning "non-communist."

Oh come on guiz they can't do anything else it's just a small island

yep, its just you and Hoxha against the world

[Wanted Man]

He wasn't a Stalinist at all; he didn't come to power in just a coup, it had the popular support of the majority of the country, and it was launched by a committee that had direct involvement with the people of Burkina Faso, called the Provisional Committee for Popular Salvation. None of his policies reflected Stalinist policies except for nationalization of the means of production, but that's hardly a stalinist attribute.

Or maybe he's remembered by even the vast majority of his country as a reformer who lived like his people did, who introduced reforms in the economic system that reduced the dependence on subsistence agriculture, took away privileges of the elite, introduced village committees to dispense justice, created economic collectives to wean people off subsistence agriculture, and made women equal to men in a country where they were formerly seen as commodities. focusing just on his popular image greatly bastardizes his legacy.

This is all very good, but similar lists can be worked down with regards to all sorts of places, including the USSR under Stalin, the DR of Afghanistan, and loads of other countries that usually result in Revleft posts along the lines of: "Not good enough! Where are the workers' councils at?"

If you're less narrow-minded than that as well, then I am mistaken and we can agree on that one, and I've gotten the wrong impression somehow; but this is the kind of line that is incredibly common on this forum. Sorry if I wrongly included you in this generalisation.

[Nolan]

yep, its just you and Hoxha against the world

Who is this Hoxha you mention, and how is he/she relevant to the topic?

[bailey_187]

Who is this Hoxha you mention, and how is he/she relevant to the topic?


Well im assuming your embracing of Hoxhaism has alot to do with your views on Cuba not being socialist, considering the change seems to have come at the same time you changed your name from "Captain Cuba".

[anticap]

I have a question for all those who clench their butt-cheeks whenever someone suggests that Cuba is something other than socialist: Are production and distribution in Cuba under the democratic control of the Cuban workers, or not?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I have a question for all those who clench their butt-cheeks whenever someone suggests that Cuba is something other than socialist: Are production and distribution in Cuba under the democratic control of the Cuban workers, or not?

The majority of the means of production is collectively owned between the workers & the State. The State owns the means of production, while the workers manage it. There'll be a few on this forum that'll try & claim that this is "State Capitalism", but this is clearly false. Cuba is a socialist country.

It has some private production now since Raul became leader, but this is only to try & help stabilize the economy due to the trade embargo. What we need to realize about this private production though is that there's a couple ways it's being handled:

Family businesses such as restaurants;
Self management such as barbershops & taxi drivers.

The Cuban government has rules set where these private businesses are not allowed to hire other workers to exploit. If it's a family business, then the family is the only ones working. If it's a self management job, then they're the only ones working. No exploitation from man on man is allowed.

So in short, yes, Cuba is a socialist country.

[Wanted Man]

I have a question for all those who clench their butt-cheeks whenever someone suggests that Cuba is something other than socialist: Are production and distribution in Cuba under the democratic control of the Cuban workers, or not?

Holy shit, that's a brilliant question! Nobody's ever asked that one before. Give me a few days to ponder this.

[punisa]

Let's stick with the topic.
What is Fidel up to and why now?
Capitalism as a system has been severely damaged in the last couple of years and many neutral economists already suggested that sharp changes will be introduced over the course of years to come.

I know that he is very well read and knows how the world works, so what's the meaning of this?
Oh yeah, didn't he like a week ago also stated that the capitalist world is run by some occult elite or something like that?
Castro might be going loony.

Working class should take over Cuba for themselves, all that stories about how a small island can not function etc is horseshit.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Let's stick with the topic.
What is Fidel up to and why now?
Capitalism as a system has been severely damaged in the last couple of years and many neutral economists already suggested that sharp changes will be introduced over the course of years to come.

I know that he is very well read and knows how the world works, so what's the meaning of this?
Oh yeah, didn't he like a week ago also stated that the capitalist world is run by some occult elite or something like that?
Castro might be going loony.

Working class should take over Cuba for themselves, all that stories about how a small island can not function etc is horseshit.

The working class already manage the means of production in Cuba. To think that the working class don't control how Cuba is run is by all means misleading.

Also, it's nice to see that people in this forum are disregarding these facts with irrelevant attacks like the personal beliefs in conspiracy theories. Cuba is isolated through a trade embargo, yes? What books he acquires from here is limited, yes? So should we blaming Castro for the books he reads & learns from, or should we be taking the initiative here & be opposing the trade embargo?

[bailey_187]

Let's stick with the topic.
all that stories about how a small island can not function etc is horseshit.

Oh ok, sorry

[The Feral Underclass]

This is the end of Cuba. Raul Castro is going to betray the revolution, what all his comrades died for, what Che died for, what Granma stood for--so he can sell real estate to capitalists.

What baffles me is that people routinely ignore history for some lofty belief that "this time will be different". Every revolution that has formed in the way that Cuba had and operated the way that Cuba had have always, always, "betrayed" the revolution. The consolodation of centralised political authority has always created a coterie of bureaucrats who then maintain the state, become entrenched and ultimately move away from the revolution that frankly, the majority of them probably never fought in (60 years later).

Why people thought Cuba would be any different is beyond me. The material conditions created by centralised political authority (i.e. the state) cannot achieve anything else. Transitional socialism doesn't work.

[The Feral Underclass]

The majority of the means of production is collectively owned between the workers & the State. The State owns the means of production, while the workers manage it. There'll be a few on this forum that'll try & claim that this is "State Capitalism", but this is clearly false. Cuba is a socialist country.

It has some private production now since Raul became leader, but this is only to try & help stabilize the economy due to the trade embargo. What we need to realize about this private production though is that there's a couple ways it's being handled:

Family businesses such as restaurants;
Self management such as barbershops & taxi drivers.

The Cuban government has rules set where these private businesses are not allowed to hire other workers to exploit. If it's a family business, then the family is the only ones working. If it's a self management job, then they're the only ones working. No exploitation from man on man is allowed.

So in short, yes, Cuba is a socialist country.

Yeah? But what about communism?

[Kiev Communard]

Transitional socialism doesn't work.

I would say that such a term as "transitional socialism" is ultimately misleading. I know you are arguing against Marxist theory of dictatorship of proletariat but don't forget that in many Marxists' thinking the "transition" itself, when the political authority would still exist, is quite distinct both from socialism (immature communism, when the system of distribution in accordance with personal contribution to the process of production would be in place, together with some planning organization, but not of political character) and mature communism (effectively post-scarcity classless and stateless society).

The transitional period would still be necessary but I agree with Anarchists that the centralized planning and/or "market socialism" are not the manifestations of the transition to socialism. Some kind of Parecon-style economic and Demarchic political system (see this (http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/democracy/), though I obviously do not agree with Burnheim's proposals to "maintain" the market economy, and this (http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/95sa.html)), replacing the traditional state, will be needed to realize such transition, during the course of which the most radical transformation of all existing social and economic institutions shall be effected. Naturally, modern Cuba is far cry from this.

[The Feral Underclass]

I would say that such a term as "transitional socialism" is ultimately misleading.

Yes, you're right. No socialism works, is the correct thing to say.


I know you are arguing against Marxist theory of dictatorship of proletariat but don't forget that in many Marxists' thinking the "transition" itself, when the political authority would still exist, is quite distinct both from socialism (immature communism, when the system of distribution in accordance with personal contribution to the process of production would be in place, together with some planning organization, but not of political character)

What is transitional socialism if it isn't "immature communism"?

I'm slightly confused by what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the socialism in Cuba isn't the kind of socialism that Lenin talked about in State and Revolution. If you are saying that then why isn't it?

[4 Leaf Clover]

Fidel quited, goodbye Cuba

i have a feeling these old-school ML's are dying out. Take cover, Maoists are coming

[Saorsa]

Fidel quited, goodbye Cuba

I don't think we should jump to conclusions over some allegations in the bourgeois media. Wait until socialism is actually close to being dismantled in Cuba before calling Fidel a sellout. The changes that have concretely taken place so far are minor and not have not radically or fundamentally altered Cuba's economy. The place isn't without problems, sure, but under the circumstances I'd say Cuba is doing pretty well. It's the only country that was/claimed to be socialist that hasn't collapsed or suffered a counter-revolution, and that deserves some credit.


i have a feeling these old-school ML's are dying out. Take cover, Maoists are coming

We'll see what happens. It's a very real possibility :)

[Nolan]

What baffles me is that people routinely ignore history for some lofty belief that "this time will be different". Every revolution that has formed in the way that Cuba had and operated the way that Cuba had have always, always, "betrayed" the revolution. The consolodation of centralised political authority has always created a coterie of bureaucrats who then maintain the state, become entrenched and ultimately move away from the revolution that frankly, the majority of them probably never fought in (60 years later).

Why people thought Cuba would be any different is beyond me. The material conditions created by centralised political authority (i.e. the state) cannot achieve anything else. Transitional socialism doesn't work.

What a humorous oversimplification of the situation. If you believe the state is at fault for the capitalist property relations that exist now in Cuba, then you're not seeing the whole picture. The problem is that Cuba was modeled directly after the Soviet Union after it was reformed - and it has taken those reforms to a new level. No one who knows any better thought Cuba or North Korea would "be different." It's a mystery why they survived the collapse of their puppet-master to begin with.

But instead we'll just turn bureaucracy into some abstract, all-malevolent force, sprinkle in some commie talk, and build stupid arguments from that. :rolleyes:

[Das war einmal]

He only said that the Cuban state has too much influence in the nations economy. But the press translated it into 'Omg Fidel Castro denounces communism!'

[Nolan]

He only said that the Cuban state has too much influence in the nations economy. But the press translated it into 'Omg Fidel Castro denounces communism!'

He didn't even say that. He just made some vague comment.

[Honggweilo]

oh god, brix were shat after this

first Wanted Man posts this


This is all very good, but similar lists can be worked down with regards to all sorts of places, including the USSR under Stalin, the DR of Afghanistan, and loads of other countries that usually result in Revleft posts along the lines of: "Not good enough! Where are the workers' councils at?"


Then this guy 2 posts later


I have a question for all those who clench their butt-cheeks whenever someone suggests that Cuba is something other than socialist: Are production and distribution in Cuba under the democratic control of the Cuban workers, or not?

grow up

[Rakhmetov]

sorry

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39070310/ns/world_news-americas/?GT1=43001

[R_P_A_S]

WTF??? Surely he must be kidding. Maybe it's just a tactic or a ruse to get the imperialists off guard.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39070310/ns/world_news-americas/?GT1=43001

Here is my issue with this report. It's taken a bit out of context. How come Castro did not elaborate on the matter? How come it doesn't work? Can it be improved? What needs to be done? etc, etc. Personally this just feels like a remark one will make to anyone and not bother or be allowed to follow his statement with an explanation.

The Cuban model obviously does not work 100% but what does? As far as Fidel goes... He's still very intelligent and current with his political views and analysis of present day situations but let's not forget he's also an old man and like many old men he might run off with "crazy" remarks. lol :D

I hate how western media will take this and run with it. Great.

[mykittyhasaboner]

What baffles me is that people routinely ignore history for some lofty belief that "this time will be different".

What baffles me is that someone as intelligent as yourself is claiming that people here are ignoring history. I would say that its quite the opposite. Those who understand that there are still no clear signs of some kind of Cuban 'perestroika', say so precisely because they recognize historical examples which illustrate such a phenomenon and can immediately tell that it's not happening. History has shown us, that for the last 20 years Cuba has been able to maintain it's socialist economy without the aid of the USSR and in the face of even more damaging sacntions by the US.

This is why people should not be going apeshit over what some bourgeois rag has to say about Cuba or Fidel.


Every revolution that has formed in the way that Cuba had and operated the way that Cuba had have always, always, "betrayed" the revolution. The consolodation of centralised political authority has always created a coterie of bureaucrats who then maintain the state, become entrenched and ultimately move away from the revolution that frankly, the majority of them probably never fought in (60 years later).You're touching on an issue here that goes way beyond the conept of centralized political authority. Central authority does, in many ways, create the conditions for buearacratic or technocratic distortions of political discourse. However this is really not the fundamnetal cause of disproportionate power within the state. If you want to have a workers' revolution, you have to have central political authority vested in the worker's state, whether you call it a state or not. Are you going to tell me that anarchists would have done anything differently? I wouldn't think so.



Why people thought Cuba would be any different is beyond me.Maybe because 20 years later they are still there and maintain the highest standards of living for their population in Latin America, workers are still active in managment of the state, the economy has not tailspinned into the seventh circle of hell despite shortages, billions of dollars in losses every year, political backlash, the only privatization that is occuring is restricted by the state and is not for signifcant portions of the economy, and they continue to spare doctors to aid poor people in capitalist countries.



The material conditions created by centralised political authority (i.e. the state) cannot achieve anything else.Really? So no revolution which created "centralised political authority" has done anything else? You're ignoring history here.


Transitional socialism doesn't work. So far, "transitional socialism" has done far more for workers who empowered themselves than any other kind of socialism you would wish to advocate.


What a humorous oversimplification of the situation. If you believe the state is at fault for the capitalist property relations that exist now in Cuba, then you're not seeing the whole picture.
The problem is that Cuba was modeled directly after the Soviet Union after it was reformed - and it has taken those reforms to a new level. No one who knows any better thought Cuba or North Korea would "be different." It's a mystery why they survived the collapse of their puppet-master to begin with.

But instead we'll just turn bureaucracy into some abstract, all-malevolent force, sprinkle in some commie talk, and build stupid arguments from that. :rolleyes:

Apparently your not seeing the picture. It's not a mystery as to why Cuba did not dissolve after the Soviet Union did, because it was not their "puppet master" (which by the way, is a very humurous oversimplification), but because Cuba had it's own revolution and refused to take the cue from petit-bourgeois Soviet leaders to call it quits. There was no exploitative, or quasi colonial relationship between the USSR and Cuba, and the USSR wasn't a "social imperialist" power. I have not seen any Hoxhaist come close to proving such a hypothesis.

[Volcanicity]

I think we should all just wait until his autobiography comes out,and read what Fidel has written,rather than taking any notice of some regurgitated journalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

What a humorous oversimplification of the situation.

Firstly, you have a very odd sense humour. Secondly, the whole "simplification" argument is usually an attempt at mystifying the realities of a bankrupt set of ideas by people who don't actually have a defence.


If you believe the state is at fault for the capitalist property relations that exist now in Cuba, then you're not seeing the whole picture. The problem is that Cuba was modeled directly after the Soviet Union after it was reformed - and it has taken those reforms to a new level. No one who knows any better thought Cuba or North Korea would "be different." It's a mystery why they survived the collapse of their puppet-master to begin with.

That's nonsensical. If you're going to engage me in discussion, at least have the common decency to make sense.


But instead we'll just turn bureaucracy into some abstract, all-malevolent force, sprinkle in some commie talk, and build stupid arguments from that. :rolleyes:

Erm, actually, that's not at all what I've done.

I don't think state bureaucracy is some "malevolent force" nor did I say that anywhere, and I have been quite specific about the nature of bureaucracy coming from the objective conditions of a [Marxist] revolution. If you find that idea to be an abstraction then I suggest you educate yourself a bit better.

Another debating tip: Understand what the person you're criticising is actually saying before you criticise them. Don't waste my time with badly constructed sentences, insults and gobble-de-gook.

[R_P_A_S]

Here is my issue with this report. It's taken a bit out of context. How come Castro did not elaborate on the matter? How come it doesn't work? Can it be improved? What needs to be done? etc, etc. Personally this just feels like a remark one will make to anyone and not bother or be allowed to follow his statement with an explanation.

The Cuban model obviously does not work 100% but what does? As far as Fidel goes... He's still very intelligent and current with his political views and analysis of present day situations but let's not forget he's also an old man and like many old men he might run off with "crazy" remarks. lol

I hate how western media will take this and run with it. Great.

[Davie zepeda]

When i went there the Economic System had improved the situation no longer was harsh, but the Cuban people want some form of commodities, NOW the reason Fidel one said "the Cuban system cannot be exported" is obvious son wtf! what revolution has made a successful copy cat! none, and any ways he's right the state has to much power in the economy, it's suppose to be in the hands of the people the idle land and everything just because your a Marxist dose not mean your mode of production goes completely into state hand's you must make a transition that's how you perfect distribution wtf man! be objective Be objective! yes The soviet model has it's errors and yes Fidel is demoralize because no genuine revolution has come about! the only betrayal i see is from us to the Cuban people and all our comrades who lay in the ground!We failed with unity! we failed with honor!, We failed against revision!, WE failed against imperialism!,We failed to save humanity! my friends Wake the fuck up Fidel is depressed because of us of us! Do somthing instead of whinning do something!

[The Feral Underclass]

What baffles me is that someone as intelligent as yourself is claiming that people here are ignoring history.

Then be baffled, since Marxists have an inherent habit of doing just that.


I would say that its quite the opposite.Imagine my surprise.


History has shown us, that for the last 20 years Cuba has been able to maintain it's socialist economy without the aid of the USSR and in the face of even more damaging sacntions by the US. I haven't disputed that Cuba is a socialist country, nor have I suggested that it has had trouble being so.


This is why people should not be going apeshit over what some bourgeois rag has to say about Cuba or Fidel. Irrespective of what this 'rag' or Fidel has said, Raul Castro has long been talking about liberalising the economy and has spoken specifically about China-esque economics.

It was merely a matter of time.


You're touching on an issue here that goes way beyond the conept of centralized political authority.I'm sure it has, but the facts remain that centralised political authority ultimately creates the conditions we have seen in Russia, China, Vietnam and now Cuba.


Central authority does, in many ways, create the conditions for buearacratic or technocratic distortions of political discourse.Erm, to argue otherwise is precisely what is meant by Marxists ignoring history.


However this is really not the fundamnetal cause of disproportionate power within the state. If you want to have a workers' revolution, you have to have central political authority vested in the worker's state, whether you call it a state or not. Are you going to tell me that anarchists would have done anything differently? I wouldn't think so.Well, firstly anarchists have done it differently, but that's besides the point.

You make the proposition that centralised political authority is not the cause of "disproportionate power" within the state but then go on to some kind of qualification by simply re-asserting Marxist dogma.

What you're essentially saying is this:

"The centralisation of political authority isn't to blame because we need it to have a successful revolution."

This is not only completely ridiculous, it's quite tragic.

On the issue of the "workers state": The workers state is a myth. The idea is nothing more than a rhetorical device used by Marxist leaders to make their political authority more palatable, but of course we all know how that ends.


Maybe because 20 years later they are still there and maintain the highest standards of living for their population in Latin America, workers are still active in managment of the state, the economy has not tailspinned into the seventh circle of hell despite shortages, billions of dollars in losses every year, political backlash, the only privatization that is occuring is restricted by the state and is not for signifcant portions of the economy, and they continue to spare doctors to aid poor people in capitalist countries.But what was the point? Cuba could have had one of the highest standards of living for the Western world if it embraced liberalisation. Explain to me this, if the Cuban political leadership wanted to have a secure, economically prosperous country with a high standard of living, what have they been waiting for? Why have they been holding onto this socialism for so long? If their objective was these incremental concessions for the working class, capitalism has done a far better job.

Look, the revolution in Cuba was supposed to begin a transition to communism, not create a third world socialist dictatorship. Fidel used communism as a natural opposition to America, which they believed was complicit in Cuba's oppression (which of course it was), but the struggle to create socialism was for what? The Cuban working class aren't liberated from political, social and economic oppression. Yeah, they've got doctors, but now what?


Really? So no revolution which created "centralised political authority" has done anything else? You're ignoring history here.We're talking at cross-purposes here. I'm a communist. When the workers fight in a revolution it will be to create a communist society. I have no interest in creating a socialist state. That's not what I want.


So far, "transitional socialism" has done far more for workers who empowered themselves than any other kind of socialism you would wish to advocate.When the parameters of a successful revolution are the emancipation of the working class from political, economic and social oppression, then what, precisely has "transitional socialism" achieved? Healthcare? OK, that was clearly a great leap forward for a country like Cuba at the time. The freedom from a dictator was also a great achievement, but if these were the sole objectives of that struggle then the workers in Cuba have been lied to.

Let's look at Russia. Let's look at China. Let's look at Cuba? Are these examples of successful revolutions?

Any real communist would be very clear that they are not.

[RadioRaheem84]

I really think, or more so hope, that Fidel simply meant that the State has too much power in the economy and that it should be relaxed to allow for more worker controlled and managed industry. More co-ops, etc. I really doubt he meant that he was going to allow companies to storm in and exploit workers and savage Cuba.

Raul Castro is who we should be worried about, but I also doubt that he is a Gorbachev.

[RadioRaheem84]

But what was the point? Cuba could have had one of the highest standards of living for the Western world if it embraced liberalisation. Explain to me this, if the Cuban political leadership wanted to have a secure, economically prosperous country with a high standard of living, what have they been waiting for? Why have they been holding onto this socialism for so long? If their objective was these incremental concessions for the working class, capitalism has done a far better job.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Cuba is in no position to liberalize the nation and then end up with higher living standards and economic prosperity like the US or Western Europe. Most of those nations can afford their welfare states (or did at one point) because of the fact they encompass the group of imperial nations with vast holdings in the third world, so they can afford to give concessions to their workers in the first world who will buy their products.

Cuba represents a nation that gained a higher standard of living for its citizens without repressing other nations in order to afford concessions for their working and middle class. In fact Cuba aided others in their national liberation struggles, instead of a bastard Military Keynesianism that relied on subjugating the world like the US.

Damn, I hate it when ever the Anarchists chide Marxists for showing the gains of the Cuban Revolution. It is as if that stuff doesn't matter to them unless an ideal is achieved first! Well I apologize if I worry for the Cuban children who are at least afforded a better standard of living than their Haitian neighbors. I guess the reality of the situation comes off as a poor second to a highly held ideal.

[RadioRaheem84]

Fucking shit. I hate this. Now the mainstream media is just going to use this as a rod for any left wing person they wish to chide.

"Why socialism"?, "even Castro says it doesn't work".
:rolleyes:

[M-26-7]

I predict that the end of Cuban socialism is imminent, and will be bloody. Possibly tens of thousands of deaths, and maybe even a full-blown civil war. The gusanos in Miami will arrive back in Cuba with boatloads of expensive weapons and really make things bad for ordinary Cubans. Expect Havana to look like Atlantic City by Spring 2011, Summer at the latest.

(But really I'm just saying this to see what Wanted Man's reaction will be....shhh :)).

[Kiev Communard]

Yes, you're right. No socialism works, is the correct thing to say.



What is transitional socialism if it isn't "immature communism"?

I'm slightly confused by what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the socialism in Cuba isn't the kind of socialism that Lenin talked about in State and Revolution. If you are saying that then why isn't it?

I am merely saying that socialism (and communism for that matter) is incompatible not only with the market and the private property of the means of production, but also with the whole hierarchical system of industrial management, with the workers, professionals/managers and owners/top managers comprising the top-down pyramide of hierarchy.

In that context,the main reason why all the previous revolutions failed is not for the alleged "corruption" of certain individuals, or the "elitism" of vanguard parties - these were mere symptoms - but for the fact that industrial relations of production at that time were still progressive and therefore, as with peasants' rebellions of Middle Ages that were doomed to recreate the very landowners' aristocracy and landowners' state they fought against (the Chinese history provides a lot of examples of this), the 20th century revolutionaries were doomed by the objective material conditions to recreate first Industrialism as the system of hierarchic division of labour and alienation of the immediate producers from the means of production, and then, as the development of Industrialism led to the demands of giving "free rein" to market forces to allow for the better unfolding of "growth for the sake of growth" - and to make the non-hereditary positions of state managers hereditary - to recreate the full-fledged capitalism, as well.

At that time that was inevitable, though regrettable, but now the development of productive forces (automation, biotechnology, hints at nanotechnology breakthrough, etc.) has achieved such a level that it would be possible in future to abolish not only private property-based capitalism but also the hierarchic social division of labour - the very source of the existence of the class society and the State. Therefore, all the future revolutions, if they are to be successful, should focus on these precisely developments in breakthrough areas, because it is the nature of productive forces that determine the character of the society, and not vice versa, as the Maoists' commendable but futile attempt at abolishing the Industrialist system of hierarchical division of labour during the Cultural Revolution showed. One can't have socialism and even less Communism under Industrialist society - that is the main lesson of the 20th century failures and defeats.

I hope you have understood my stance on that issue.

[Dean]

Goldberg is a worthless hack who served as a propagandist for the Iraq war, and his ridiculous "hope" on Israeli peace talks only serve to obfuscate the obvious character of the talks.

Shame on Castro for granting him an interview and letting him characterize the meeting so crassly. It's clearly a hit piece on Cuba, the Palestinians and Iran.

Fuck Jeff Goldberg in his imperialist ass.

[danyboy27]

Fucking shit. I hate this. Now the mainstream media is just going to use this as a rod for any left wing person they wish to chide.

"Why socialism"?, "even Castro says it doesn't work".
:rolleyes:

wich can be easily refutated by: how that capitalist economy working for ya?

People give too much attention and credits at Emblematic figures like Che or Castro, after all they where not alone at organizing Cuba after the end of Batista, sure they where always up front, but they couldnt do all that without the participation and tireless efforts of thousand of dedicated, pragmatic anonymous people.

[chegitz guevara]

Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankara maintained Marxist socialism from the country's founding until his assassination, and Burkina Faso was a deeply impoverished country with no infrustructure, no suitable agricultural land, and few natural resources, surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbors.

There was no revolution. It was a military coup which put Sankara in power, and another one which took him out. Socialism comes from the masses, not well meaning dictators. I'm not denying the immense progress and extremely advanced nature of his dictatorship, but it was not socialism.

As for the hair pulling and shirt tearing over the article, get a life. We don't know what it means or even if it was true.

[RadioRaheem84]

What's with all the recent hit pieces on Castro and Chavez lately?

[HammerAlias]

If Che was alive, he would be pissed right now.:mad:

[chegitz guevara]

If Che was alive, he would be pissed right now.:mad:

Especially with all those bullet holes in him.

[danyboy27]

If Che was alive, he would be pissed right now.:mad:

you dont know that, you cant know that, he might have become like Castro Today.

[RadioRaheem84]

you dont know that, you cant know that, he might have become like Castro Today.

Highly doubt it. He left Cuba and broke alliances with USSR due to revisionism. He hated it.

[RadioRaheem84]

True, Che actually sucked as an administrator. Even he admitted to such.

[manic expression]

Fucking shit. I hate this. Now the mainstream media is just going to use this as a rod for any left wing person they wish to chide.

"Why socialism"?, "even Castro says it doesn't work".
:rolleyes:
Yeah, it's going to be the capitalist insult-du jour for a bit, but it has an easy enough comeback: "No, he didn't say that, why don't you pull your head out of your ass and act like a journalist for the first time in your sad and empty life?"

Without context, we're left to guess at what this means. Personally, I think it was a comment on how Cuba is isolated, thus the so-called "Cuban model". But whatever the case, one thing is for sure: the sensationalism surrounding Fidel, which ironically enough has been popularized after he gave up all responsibilities within the Cuban state, is bordering on comedy. As we can see from the "he supports Israel!" lie, this is just capitalist gossip. They like to comment on this garbage at their cocktail parties to look edgy and oh-so-knowledgeable about those scary, mysterious socialists.

By the way, Jeffrey Goldberg is an imperialist twit who is one of Israel's most shameless apologists. The way he's reporting this, denying us any context, just goes to show that he has an axe to grind here. The source smells real bad, and just like bad-smelling food, when in doubt...throw it out!

[bailey_187]

There isnt a "Marxist-Leninist" economic model though

[Nolan]

Well they shot their load.

[4 Leaf Clover]

I don't think we should jump to conclusions over some allegations in the bourgeois media.
i know i know , i written in that style




We'll see what happens. It's a very real possibility :)
nooo , not evil maoists , they eat babies for breakfast

[Nolan]

Firstly, you have a very odd sense humour. Secondly, the whole "simplification" argument is usually an attempt at mystifying the realities of a bankrupt set of ideas by people who don't actually have a defence.

So you misrepresent what's happening, then when I point it out you say this.

I might as well add that it's extremely ironic that an anarchist of all tendencies is trying to preach about someone's "bankrupt set of ideas."



That's nonsensical. If you're going to engage me in discussion, at least have the common decency to make sense.

Apparently the notion that Cuba does not represent Marxism is above you, which brings us back to my point-your drivel is an oversimplification. That or you're just running from the argument.



Erm, actually, that's not at all what I've done.

I don't think state bureaucracy is some "malevolent force" nor did I say that anywhere, and I have been quite specific about the nature of bureaucracy coming from the objective conditions of a [Marxist] revolution. If you find that idea to be an abstraction then I suggest you educate yourself a bit better.

Another debating tip: Understand what the person you're criticising is actually saying before you criticise them. Don't waste my time with badly constructed sentences, insults and gobble-de-gook.

Actually you just repeated some old anarchist talking points about the state that rely on rather dumb assumptions, and in this case, willful ignorance about Marxism and Cuba.

[Scary Monster]

I dont see whats with all the freaking out here :lol::lol: First of all, Fidel makes one vague comment. Everything else after that is coming from this journalist's ass. If anything, he's moving Cuba closer toward communism by saying the Cuban government is interfering too much in the economy. Second, he's letting foreign companies buy real estate, not outsourcing means of production, nor is he pulling a Gorbachev and installing a market economy :lol:

[bcbm]

I might as well add that it's extremely ironic that an anarchist of all tendencies is trying to preach about someone's "bankrupt set of ideas."

lol

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yeah? But what about communism?

What about it? It hasn't been abandoned. With where the economy stands right now, as great as it's holding up so far, it's still not where it should be, to try & advance to Communism given the state of things would be taking a large risk. I think Cuba stepping back a little in order to push forward much further is a necessary step for them.

People are already freaking out here like if Socialism is about to die out right here & now in Cuba. Stop taking these things at face-value & actually start thinking dialectically here people. These are the same paranoia's that many once saw in Lenin's NEP. Just calm down & let's see where this takes us.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Will all of you just shut up & stop taking these things at face-value? I thought we're suppose to be Marxists here? Are we not suppose to be taking these situations as growing, not fixated? This is how dialectics work, not Rosa's wannabe-beliefs. They entitled this article solely on one quote! How about they release the entire interview? Ask yourselves that! Why did they only give us a single quote, which we all know could've easily been taken out of context, when they could've released the entire interview? This is pure propaganda! Yet everyone here seems to be freaking out for nothing! From what it seems, I wouldn't doubt a good number of those who are freaking out now already believed Socialism was dying in Cuba or is already dead.

[Rakhmetov]

Maybe Castro wants to use a Bolivarian-Venezuelan model of Socialism instead of Soviet-style Marxism. He needs to clarify what he means. :confused::mad::blink::crying::(:bored:

[revolution inaction]

Fucking shit. I hate this. Now the mainstream media is just going to use this as a rod for any left wing person they wish to chide.

"Why socialism"?, "even Castro says it doesn't work".
:rolleyes:

ok i'm to lazy to actual check if he said this or not, but if he did, who cares what a capitalist thinks? there never going to be a whole lot of capitalists who support socialism, one more doesn't make any difference either way.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Maybe Castro wants to use a Bolivarian-Venezuelan model of Socialism instead of Soviet-style Marxism. He needs to clarify what he means. :confused::mad::blink::crying::(:bored:

I would have to completely disagree. Venezuela's model is not how to uphold Socialism, but how to gain a clearer path to Socialism. Cuba is already Socialist. They're right now in a need to safeguard Socialism, not gain it.

[The Feral Underclass]

So you misrepresent what's happening, then when I point it out you say this.

I think you give yourself a little too much credit


I might as well add that it's extremely ironic that an anarchist of all tendencies is trying to preach about someone's "bankrupt set of ideas."I'm not trying to preach anything to anyone. That's the difference between anarchists and people like you. We don't feel the need to evangelize opinion and champion faith in what isn't there.


Apparently the notion that Cuba does not represent Marxism is above youActually, it's the very notion that Cuba represents Marxism that leads me to conclude its failures.


which brings us back to my point-your drivel is an oversimplification. That or you're just running from the argument.There's really nothing complex about this situation. The Marxist revolution in Cuba failed. It did so because Marxist theory is flawed.

You can try and make it as complicated as you like but it doesn't alter the reality that your ideological beliefs have been falsified and you pathetically continue to latch onto some tragic notion that somehow, somewhere at some point one of these revolutions is going to create the necessary conditions to transform into a communist society. You're delusional.

Marx and Lenin were wrong. It really has fuck all to do with anything else.


Actually you just repeated some old anarchist talking points about the state that rely on rather dumb assumptions, and in this case, willful ignorance about Marxism and Cuba.I assume nothing about Cuba, the evidence if overwhelmingly in favour of these old anarchist talking points. There's nothing complex about what's happening, despite your attempts to evade what is very clearly another example of a failed Marxist revolution.

The argument that there can be such a thing as a "workers state" or "working class rule" in the context of centralised political authority, is objectively refuted by the material conditions that the consolidation, centralisation and institutionalisation of an emerging political class, creates. What we have seen in Cuba, as with all failed Marxist revolutions, is the emergence of a class of bureaucrats who claim to be managing the workers state in the 'name' of the workers, and in some instances may even have direct democratic structures in place - to begin with. But the historical role of this new bureaucratic class turns into defending the state, which they claim to be doing "for the workers" i.e. there own political authority (which is required of them to defend the revolution), meaning actual workers democracy becomes nominal, to non-existent as the centralised political authority (i.e.the state) cannot reconcile its own existence with the existence of structures which emerge contrary to its own (i.e a transition to a decentralised, classless society) and outside of its control (Kronstadt and the Aragon/Catalonian collectives are a prime example). In an effort to try and control these structures they force them to lose their true revolutionary characteristics and they end up being recuperated by the state.

This contradiction will always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised, and directly managed horizontally, and that process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controlling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.

To reiterate: the centralisation of political authority I.e a state, requires subordination to it and to the "centre", dominated by a political elite, whether elected or not, whether good intentioned or not (because it matters little what your ideas are in the context of the material conditions you are creating), whose role is to ensure the continued hegemony of the states control i.e. centralised political authority. It's purpose is to maintain a defence of the revolution at all costs. In the process of doing that this bureaucratic minority becomes entrenched within its role, in the course of which, actual expressions of workers power are recuperated, because their divergence cannot exist simultaneously if the state is to maintain and defend itself (for example, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow workers collectives organising areas of land and industry independently of that centralised political authority, or maintaining military militias separate to a centralised army). So, you cannot have the emergence of workers councils in factories and the creation of workers militias that express their own political power if centralised political authority exists, meaning that the two will naturally come into conflict with each other and eventually these separate expressions of workers power [to the state] are either recuperated into the state or smashed...Or we have a second revolution, when we can do what we should have done to begin with.

Cuba is just yet another example of a decaying Socialist state that neither has the will or then ability to transform into anything other than to re-emerge a new liberalised version of itself. And low and behold, that's precisely what is happening.

[The Feral Underclass]

What about it? It hasn't been abandoned. With where the economy stands right now, as great as it's holding up so far, it's still not where it should be, to try & advance to Communism given the state of things would be taking a large risk. I think Cuba stepping back a little in order to push forward much further is a necessary step for them.

Oh I see. They're just biding their time.


People are already freaking out here like if Socialism is about to die out right here & now in Cuba. Stop taking these things at face-value & actually start thinking dialectically here people. These are the same paranoia's that many once saw in Lenin's NEP. Just calm down & let's see where this takes us.:rolleyes:

It's so tragic. It's going to lead us to a liberalised economy and the re-emergence of capitalism. Like every other time.

[manic expression]

It's so tragic. It's going to lead us to a liberalised economy and the re-emergence of capitalism. Like every other time.
That's only what you believe and hope will happen. Let's not confuse that with fact.

[Rakhmetov]

We are all jumping the gun, including myself. I was livid when I read this report of what Castro said. He probably means Cuba will adopt Venezuelan-Chavista type of socialism. He will defend all the successes the Cuban revolution has won for the workers in the area of healthcare, education, sports, agrarian reform, and literacy. Time will prove me correct ... I hope. Cheer up. :thumbup1:

[The Feral Underclass]

That's only what you believe and hope will happen. Let's not confuse that with fact.

I really have no time or interest to "hope" it will, but yes, I believe it will happen, based on the irrefutable empirical and historical evidence, to say nothing of the fact that's what's actually happening :rolleyes:.

[manic expression]

I really have no time or interest to "hope" it will, but yes, I believe it will happen, based on the irrefutable empirical and historical evidence, and to say nothing of the fact that's what's happening :rolleyes:.
So in your mind, a retired politician making an offhanded comment in an unspecified context is "irrefutable evidence" of liberalization. Like I said, belief and hope. Not fact.

[The Feral Underclass]

We are all jumping the gun, including myself. I was livid when I read this report of what Castro said. He probably means Cuba will adopt Venezuelan-Chavista type of socialism. He will defend all the successes the Cuban revolution has won for the workers in the area of healthcare, education, sports, agrarian reform, and literacy. Time will prove me correct ... I hope. Cheer up. :thumbup1:

"That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none." - Friedrich Nietzche

[The Feral Underclass]

So in your mind, a retired politician making an offhanded comment in an unspecified context is "irrefutable evidence" of liberalization.

Erm. No...

[The Vegan Marxist]

Erm. No...

Then what's your irrefutable evidence of liberalization then?

[manic expression]

Erm. No...
Then your participation in this thread is, at best, puzzling.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I haven't disputed that Cuba is a socialist country, nor have I suggested that it has had trouble being so.

So Cuba is a socialist country, yet the working class has not been liberated from economic or political oppression? Just how is socialism defined for you?



Irrespective of what this 'rag' or Fidel has said, Raul Castro has long been talking about liberalising the economy and has spoken specifically about China-esque economics.I'm interested in seeing where he talks about "China esque economics". It is incorrect to assert that the privatization and 'liberalization' currently taking place is reminiscent to China because only small enterprises like barbershops or urban farms are not state owned.



I'm sure it has, but the facts remain that centralised political authority ultimately creates the conditions we have seen in Russia, China, Vietnam and now Cuba.I would say it took a lot more to create the conditions we see in those countries than "centralized political authority".



"The centralisation of political authority isn't to blame because we need it to have a successful revolution."No that is not at all what I'm saying. The centralization of political authority is in many respects the cause for problems within the state and disproportionate power in the state--this highlights serious weaknesses in classical Marxism as well as Leninism, and they must be addressed for future revolutions. All revolutions will create some kind of central authority; the problem is that revolutionaries have been theoretically weak with respect to organization of the state.


But what was the point? Cuba could have had one of the highest standards of living for the Western world if it embraced liberalisation.That isn't the point. The point is that the Cuban economy is a socialist economy, and that is why their standard of living is among the highest Latin America and for that reason only. If you honestly think massive liberalization would be good for the Cuban economy then your mistaken; and that is precisely why they haven't done so.


Explain to me this, if the Cuban political leadership wanted to have a secure, economically prosperous country with a high standard of living, what have they been waiting for? They haven't been waiting, they already have what I would call a prosperous country, you know common ownership and management of society, and economic planning based on human needs. Socialism.



Why have they been holding onto this socialism for so long? Because it's done so much for them. It's only difficult now to avoid small privatization because they need money, and they only have a capitalist world to trade with.


If their objective was these incremental concessions for the working class, capitalism has done a far better job.No it hasn't. This is quite tragic if you don't mind me saying. Planned economies provide benefits for workers or "incremental concessions" as you say, far better than market economies. History quite rightly shows this. No capitalist economy in a small island like Cuba could manage it's resources so well that it could afford to provide such a standard of living for the population as Cuba does--profit would get in the way.


Look, the revolution in Cuba was supposed to begin a transition to communism, not create a third world socialist dictatorship.It was in transition to communism while the USSR and the Eastern Bloc were still around, but counter revolution in these countries pretty much left Cuba alone, and communism cannot be achieved in a single nation or geographical location, let alone a small island in the Caribbean.


Fidel used communism as a natural opposition to America, which they believed was complicit in Cuba's oppression (which of course it was), but the struggle to create socialism was for what? The Cuban working class aren't liberated from political, social and economic oppression. Yeah, they've got doctors, but now what?It was for creating socialism, and to hopefully join the international socialist bloc in transition towards communism. Since nobody has succeed in doing the last part, they can only be said to have created socialism.

I don't understand why you assume that having such a great health care system is separate or is not a result of working class liberation and institution of their role as the ruling class.


We're talking at cross-purposes here. I'm a communist. When the workers fight in a revolution it will be to create a communist society. I have no interest in creating a socialist state. That's not what I want.Look I'm not really interested in this kind of debate. You know very well we don't need to go back and forth on this.


When the parameters of a successful revolution are the emancipation of the working class from political, economic and social oppression, then what, precisely has "transitional socialism" achieved? Healthcare? OK, that was clearly a great leap forward for a country like Cuba at the time. The freedom from a dictator was also a great achievement, but if these were the sole objectives of that struggle then the workers in Cuba have been lied to.Those weren't the sole objectives. Cuban workers are not economically oppressed, or exploited, they are the ruling class. If anything, some may be alienated as a result of economic recession. Cubans actively play a role in managing their state, on a local and national level, so your argument about political oppression is solely ideological in its nature. You are free to have your own opinion on how they should do things. Cuba has made great strides in liberation from oppression precisely because they had a socialist revolution and created a central authority which is inherently theirs and acts in their interests. I think you refuse to see this.


Any real communist would be very clear that they are not.They aren't successful because they did not attain communism, but they are successful because the working classes instituted their rule over society and created socialism. We disagree, theoretically, about how communism is to come about. So I'm leaving it at that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Then your participation in this thread is, at best, puzzling.

No, you're just not paying attention to what I'm saying.

[The Feral Underclass]

Then what's your irrefutable evidence of liberalization then?

The liberalization of self-employment laws; small business enterprise and foreign investment.

[bailey_187]

Did Castro say "Socialism doesnt work"? "Marxism is false?". No.

He said the Cuban economic model is not working. Unless Cuba (well, the USSR really) found the only ever conceivable way to organise a socialist economy, that is not a rejection of socialism. The Soviet model worked great for Soviet Industrialisation, but once industrialisation acheived it slowed down. The "Anti-Revisionists" want to pretend that the stagnation in the USSR is just the result of Krushchev, ignoring that growth also slowed in Albania in the 80s and China in the early 70s (thats not to ignore the acheivments acheived in any of the countries mentioned).

A new method of Socialist Economic planning is needed.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Did Castro say "Socialism doesnt work"? "Marxism is false?". No.

He said the Cuban economic model is not working. Unless Cuba (well, the USSR really) found the only ever conceivable way to organise a socialist economy, that is not a rejection of socialism. The Soviet model worked great for Soviet Industrialisation, but once industrialisation acheived it slowed down. The "Anti-Revisionists" want to pretend that the stagnation in the USSR is just the result of Krushchev, ignoring that growth also slowed in Albania in the 80s and China in the early 70s (thats not to ignore the acheivments acheived in any of the countries mentioned).

A new method of Socialist Economic planning is needed.

Thank you. :lol::thumbup1:

I think if half of the people on this board recognized this, we would have a much better quality of discussion, and we could forever end pointless "tendency wars".

[The Vegan Marxist]

The liberalization of self-employment laws; small business enterprise and foreign investment.

hahaha

It's not even exploiting anybody! These private businesses are strongly regulated. Where you take this as a "liberalization" is beyond me.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What needs to happen, though, is Cuba's leaders need to come out soon & explain the theoretical reason behind these changes. I'm right now giving out the most possible reasons, but that doesn't take away the fact that they're being secretive about this. Hopefully they explain soon.

[Rafiq]

We lost Ol' Comrade Castro :crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying:


CASTRO SNAP OUT OF IT >>>>>>:castro:

[The Feral Underclass]

hahaha

It's not even exploiting anybody!

How is that relevant? So you are advocating market socialism now are you? You advocate the emergence of a petite-bourgeoisie?

What kind of a communist are you?


These private businesses are strongly regulated. Where you take this as a "liberalization" is beyond me.Because that's what it is. Allowing small businesses to emerge, relaxing employment laws and allowing capitalists to buy up land to invest is liberalisation...

Irrespective of whether it's regulated, it's still liberalisation. The process to liberalising the economy has begun. What you're saying is, it's acceptable for the economy to liberalised so long as it's regulated?

But that's not even the point. If, as you say, the journey to communism is still on going, how does this incremental liberalisation actually help to achieve that? How is opening markets and fostering the emergence of a petite-bourgeoisie going to lead Cuban society towards communism?

You're all living in a fantasy world.

[manic expression]

The liberalization of self-employment laws; small business enterprise and foreign investment.
Self-employment is compatible with socialism.

Small businesses, in Cuban society, are not exploitative.

Foreign investment is compatible with socialism, given control is retained by the workers (as is the case in Cuba).

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, I'm sure they are all compatible with socialism. But this is a slippery slope and we know where it will lead. Or at least sane people who understand historical experience do.

The problem, of course, is that while they might be compatible with socialism, they certainly are not compatible with the establishment of communism. Liberalising the economy is not a step towards a stateless, classless society. It is a huge leap away from it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Vegan:


This is how dialectics work, not Rosa's wannabe-beliefs.

Care to nip over to Philosophy, and explain yourself?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Vegan:



Care to nip over to Philosophy, and explain yourself?

We've all explained plenty before, Rosa. We're not going to talk about this crap again. Now, let's not derail the thread & stay on topic.

[anticap]

Rosa, how do you always know when your name is mentioned?! :lol:

Are people tipping you off, or do you constantly search your name, or what?

[GreenCommunism]

from soviet-empire


What do you mean? The letter is genuine.

Also, this is from the article written by Goldberg himself:

Quote:
I asked Julia to interpret this stunning statement for me. She said, "He wasn't rejecting the ideas of the Revolution. I took it to be an acknowledgment that under 'the Cuban model' the state has much too big a role in the economic life of the country."

Julia pointed out that one effect of such a sentiment might be to create space for his brother, Raul, who is now president, to enact the necessary reforms in the face of what will surely be push-back from orthodox communists within the Party and the bureaucracy. Raul Castro is already loosening the state's hold on the economy. He recently announced, in fact, that small businesses can now operate and that foreign investors could now buy Cuban real estate. (The joke of this new announcement, of course, is that Americans are not allowed to invest in Cuba, not because of Cuban policy, but because of American policy. In other words, Cuba is beginning to adopt the sort of economic ideas that America has long-demanded it adopt, but Americans are not allowed to participate in this free-market experiment because of our government's hypocritical and stupidly self-defeating embargo policy. We'll regret this, of course, when Cubans partner with Europeans and Brazilians to buy up all the best hotels).

http://www.theatlantic.com/jeffrey-goldberg/

The media will undoubtedly misinterpret this on purpose, but rest assured, Fidel hasn't renounced socialism, not by a long chalk.goldberg isn't that bad of an imperialist if we believe his last sentence, complaining that us embargo is stupid and that europeans and brazilians will get all the best hotels.

i always believed small businesses could function pretty well, are there now even less restrictions?

[M-26-7]

Yes, I'm sure they are all compatible with socialism. But this is a slippery slope and we know where it will lead. Or at least sane people who understand historical experience do.

The problem, of course, is that while they might be compatible with socialism, they certainly are not compatible with the establishment of communism. Liberalising the economy is not a step towards a stateless, classless society. It is a huge leap away from it.

I'm pretty sure that statist socialists have given up any pretenses of paying anything more than lip service to even the eventual goal of stateless, classless communism. I'm not bashing them, I'm just saying that anyone who adheres to Leninism at this point in history is aware of what they will get out of it, and that it is not stateless anything. It may produce a relatively egalitarian social system which modern Leninists find far preferable to liberal-democratic capitalism, but it most certainly will not lead to the withering away of any states.

[manic expression]

Yes, I'm sure they are all compatible with socialism. But this is a slippery slope and we know where it will lead. Or at least sane people who understand historical experience do.

The problem, of course, is that while they might be compatible with socialism, they certainly are not compatible with the establishment of communism. Liberalising the economy is not a step towards a stateless, classless society. It is a huge leap away from it.
First, I could just as easily point to the NEP, which was far more liberalized than anything the Cuban government has considered establishing, and which eventually contributed to progress for the people of the USSR. If we're going on historical experience, then the "slippery slope" slopes both ways, which is to say that it's useless to do anything but judge the situation in Cuba on its own terms, on the basis of the conditions of our day.

Second, there are many more serious obstacles to a stateless, classless society than the specifics of self-employment legality in Cuba. Those many obstacles are not exactly within the control of the Cuban government. It's like saying a farmer with no access to water isn't interested in irrigation...the farmer's interests are secondary when central ingredients have not at all yet materialized.

[GreenCommunism]

i have news for you all, the soviet union is down, and the whole socialist world will slowly liberalize itself because it has to in order to provide a certain amount of quality of life. even north korea that everyone hate is starting to liberalize.

some like vietnam and china will liberalize too much, some will not, let's hope cuba doesn't go too far or that a charismatic capitalist leader doesn't emerge.

[The Feral Underclass]

First, I could just as easily point to the NEP, which was far more liberalized than anything the Cuban government has considered establishing, and which eventually contributed to progress for the people of the USSR. If we're going on historical experience, then the "slippery slope" slopes both ways, which is to say that it's useless to do anything but judge the situation in Cuba on its own terms, on the basis of the conditions of our day.

And Russia then became a state capitalist dictatorship and now has a fully liberalised economy. Using the NEP and Russia as an example to defend Cuba against a slippery slope to liberalisation is frankly absurd.


Second, there are many more serious obstacles to a stateless, classless society than the specifics of self-employment legality in Cuba. Those many obstacles are not exactly within the control of the Cuban government. It's like saying a farmer with no access to water isn't interested in irrigation...the farmer's interests are secondary when central ingredients have not at all yet materialized.This is just an excuse by people who continue to desperately defend the indefensible. First of all I reject your promise, secondly I don't give a fuck what the obstacles facing the Cuban government are, my focus is on what obstacles the Cuban working class have and that's the Cuban government.

Anyone who thinks that Cuba can ever create the necessary conditions to transition from what it has become to communism is a monumental idiot. The only way that the Cuban working class can begin that process is if it the Cuban working class overthrow the Cuban government, decentralise political authority to workers assemblies; re-collectivise land and industry (and properly this time), forming industrial workers plenum's (that operate to organise necessary production based on need and re-distribute wealth, including what is produced for/from trade) and continue to use trade agreements to properly industrialise.

The Cuban working class don't need a government. They don't need small businesses or relaxed employment laws. They don't need foreign investment. They need, amongst other things, to be able to organise Cuba's means of production so that output is based on what they need.

[Wanted Man]

I predict that the end of Cuban socialism is imminent, and will be bloody. Possibly tens of thousands of deaths, and maybe even a full-blown civil war. The gusanos in Miami will arrive back in Cuba with boatloads of expensive weapons and really make things bad for ordinary Cubans. Expect Havana to look like Atlantic City by Spring 2011, Summer at the latest.

(But really I'm just saying this to see what Wanted Man's reaction will be....shhh :)).

All I can say is that this is actually pretty funny.

[4 Leaf Clover]

I think you give yourself a little too much credit

I'm not trying to preach anything to anyone. That's the difference between anarchists and people like you. We don't feel the need to evangelize opinion and champion faith in what isn't there.

Actually, it's the very notion that Cuba represents Marxism that leads me to conclude its failures.

There's really nothing complex about this situation. The Marxist revolution in Cuba failed. It did so because Marxist theory is flawed.

You can try and make it as complicated as you like but it doesn't alter the reality that your ideological beliefs have been falsified and you pathetically continue to latch onto some tragic notion that somehow, somewhere at some point one of these revolutions is going to create the necessary conditions to transform into a communist society. You're delusional.

Marx and Lenin were wrong. It really has fuck all to do with anything else.

I assume nothing about Cuba, the evidence if overwhelmingly in favour of these old anarchist talking points. There's nothing complex about what's happening, despite your attempts to evade what is very clearly another example of a failed Marxist revolution.

The argument that there can be such a thing as a "workers state" or "working class rule" in the context of centralised political authority, is objectively refuted by the material conditions that the consolidation, centralisation and institutionalisation of an emerging political class, creates. What we have seen in Cuba, as with all failed Marxist revolutions, is the emergence of a class of bureaucrats who claim to be managing the workers state in the 'name' of the workers, and in some instances may even have direct democratic structures in place - to begin with. But the historical role of this new bureaucratic class turns into defending the state, which they claim to be doing "for the workers" i.e. there own political authority (which is required of them to defend the revolution), meaning actual workers democracy becomes nominal, to non-existent as the centralised political authority (i.e.the state) cannot reconcile its own existence with the existence of structures which emerge contrary to its own (i.e a transition to a decentralised, classless society) and outside of its control (Kronstadt and the Aragon/Catalonian collectives are a prime example). In an effort to try and control these structures they force them to lose their true revolutionary characteristics and they end up being recuperated by the state.

This contradiction will always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised, and directly managed horizontally, and that process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controlling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.

To reiterate: the centralisation of political authority I.e a state, requires subordination to it and to the "centre", dominated by a political elite, whether elected or not, whether good intentioned or not (because it matters little what your ideas are in the context of the material conditions you are creating), whose role is to ensure the continued hegemony of the states control i.e. centralised political authority. It's purpose is to maintain a defence of the revolution at all costs. In the process of doing that this bureaucratic minority becomes entrenched within its role, in the course of which, actual expressions of workers power are recuperated, because their divergence cannot exist simultaneously if the state is to maintain and defend itself (for example, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow workers collectives organising areas of land and industry independently of that centralised political authority, or maintaining military militias separate to a centralised army). So, you cannot have the emergence of workers councils in factories and the creation of workers militias that express their own political power if centralised political authority exists, meaning that the two will naturally come into conflict with each other and eventually these separate expressions of workers power [to the state] are either recuperated into the state or smashed...Or we have a second revolution, when we can do what we should have done to begin with.

Cuba is just yet another example of a decaying Socialist state that neither has the will or then ability to transform into anything other than to re-emerge a new liberalised version of itself. And low and behold, that's precisely what is happening.

decaying socialist state ? how about isolated and embargoed ? what are we supposed to do , destroy capitalism and have communism over night ? tomorrow morning , there is already a new day and new world , and untill we organize , people can starve to death.

matter before idea please

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

The reason why peeps here are getting so bent out of shape about this is because it's the first occasion on which Fidel himself has explicitly endorsed Raul's domestic policies, which most people here naturally disapprove of because they're pretty blatantly neo-liberal in character. I understand that. Now when this reporter gets word that Fidel isn't by this statement "rejecting the ideas of the revolution", we have to remember what the ideas we're talking about were in the first place. Shortly after his forces took power in early 1959, Fidel announced that "Our revolution is neither capitalist nor communist". That was partially correct. It wasn't communist. It was instead a nationalist revolt demanding a better deal on Cuba's sugar exports. It was only after America responded to these demands for a better deal by shutting down trade with Cuba that Fidel sought out a sizable trade relationship with the Soviet Union. He of course took the according political steps, abandoning his previous plan to re-implement the old national constitution and bringing the Communist Party to power, naturally with him, never previously a member, at the very top thereof. The key thing to remember here is that the underlying "ideas of the revolution" never genuinely changed. Instead, Cuba was now simply pressing these demands for a better deal on its exports (especially sugar) upon the Soviet Union rather than upon the United States, its previous patron state on which it could no longer rely for obvious reasons. The "Cuban model" that Fidel described in the interview was simply an outgrowth of Cuba's dependence on Soviet social-imperialism from the start. It was literally crafted by Soviet bosses during the early 1970s as the USSR's political means of capitalizing on Cuba's bankruptcy (the result of the latter's relationship to the former); they reshaped Cuba's politics and economic life, both domestic and foreign, in their own image. They parasitically drove Cuba bankrupt, then demanded on that basis that it be restructured to better fit the objectives of the Soviet Union. All pretense of establishing economic independence was jettisoned and a policy of indefinite reliance on the sugar export and specifically upon the Soviet Union was announced.

So after the USSR's collapse, naturally this regime of doing things had little place. It had to be at least partially abandoned. From that time, Cuba has been seeking new trade patrons. The U.S. has naturally been one of these they've aimed at rapprochement with, but to no avail thus far. Venezuela and China in particular have offered a "hand" and Cuba's politics, both domestic and foreign, are now taking the corresponding shape in earnest. So no, "the ideas of the revolution"...the proposal of getting a better deal on domestic commodities and staples in particular...have not changed. What is changing is the particular shape that takes. There is now a decreasing pretense of socialism in Cuba naturally, as the country's policies seek to achieve this elusive better deal through more neo-liberal measures that will allow in the capitalists of these new patron states.

Point: Cuba's 1959 revolution was always about nationalist, reformist objectives from the very beginning. Opportunistically claiming the mantle of Marxism toward the end of achieving those nationalist, reformist objectives does not make one authentically a Marxist. The mistake of many RevLefters has been to confuse state capitalism with genuine socialism. What's agonizingly on display here is that state capitalism and neo-liberal capitalism are two sides of the same coin. A genuinely socialist Cuba would need to rupture with commodity relations in general as one expression thereof.

[The Vegan Marxist]

i have news for you all, the soviet union is down, and the whole socialist world will slowly liberalize itself because it has to in order to provide a certain amount of quality of life. even north korea that everyone hate is starting to liberalize.

some like vietnam and china will liberalize too much, some will not, let's hope cuba doesn't go too far or that a charismatic capitalist leader doesn't emerge.

Vietnam hasn't liberalized too much, & China was in a drastic need of modernization after Mao had died, due to how underdeveloped it was at the time. Of course we notice revisionism present in China & a capitalist rise within the SEZs. So, maybe a sign of liberalization in China, but I wouldn't go further from there for the time being. The DPRK is a case where they are going to have to cut down drastically to save itself, so we can maybe agree on that. But what we're seeing in Cuba, given at how well they were doing before the economic crisis, I don't think liberalization is a need for them. Some foreign investment & some privately run industries should do it, which I wouldn't consider to be "liberalizing".

[The Feral Underclass]

decaying socialist state ?

In the context of transitioning to communism, yes.


how about isolated and embargoed ?That's beside the point. It's still a decaying socialist state.


what are we supposed to do , destroy capitalism and have communism over night ?No, but what the Cuban working class need to do is overthrow the socialist state.


tomorrow morning , there is already a new day and new world , and untill we organize , people can starve to death.These platitudes are all well and good, but we have to be clear what we want to "organise" for? It seems to me that continuing down this road of bureaucratic state socialism, which is now opening up its economy to liberalisation, is more favourable than the Cuban working class taking direct control. That's not the kind of communism that will bring about the emancipation of working class Cubans. It is the kind of communism that has failed over the last 90 years to make any kind of credible advancement towards a workers society. Yes, it's achieved concessions; it has liberated nations from dictators and imperialists, but it has consistently failed to meet the necessary conditions to transition towards a communist society.

Feel free to defend the incremental concessions that have been made, but the situations facing the working classes in the various failed communist nations profoundly out does any positive advancements made by leaders who have become nothing more than political oligarchies. You can't continue to support these deformed socialist states forever. At some point you are all going to have to start asking the question: What about communism?


matter before idea pleaseBut this is precisely what this issue is about. Had you understood the post you are quoting, you would see that this is specifically about the material conditions created by the consolidation of political and economic authority by a bureaucracy. I'm not talking in abstracts

But in any case, I reject your premise. The establishment of a transitional period in which political and economic authority is mandated directly to the Cuban working class does not negate the ability to create "matter" (by which I assume you mean the means to sustain life). The Cuban working class are perfectly capable to understand their own needs and organise the industries they work in to provide those needs for themselves.

Hiding behind a Marx quote to defend the continued existence of a state, which has made only cosmetic concessions to the real issues facing Cuba's working class, concessions that any western capitalist country has managed to achieve, is both dishonest and cowardly

[Thirsty Crow]

Small businesses, in Cuban society, are not exploitative.

How so?
Are they owned individually?
Do workers receive a wage, i.e. are they or are they not in charge of the full value of their labour (in other words, do this small business owners appropriate surplus value and direct it into a new cycle of accumulation?)?

Answer these basic questions first, and provide clear and solid evidence, and we can debate the issue.
However, I don't see any basis for a debate if no one can provide evidence.

[4 Leaf Clover]

In the context of transitioning to communism, yes.

That's beside the point. It's still a decaying socialist state.

No, but what the Cuban working class need to do is overthrow the socialist state.

These platitudes are all well and good, but we have to be clear what we want to "organise" for? It seems to me that continuing down this road of bureaucratic state socialism, which is now opening up its economy to liberalisation, is more favourable than the Cuban working class taking direct control. That's not the kind of communism that will bring about the emancipation of working class in Cubans. It is the kind of communism that has failed over the last 90 years to make any kind of credible advancement towards a workers society. Yes, it's achieved concessions; it has liberated nations from dictators and imperialists, but it has consistently failed to meet the necessary conditions to transition towards a communist society.

Feel free to defend the incremental concessions that have been made, but the situations facing the working classes in the various failed communist nations profoundly out does any positive advancements that have been made by leaders who have become nothing more than political oligarchies. You can't continue to support these deformed socialist states forever. At some point you are all going to have to start asking the question: What about communism?

But this is precisely what this issue is about. Had you understood the post you are quoting, you would see that this is specifically about the material conditions created by the consolidation of political and economic authority by a bureaucracy. I'm not talking in abstracts

But in any case, I reject your premise. The establishment of a transitional period in which political and economic authority is mandated directly to the Cuban working class does not negate the ability to create "matter" (by which I assume you mean the means to sustain life). The Cuban working class are perfectly capable to understand their own needs and organise the industries they work in to provide those needs for themselves.

Hiding behind a Marx quote to defend the continued existence of a state, which has made only cosmetic concessions to the real issues facing Cuba's working class, concessions that any western capitalist country has managed to achieve, is both dishonest and cowardly
You are missing one point. There can be no progression and transition to communism while 90% percent of the world is locked up in 19 century economical politics. Cuba is just one of very few socialist states , and was one of two with nationalised economy. It is locked up , and forced to survive. Maybe Raul has his own non-marxist goals now , but thats not topic anymore. There is no communism without internationalism. There can be no lead , and no smart-assing untill justice is served in every part of the world , untill opressed get their revenge on their opressors. USA is much more guilty for poverty of Cubans then its own government. Communism is system that is supposed to work globaly. It cannot work on one Island with limited resources. We have a choice now to support opressed sides. Dont be so naive and blind to think that it was CPC opressing Cubans so far

[The Feral Underclass]

You are missing one point. There can be no progression and transition to communism while 90% percent of the world is locked up in 19 century economical politics. Cuba is just one of very few socialist states , and was one of two with nationalised economy. It is locked up , and forced to survive. Maybe Raul has his own non-marxist goals now , but thats not topic anymore. There is no communism without internationalism. There can be no lead , and no smart-assing untill justice is served in every part of the world , untill opressed get their revenge on their opressors. USA is much more guilty for poverty of Cubans then its own government. Communism is system that is supposed to work globaly. It cannot work on one Island with limited resources. We have a choice now to support opressed sides. Dont be so naive and blind to think that it was CPC opressing Cubans so far

None of this is relevant to my point. I am talking about creating the necessary conditions for transition in Cuba. I'm not talking about what is necessary for Cuba to survive as a communist nation.

[4 Leaf Clover]

None of this is relevant to my point. I am talking about creating the necessary conditions for transition in Cuba. I'm not talking about what is necessary for Cuba to survive as a communist nation.
We cant reform capitalism. But we can reform bad socialism. You were calling for overthrow of a Socialist state surrounded by capitalist enemies. Thats reactionary. Cuban problems at the moment , or so far , were only economical , or simply said , poverty. So you have problem with Cuba being poor. As Charles Xavier said , "some socialists you are". Again we talk about some ideals and conditions , and you don't take into consideration basic information about Cuba , such as its population , geographical position , resources , current social model etc.

[The Feral Underclass]

We cant reform capitalism. But we can reform bad socialism.

But why would we do that?


You were calling for overthrow of a Socialist state surrounded by capitalist enemies. Thats reactionary.Spoken like a true authoritarian.

We can all throw names around. I could quite easily make an argument that you are a reactionary for defending a socialist state that is opening up its economy to liberalisation. But I won't, because it's pointless. Frankly, I don't give a fuck what you think it is.

I am calling for the Cuban working class to take control of the political and economic processes of Cuba. Why? Because this is the only way that the conditions necessary for a transition to communism can be met.

I am confident in the belief that the Cuban working class have the abilities and the dedication to politically, economically and militarily organise themselves in such a way that provides the blue-print to a successful transition to communism. If you think that's reactionary, then so be it


Cuban problems at the moment , or so far , were only economical , or simply said , poverty. So you have problem with Cuba being poor. As Charles Xavier said , "some socialists you are".I have no idea what you're trying to say.


Again we talk about some ideals and conditions , and you don't take into consideration basic information about Cuba , such as its population , geographical position , resources , current social model etc.The population, geographical position, resources and "social model" of Cuba have nothing to do with the fact that the Cuban working class need to establish themselves in control of the political system and means of production - directly - if they are to eventually liberate themselves.

If you are going to make the argument that the Cuban working class, or any working class for that matter, are unable to effectively organise themselves to meet production for their needs, demonstrate direct democratic control over political system and defend themselves from counter-revolution, all without the centralised control of a state, then we are never going to achieve communism at any time, anywhere.

Socialism can't/won't create communism. Period.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Vegan:


We've all explained plenty before, Rosa. We're not going to talk about this crap again. Now, let's not derail the thread & stay on topic.

1. You were the one who raised this here, not me!

2. You haven't 'explained' anything before, so let's see your reasons -- or are you content to allow others to think for you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Anticap:


Rosa, how do you always know when your name is mentioned?!

Are people tipping you off, or do you constantly search your name, or what

It was a pure accident. I just happened to read this thread. :)

[The Feral Underclass]

I've merged this with the "Castro abandoning Marxism-Leninism" thread, because they're about the same thing.

[manic expression]

And Russia then became a state capitalist dictatorship and now has a fully liberalised economy. Using the NEP and Russia as an example to defend Cuba against a slippery slope to liberalisation is frankly absurd.
So wait, if full-on centralization of the economy is "state capitalism" to you, and a fully liberalized economy is capitalism...why do you even care? You're going to oppose Cuba one way or the other. Your opinion lacks validity on account of this alone. But the important fact is that the NEP didn't lead to capitalism...that would come more than half a century later, blaming the NEP for that is absolutely insane and historically clueless. Further, the NEP is hardly absurd if it led to undeniable progress for the workers of the Soviet Union.


Anyone who thinks that Cuba can ever create the necessary conditions to transition from what it has become to communism is a monumental idiot.Well, taking this at face value, you're a monumental idiot (I'd say that's harsh, but those are your words, not mine). You're expecting Cuba to create something it cannot. They aren't moving to a classless society! As if it's Cuba's fault they're one of the few working-class states left on the planet.


The Cuban working class don't need a government. They don't need small businesses or relaxed employment laws. They don't need foreign investment. They need, amongst other things, to be able to organise Cuba's means of production so that output is based on what they need.That's exactly what they do now. Human necessity is the first priority of Cuban production, and that's socialism in a nutshell.

But they do need a government...THEIR GOVERNMENT. That's what Cuba has today: a working-class government that fights for the cause of the proletariat. That you so consistently disagree with the Cuban workers is more a commentary on your underlying assumptions than anything else.

[4 Leaf Clover]

But why would we do that?

Spoken like a true authoritarian.

We can all throw names around. I could quite easily make an argument that you are a reactionary for defending a socialist state that is opening up its economy to liberalisation. But I won't, because it's pointless. Frankly, I don't give a fuck what you think it is.

I am calling for the Cuban working class to take control of the political and economic processes of Cuba. Why? Because this is the only way that the conditions necessary for a transition to communism can be met.

I am confident in the belief that the Cuban working class have the abilities and the dedication to politically, economically and militarily organise themselves in such a way that provides the blue-print to a successful transition to communism. If you think that's reactionary, then so be it

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

The population, geographical position, resources and "social model" of Cuba have nothing to do with the fact that the Cuban working class need to establish themselves in control of the political system and means of production - directly - if they are to eventually liberate themselves.

If you are going to make the argument that the Cuban working class, or any working class for that matter, are unable to effectively organise themselves to meet production for their needs, demonstrate direct democratic control over political system and defend themselves from counter-revolution, all without the centralised control of a state, then we are never going to achieve communism at any time, anywhere.

Socialism can't/won't create communism. Period.

Cuba cannot create communism at the point because it has no alliances with other communists in the world , and because 90% of states in the world are capitalists. As a person who opposes socialism in one state theory , i guess you also wouldn't accept communism in one state , which is impossible anyhow. They are very limited to improving to such a fair economic model , that communism is , when they are forced to export and import some products to survive as a state of social justice.

When the time comes , i will be the first one to advocate progress to communism , but one state on its own cannot do it. Socialism can and did work , but we have now experience to prevent future revisionist trends and clear our rows before going on into such a struggle that is supposed to make big ideological and socio-pollitical changes on planet.

[The Feral Underclass]

Cuba cannot create communism at the point because it has no alliances with other communists in the world and because 90% of states in the world are capitalists. As a person who opposes socialism in one state theory , i guess you also wouldn't accept communism in one state , which is impossible anyhow.

But I'm not talking about Cuba implementing communism right now. I'm not talking about Cuba becoming a communist country. I'm not even suggesting that's possible.


When the time comes , i will be the first one to advocate progress to communism , but one state on its own cannot do it.

But that's neither here nor there. The point I'm making is that when the time comes Cuba won't be able to progress to communism.


Socialism can and did work

It has worked in creating its own political and economic model. That's it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So wait, if full-on centralization of the economy is "state capitalism" to you, and a fully liberalized economy is capitalism...why do you even care?I care for the same reason I care when people call Sweeden or Obama "socialist".

I care that part of the legacy of Stalinism is that people don't even fucking know the difference between nationalization and socialism and that socialism is no longer synonymous with working class movements, but is now linked to attempts by governments to run production and trade.


Well, taking this at face value, you're a monumental idiot (I'd say that's harsh, but those are your words, not mine). You're expecting Cuba to create something it cannot. They aren't moving to a classless society! As if it's Cuba's fault they're one of the few working-class states left on the planet.Don't forget North Korea:rolleyes:


That's exactly what they do now. Human necessity is the first priority of Cuban production, and that's socialism in a nutshell.I also read something by Marx once that socialism had something to do with the working class. Human necessity is a vague and a-materialist term that could justify the production of almost anything... in California, the government spends tax money on Prisons and Police - not for profit - but for, in their excuses, necessity and the safety of the public. So this is why democratic control by workers is the determining factor, not social spending or production (not for immediate profit).


But they do need a government...THEIR GOVERNMENT. That's what Cuba has today: a working-class government that fights for the cause of the proletariat. That you so consistently disagree with the Cuban workers is more a commentary on your underlying assumptions than anything else.Support for a particular government does not make it socialist. Are you or I against the working class since we disagree with the majority of US, French, Russia, Italian, Brazilian workers that there should be a revolution in these countries?

Cuba should be supported as far as it has kept out US imperialism until now and in that it was a national liberation struggle, but not as socialism. Castro didn't say that the Revolution was socialist until 2 years after the revolution and he did so as a practical and tactical decision in the context of cold war politics.

I hope that as developments unfold in Cuba, the left takes a look at support of these so-called socialist countries and reassesses this view. My fear is that without a new revolutionary upsurge for the left to point to, many of the groups who call Cuba and North Korea "worker states" will continue to desperately cling to them as "better than nothing".

[The Feral Underclass]

So wait, if full-on centralization of the economy is "state capitalism" to you, and a fully liberalized economy is capitalism...why do you even care? You're going to oppose Cuba one way or the other.

I care because fellow workers around the world remain oppressed and exploited.


Your opinion lacks validity on account of this alone.My opinion lacks validity because I oppose state capitalism and liberal capitalism? :confused:


But the important fact is that the NEP didn't lead to capitalism...Well, it didn't lead to workers empowerment, did it?


Further, the NEP is hardly absurd if it led to undeniable progress for the workers of the Soviet Union.That depends what you consider progress.


Well, taking this at face value, you're a monumental idiot (I'd say that's harsh, but those are your words, not mine). You're expecting Cuba to create something it cannot.Yes. I am expecting Cuba to create the necessary conditions for a transition to communism.


They aren't moving to a classless society!And they never will so long as the present state of things remain.


As if it's Cuba's fault they're one of the few working-class states left on the planet.The fact that Cuba is an isolated socialist country is not the issue here. There seems to be confusion with you and the rest of your ilk

I am not, nor have I been over the last god knows how many posts, been saying that Cuba should or is even able to transition into communism right now. I am saying that if Cuba wishes to transition into communism, then it needs to create the necessary conditions for that to happen.


That's exactly what they do now. Human necessity is the first priority of Cuban production, and that's socialism in a nutshell.Cuba imports 80% of the food it rations.


But they do need a government...THEIR GOVERNMENT. That's what Cuba has today: a working-class government that fights for the cause of the proletariat.Your definition of a workers government is woefully inadequate. The working class in Cuba don't have any power. They don't have control over the political and economic system there, despite the platitudes and rhetoric.

They have elections every five years in which communities can field their candidates, but ultimately the decision is down to the central Communist Party national candidature commission. For each seat there is only one candidate anyway, who then fill a national assembly that only meets every two years in order to ratify decisions made by the executive branch. And who elects the executive branch? That's right, the national assembly (the people the communist party put there). Of course the President and Prime-Minister aren't elected, they're self-appointed positions.

And tell me this. Are there any workers in the executive branch? Is it made up of labourers, technicians, farmers, doctors? Of course it isn't, because a centralised political system can't allow for all these voices. That's why this small group of men make decisions on their own and then get some kangaroo legislature - filled with Communist Party hacks - to agree to everything they do.

That's not a working class government. Not by any stretch of the imagination! The USA's constitutional federal republic is more democratic!


That you so consistently disagree with the Cuban workers is more a commentary on your underlying assumptions than anything else.When the Cuban working class have direct control over the political and economic systems in Cuba and can direct them through workers assemblies and industrial plenum's for themselves, then I will support it. Until then, it's not only my assumptions that are in trouble, it's the assumptions of the working class that they need to adhere to this mickey-mouse bullshit called socialism.

[Thirsty Crow]

I care that part of the legacy of Stalinism is that people don't even fucking know the difference between nationalization and socialism and that socialism is no longer synonymous with working class movements, but is now linked to attempts by governments to run production and trade.


Commodity production and profit-motive oriented trade of the same commodities. Do these phenomena concur with the socialist project? Hell no.
But do these facts have something to do with a possible accusation of this specific government of being deliberately pro-capitalist? Hell no.
So what's the conclusion?
It is that capitalism is global. Nothing short of a global revolution (which does not, most definitively, presuppose simultaneous revolution) can undo this socio-economic formation. So, it really is a matter of the principle "better than nothing", as you claim, when it comes to manic defence of "workers' states". However, if allegations of socialism are to be understood literally, the communist movement (if such a thing exists) would be crippled in relation to its theory since stating that Cuba has achieved socialism necessitates a degenerate definition/understanding of capitalism.

[manic expression]

I care because fellow workers around the world remain oppressed and exploited.
But not in Cuba.


My opinion lacks validity because I oppose state capitalism and liberal capitalism? :confused:It lacks validity because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You oppose the NEP and you oppose the centrally-planned economy of the Soviet Union. Your opinion is anti-Soviet no matter what the economic setup.


Well, it didn't lead to workers empowerment, did it?Not exactly, because working-class empowerment had already been accomplished through the October Revolution. It was upon that empowerment that the centrally-planned progress was made.


That depends what you consider progress.Workers creating a better world for themselves.


Yes. I am expecting Cuba to create the necessary conditions for a transition to communism.:lol: Then you're hopelessly deluded, and you have no conception of the necessary conditions.


And they never will so long as the present state of things remain.Then perhaps you should learn how to push forward the cause of the workers in non-liberated countries.


The fact that Cuba is an isolated socialist country is not the issue here.Then what is the "issue here"...that Fidel didn't click his heels together three times and make the world classless?


I am not, nor have I been over the last god knows how many posts, been saying that Cuba should or is even able to transition into communism right now. I am saying that if Cuba wishes to transition into communism, then it needs to create the necessary conditions for that to happen.And those necessary conditions are impossible without the empowerment of the proletariat in other countries. In fact, that is the necessary condition.


Cuba imports 80% of the food it rations.Oh, curses upon Cuba for not being an agricultural powerhouse.


Your definition of a workers government is woefully inadequate. The working class in Cuba don't have any power. They don't have control over the political and economic system there, despite the platitudes and rhetoric.Of course they do. The workers have all the power:

http://www.cubasolidarity.com/aboutcuba/topics/government/0504elecsys.htm
http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html


They have elections every five years in which communities can field their candidates, but ultimately the decision is down to the central Communist Party national candidature commission. For each seat there is only one candidate anyway, who then fill a national assembly that only meets every two years in order to ratify decisions made by the executive branch. And who elects the executive branch? That's right, the national assembly (the people the communist party put there). Of course the President and Prime-Minister aren't elected, they're self-appointed positions.You need to do some reading (like the links I posted above), because you're way off. The PCC has no role in the nomination process, the commission you mention is there in case the nomination process (which consists simply of community members getting together and voting for who they think represents them best...something that could feasibly be disrupted) is disrupted in some way.

If the candidature commission is so ominous and repressive, then find me one example of a legitimate candidate being blocked from standing by that body. Go ahead, I'd be more than interested to see this "dictatorial menace" in action.

Aside from that, the National Assembly, those who have been selected by their fellow community members from the first word of the nomination process, elect the executive. Which means the workers control the executive, and elect revolutionaries who represent them.

By the way, you forgot to mention that to join the PCC, you have to be nominated by your fellow community members. So, really, the workers of Cuba control even candidates for the PCC.


That's not a working class government. Not by any stretch of the imagination! The USA's constitutional federal republic is more democratic!The facts, though, disagree quite insistently.


When the Cuban working class have direct control over the political and economic systems in Cuba and can direct them through workers assemblies and industrial plenum's for themselves, then I will support it. Until then, it's not only my assumptions that are in trouble, it's the assumptions of the working class that they need to adhere to this mickey-mouse bullshit called socialism.What's unavoidable is that everything you require is already there. The Cuban workers have direct control over the political and economic systems in Cuba, and do direct them through workers assemblies for themselves. But you won't support it, because it seems you appreciate the innocence of impotence more than getting behind the cause of the workers and of progress.

Until you resolve to support working-class state power as it exists and functions, you will continue to regard socialism as "mickey-mouse bullshit". But at least you're honest in being anti-socialist.

[We Shall Rise Again]

It should come as no suprise that Castro was misquoted in the Yankee media.:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11265911



Castro 'misinterpreted' on Cuba economic model quote

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49024000/jpg/_49024036_010100705-1.jpg Castro invited Jeffrey Goldberg to Cuba for the interview
Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro has said that his recent comment about Cuba's economic model was misinterpreted by a US reporter.
Mr Castro was quoted earlier this week by journalist Jeffrey Goldberg as saying that "the Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore".
But speaking at the University of Havana, Mr Castro, 84, said he meant "exactly the opposite".
Mr Castro led Cuba for almost 50 years after the 1959 communist revolution.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10905596)
He fell ill in 2006 and handed power to his brother Raul in 2008.
Since then, his public appearances have been rare, but in recent months he has made a series of public speeches and televised appearances.
Reducing state control
Mr Castro was speaking at the presentation of his autobiography at the University of Havana on Friday.
On Wednesday, Mr Goldberg, a journalist with The Atlantic magazine (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel-cuban-model-doesnt-even-work-for-us-anymore/62602/) based in Washington, DC, wrote that he had asked Mr Castro during a recent interview if Cuba's model was still worth exporting to other countries.
The journalist, whom Mr Castro had personally invited to Cuba, wrote that Mr Castro answered: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."
The alleged comment came as the current Cuban leader, Fidel's younger brother, Raul Castro, is reducing the state's control of the economy and allowing private ownership on the communist island.
Last month, Raul Castro announced to the National Assembly that small businesses would now be permitted and small business owners would have the right to employ and pay employees.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Thanks for this WSRA. I hope people start taking these things more dialectically next time.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Time to give my own help in clarifying this as WSRA did. Please know this was interpreted through a spanish article, so I hope it's definitely good enough to read:

Message in a presentation "strategic counteroffensive"
September 10, 2010

We are in a rare moment of human history.

In these days to meet deadlines given by the Security Council United Nations for Iran to comply with the requirements dictated by the United States, related nuclear research and enrichment for medical and electrical energy production.

That's all you can try.

The fear of seeking nuclear weapons production, is only a guess.

Around the delicate problem, the U.S. and its Western allies, including two of the five nuclear powers with veto power, France and the United Kingdom, supported by the capitalist powers richest and most developed of the world, have encouraged a growing number sanctions against Iran, an oil-rich country and Muslims. Today the measures adopted include the inspection of their trade, and harsh economic sanctions that lead to strangulation of the economy.

I have closely followed the serious dangers of this situation, since the occurrence of an outbreak of war at that point, the war quickly would become nuclear, lethal consequences for the rest of the planet.

He did not seek publicity or sensationalism to bring these dangers. Simply to alert world opinion in the hope that, as warned of grave danger, helping to prevent it.

At least he has succeeded in drawing attention to a problem that was not even mentioned in the mass media world opinion.

This forces me to use a portion of time devoted to the launch of this book, whose publication we are working hard. I did not want to coincide with days 7 and 9. In the first 90 days are met mandated by the Security Council, to know if Iran met or not, with the requirement to allow inspection of its merchants. The other day, says the implementation of the three-month period specified in the resolution of June 9, possibly this period was the intention of the Council.

So far, we only have the unusual statement by the Director General of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), Japan's Yukiya Amano, a man of the Yankees. This threw all the wood on the fire and, like Pontius Pilate, washed his hands.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran said his statement with deserved contempt. A news release from the agency EFE, said that his statement that "'Our friends should not worry because we do not believe that our region is in a position for new military adventures", and "Iran is fully prepared to respond to any invasion military 'was an obvious reference to Cuban leader Fidel Castro, "who warned of the possibility of an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran with U.S. support'."

The news on the topic follows another, and mingle with others of remarkable impact.

The journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine, already known for our public, public part of the long interview held with me, some interesting point of which has been programmed before and extensive future article.

"There were many strange things during my recent stay in Havana," he tells [...] "but one of the most unusual was the level of self-examination of Fidel Castro. [...] But the fact that Castro was willing to admit that he had made a mistake at a crucial time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Cuba [...] seemed really surprising that he regretted having asked Khrushchev launch nuclear missiles against the United States. "True, I addressed the issue and I asked the question. Literally, as he puts it in the first part of his story, his words were: "I asked: At one point it seemed logical that you would recommend to the Soviets to bomb the United States. Did you even recommended it seems logical at this point? Fidel said: Having seen what I seen, and not worth it at all. "

I had explained well, and to writing, the content of the message "... if the United States invaded Cuba, a country with Russian nuclear weapons in such circumstances was not left to strike first, as that inflicted on the USSR when the June 22, 1941, the German army and all European forces attacked the USSR. "

It may be noted that in this brief allusion to the subject, the second part of the distribution to the public on that story, the reader may realize that "if the U.S. invaded Cuba, Russian nuclear weapons state" in this case I recommended prevent the enemy first strike, nor the profound irony of my reply "... Had I known what I know now ..." in obvious reference to the treason committed by a President of Russia, saturated alcohol substance, delivered United States military's most important secrets of that country.

At another point in the conversation Goldberg says: "I asked him if he believed the Cuban model was something that was worth even export." Clearly, this question was implicit theory that Cuba was exporting the revolution. I reply "The Cuban model no longer works even for us." He expressed no bitterness or concern. I have fun now to see how he interpreted to the letter, and consulted, so says Julia Sweig, an analyst at the CFR who accompanied him, and developed the theory presented. But the real answer is that I meant exactly the opposite of what the two American journalists interpreted on the Cuban model.

My idea, as everyone knows, is that the capitalist system no longer works or to America or the world, leading from crisis to crisis, are increasingly serious, comprehensive and repeated, which can not escape. How such a system could serve for a socialist country such as Cuba.

Many Arab friends, to hear that I met with Goldberg, worried and sent a message pointing to him as "the greatest supporter of Zionism."

From all this we can deduce the great confusion that exists in the world. I hope therefore that what I tell my thinking is useful.

The ideas expressed by me are contained in 333 Reflections, to see that happen, and of these, the last 26 are referred exclusively to environmental problems and the imminent danger of a nuclear conflagration.

Now I add in a very brief summary.

I have always condemned the Holocaust. Reflections on "Obama's speech in Cairo," "The blow on the prowl", and "expert opinion", I stated clearly.

I've never been an enemy of the Jewish people, which I admire his ability to stand for two thousand years of dispersion and persecution. Many of the brightest talents, Karl Marx and Albert Einstein were Jewish, because it is a nation that survived the most intelligent, under a natural law. In our country, and the world, were persecuted and slandered. But this is only a fragment of the ideas I advocate.

They were not the only persecuted and slandered for their beliefs. Muslims, for well over 12 centuries, they were attacked and persecuted by European Christians, because of their beliefs, as were the early Christians in ancient Rome before becoming the official religion of the empire. The story must be accepted and remembered as it is, with its tragic realities and fierce wars. That I have spoken and, therefore, rightly explained that today runs the danger of humanity when these have become the greatest risk of suicide for our fragile species.

If we add a war with Iran, albeit in a contractual, that America would be better to turn off the light and fired. How could withstand a war with 1500 million Muslims?

Defender peace does not mean, for a true revolutionary, abandoning the principles of justice, without which human life and society would be meaningless.

I still think that Goldberg is a great journalist, capable of exposing amenity and expertise with their views, which require debate. No invents phrases, transferred and interpreted.

Do not mention the content of other many aspects of our conversations. Respect the confidentiality of the issues we address, while I look forward to his extensive paper.

Current news coming on stream from all sides, forcing me to fill your presentation with these words, whose seeds are contained in the book of "strategic counteroffensive" I have just presented.

I believe that all peoples have the right to peace and enjoyment of property and natural resources of the planet. It's a shame what is happening with the population in many African countries, where they are millions of children, women and men among its inhabitants skeletal because of lack of food, water and medicine. Graphics are amazing news coming from the Middle East, where Palestinians are deprived of their lands, their houses are demolished by monstrous equipment and men, women, children, bombarded with white phosphorous and other means of destruction and nightmarish scenes of families wiped out by bombs dropped on Afghan and Pakistani villages for unmanned aircraft, and the Iraqis, who die after years of war, and more than one million lives sacrificed in this war imposed by a U.S. president.

The last thing you would expect was the news of the expulsion of the French gypsies, victims of the cruelty of the French extreme right, which now stands at seven thousand of them, the victims of another kind of racial holocaust. It is elementary the outcry of the French, which, simultaneously, the millionaires limit the right to retirement, while reducing employment opportunities.

U.S. news comes from a pastor in the state of Florida, which aims to burn in his own church, the Holy Book of Quran. Even the Yankee military chiefs and European missions were shaken punitive war against a notice that they considered risky for soldiers.

Walter Martinez, the renowned journalist Dossier program of Venezolana de Televisión, was amazed at such madness.

Yesterday, Thursday, 9 in the evening, news came that the pastor had given up. Would need to know what they told the FBI agents who visited him "to persuade him." It was a huge media show, chaos, some things about a sinking empire.

I thank you all for your attention.

http://www.cubadebate.cu/fidel-castro-ruz/2010/09/10/mensaje-en-la-presentacion-de-la-contraofensiva-estrategica/

[We Shall Rise Again]

Seems critics of the revolution have gone silent.

I hope they wont be so quick to jump to conclusions next time.

[The Feral Underclass]

But not in Cuba.

In Cuba, just as with anywhere else.


It lacks validity because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You oppose the NEP and you oppose the centrally-planned economy of the Soviet Union. Your opinion is anti-Soviet no matter what the economic setup.

Yes. Obviously. But the validity of an opinion is not based on whether or not you support the Soviet Union.


Not exactly, because working-class empowerment had already been accomplished through the October Revolution. It was upon that empowerment that the centrally-planned progress was made.

Your interpretation of history is not surprising. There really is very little more I am willing to say on that subject. I could bring up information that shows just how little the working class were empowered by the Bolsheviks. Kronstadt, the Ukraine being a prime examples. But of course you will attempt to rebut those facts with the same arguments Leninists always do.

I'm not going to get bogged down in this argument again.


Workers creating a better world for themselves.

We're in agreement, but that doesn't exist anywhere in the world.


Then you're hopelessly deluded, and you have no conception of the necessary conditions.

How does this relate to my statement? So you don't agree that Cuba will create the necessary conditions to create communism...?


Then perhaps you should learn how to push forward the cause of the workers in non-liberated countries.

:lol:


Then what is the "issue here"...that Fidel didn't click his heels together three times and make the world classless?

If you continue to believe your in a position to patronise me like this, then I'm just going to stop talking to you. I'm not going to respond to petty facetiousness.

As I've consistently explained throughout this entire thread and countless others you've been involved in, the issue is that the centralisation of political and economic authority creates antithetical material conditions to those necessary to begin a transition to communism.

Once the socialist state has consolidated its control, it functions to defend it's own existence, thus entrenching itself into society. Once this has happened, and after decades of belligerence, wither from internal or external forces, the state simply cannot wither away. It can't just cease to function, because to cease to function, it would mean losing a grip on the power it's entrenched itself to protect.


And those necessary conditions are impossible without the empowerment of the proletariat in other countries. In fact, that is the necessary condition.

To believe that when the world or region Cuba is in has followed the same route, the state will just magically disappear is as fantastical as believing you can click your heals together.

But you're conflating these issues. International political similarities and the internal conditions of a nation or region are not the same thing. Similar conditions existing in other countries are what will make the transition happen, but each nation or region must achieve certain internal conditions to be bale to allow that transition to happen in the first place.

I am not arguing against a transitional period. Unlike what most of you Leninists think, we anarchists don't actually have the view that clicking your heals together gets you what you want. We do, however, recognise that if the internal organisation of a nation is not correctly managed, then it is irrelevant whether the world has changed.


Oh, curses upon Cuba for not being an agricultural powerhouse.

Aside from your petulance, you said: "Human necessity is the first priority of Cuban production"

But Cuba only produces 20% of what it needs, so how is your statement correct? Cuba imports 80% of "human necessity" because of agricultural mismanagement.

If only the workers were allowed to be in charge.


Of course they do. The workers have all the power:

http://www.cubasolidarity.com/aboutcuba/topics/government/0504elecsys.htm
http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html

Yes, this is the way bureaucracy happens. Representative democracy is not direct workers democracy, no matter how much you paint it.


You need to do some reading (like the links I posted above), because you're way off. The PCC has no role in the nomination process, the commission you mention is there in case the nomination process (which consists simply of community members getting together and voting for who they think represents them best...something that could feasibly be disrupted) is disrupted in some way.

Have you been to Cuba, out of interest?

This election process is convoluted, bureaucratic, leaves no opportunity to dissent except to have to wait to vote someone out, it's open to corruption and there's no direct participation in the decision making process.

Just like in the UK.


If the candidature commission is so ominous and repressive, then find me one example of a legitimate candidate being blocked from standing by that body. Go ahead, I'd be more than interested to see this "dictatorial menace" in action.

There's no way I can do that, I have no access to the internal workings of the Cuban political system...


Aside from that, the National Assembly, those who have been selected by their fellow community members from the first word of the nomination process, elect the executive. Which means the workers control the executive, and elect revolutionaries who represent them.

Not really. None of the workers have direct responsibility over any decision, they have to rely on representation. That's not real democracy. We have this now in bourgeois nations.


By the way, you forgot to mention that to join the PCC, you have to be nominated by your fellow community members. So, really, the workers of Cuba control even candidates for the PCC.

Explain to me how the candidates are controlled by the workers?


The facts, though, disagree quite insistently.

Except all you've demonstrated is that Cuban workers have the ability to elect representatives to positions of authority. Where is the accountability? Where is the possibilities of dissent? Where is the ability to have a direct participation in decision making?


What's unavoidable is that everything you require is already there. The Cuban workers have direct control over the political and economic systems in Cuba, and do direct them through workers assemblies for themselves.

Wait a minute...

Direct doesn't mean getting to field candidates every 2, 3 or 5 years, who then go on to make decisions on your behalf. That's not direct democracy, that's representative democracy and they're quite different.


But you won't support it, because it seems you appreciate the innocence of impotence more than getting behind the cause of the workers and of progress.

What cause? Cuba has the same political systems than any bourgeois country. Of course it's packaged differently and the rhetoric all sounds very nice, but the reality is that the Cuban working class have about as much direct control than the workers in England do.


Until you resolve to support working-class state power as it exists and functions, you will continue to regard socialism as "mickey-mouse bullshit". But at least you're honest in being anti-socialist.

Firstly, "working-class state power" is nothing more than a rhetorical device. Secondly, to support socialist state power is to turn your back on revolutionary opportunity and the possibilities of creating real direct workers control.

While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State

[Adi Shankara]

Fuck that asshole Jonah Goldberg for misleading the world.

[Adi Shankara]

It should come as no suprise that Castro was misquoted in the Yankee media.:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11265911



Castro 'misinterpreted' on Cuba economic model quote

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49024000/jpg/_49024036_010100705-1.jpg Castro invited Jeffrey Goldberg to Cuba for the interview
Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro has said that his recent comment about Cuba's economic model was misinterpreted by a US reporter.
Mr Castro was quoted earlier this week by journalist Jeffrey Goldberg as saying that "the Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore".
But speaking at the University of Havana, Mr Castro, 84, said he meant "exactly the opposite".
Mr Castro led Cuba for almost 50 years after the 1959 communist revolution.

He fell ill in 2006 and handed power to his brother Raul in 2008.
Since then, his public appearances have been rare, but in recent months he has made a series of public speeches and televised appearances.
Reducing state control
Mr Castro was speaking at the presentation of his autobiography at the University of Havana on Friday.
On Wednesday, Mr Goldberg, a journalist with The Atlantic magazine (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel-cuban-model-doesnt-even-work-for-us-anymore/62602/) based in Washington, DC, wrote that he had asked Mr Castro during a recent interview if Cuba's model was still worth exporting to other countries.
The journalist, whom Mr Castro had personally invited to Cuba, wrote that Mr Castro answered: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."
The alleged comment came as the current Cuban leader, Fidel's younger brother, Raul Castro, is reducing the state's control of the economy and allowing private ownership on the communist island.
Last month, Raul Castro announced to the National Assembly that small businesses would now be permitted and small business owners would have the right to employ and pay employees.


THANK GOODNESS!!!! Fuck, I thought that Cuba was gone for sure. it turns out that the far-right asshole Jonah Goldberg quoted Castro to fill his own extreme right agenda. fuck Jonah Goldberg.

[Comrade_Julian]

I think we should all just wait until his autobiography comes out,and read what Fidel has written,rather than taking any notice of some regurgitated journalism.

His autobiography did come out, in 2007. It is like 700 pages, I am 235 into it.

[anticap]

His autobiography did come out, in 2007. It is like 700 pages, I am 235 into it.

Is it long-winded and rambling? :lol:

[manic expression]

In Cuba, just as with anywhere else.
False.


Yes. Obviously. But the validity of an opinion is not based on whether or not you support the Soviet Union.
No, validity of opinion is based on its own consistency. If you say you're offering something constructive and yet you're critical one way and the other way equally, then why should workers listen to you?


Your interpretation of history is not surprising. There really is very little more I am willing to say on that subject. I could bring up information that shows just how little the working class were empowered by the Bolsheviks. Kronstadt, the Ukraine being a prime examples. But of course you will attempt to rebut those facts with the same arguments Leninists always do.
You mean putting down a rebellion in a military base and a neo-cossack army that terrorized Jews?


We're in agreement, but that doesn't exist anywhere in the world.
It does in Cuba.


How does this relate to my statement? So you don't agree that Cuba will create the necessary conditions to create communism...?
The necessary conditions to create communism cannot be created in one country alone. Cuba is the most progressive country on the planet, but it can only advance so far without liberation in other countries.


:lol:
Nice comeback.


If you continue to believe your in a position to patronise me like this, then I'm just going to stop talking to you. I'm not going to respond to petty facetiousness.

As I've consistently explained throughout this entire thread and countless others you've been involved in, the issue is that the centralisation of political and economic authority creates antithetical material conditions to those necessary to begin a transition to communism.

Once the socialist state has consolidated its control, it functions to defend it's own existence, thus entrenching itself into society. Once this has happened, and after decades of belligerence, wither from internal or external forces, the state simply cannot wither away. It can't just cease to function, because to cease to function, it would mean losing a grip on the power it's entrenched itself to protect.
I'm not patronizing you, I'm simply translating the argument to show how ridiculous it is. Cuba, by itself, cannot and will not be able to achieve a classless society because that takes the defeat of the bourgeoisie in total. Cuba can't do that one its own...so I'm not sure why you expect the Cuban workers to magically make the world classless for you.

You say socialism entrenches itself and cannot wither away, but this is, again, nothing but self-contained logic that is based on nothing but belief and hope. As there is no reason to think that Cuba possibly could create a classless society or advance any further than it has, there is no reason to conclude that it is refusing to move forward. It is not moving so much forward because it cannot.

And the workers hold power, not some abstract concept of "the state", as if it had nothing to do with class.


To believe that when the world or region Cuba is in has followed the same route, the state will just magically disappear is as fantastical as believing you can click your heals together.

But you're conflating these issues. International political similarities and the internal conditions of a nation or region are not the same thing. Similar conditions existing in other countries are what will make the transition happen, but each nation or region must achieve certain internal conditions to be bale to allow that transition to happen in the first place.

I am not arguing against a transitional period. Unlike what most of you Leninists think, we anarchists don't actually have the view that clicking your heals together gets you what you want. We do, however, recognise that if the internal organisation of a nation is not correctly managed, then it is irrelevant whether the world has changed.
It's not about magic, it's about necessity. States, after the defeat of the bourgeoisie, will become to future generations as flails and iron armor are to us...the state will be an antique, something for the museums. Only then will statelessness be possible.

But to suggest that workers protecting their gains from imperialists means that they will not, when the conditions are right, do away with a now-needed but then-unneeded institution, is just wishful thinking.

So it's not about clicking any heels together, it's about defending the progress of workers in liberated countries and fighting for liberation in capitalist countries. That's what Cuba is doing, and that's the road to communism.


Aside from your petulance, you said: "Human necessity is the first priority of Cuban production"

But Cuba only produces 20% of what it needs, so how is your statement correct? Cuba imports 80% of "human necessity" because of agricultural mismanagement.

If only the workers were allowed to be in charge.
Imports aren't a form of production? Tell that to the workers who deal with transportation.

And it's not about agricultural mismanagement, it's about Cuba not being the breadbasket of Latin America. It is, you know, under blockade. For you to talk of petulance is absolutely laughable when you make such arrogant, flippant claims about the struggle of the Cuban workers.


Yes, this is the way bureaucracy happens. Representative democracy is not direct workers democracy, no matter how much you paint it.
Bureaucracies, of one form or another, are necessary in any modern state. Anything else is naive idealism. Simple as that.

Cuban democracy is working-class democracy. Once again, read up on what I provided.


Have you been to Cuba, out of interest?
No.


This election process is convoluted, bureaucratic, leaves no opportunity to dissent except to have to wait to vote someone out, it's open to corruption and there's no direct participation in the decision making process.

Just like in the UK.
From my second link:

The Cuban political system is based on a foundation of local elections. Each urban neighborhood and rural village and area is organized into a "circumscription," consisting generally of 1000 to 1500 voters. The circumscription meets regularly to discuss neighborhood or village problems. Each three years, the circumscription conducts elections, in which from two to eight candidates compete. The nominees are not nominated by the Communist Party or any other organizations. The nominations are made by anyone in attendance at the meetings, which generally have a participation rate of 85% to 95%. Those nominated are candidates for office without party affiliation. They do not conduct campaigns as such. A one page biography of all the candidates is widely-distributed. The nominees are generally known by the voters, since the circumscription is generally not larger than 1500 voters

Yes, so horrifyingly convoluted and bureaucratic that it has a participation rate of 85% to 95%. And it's so indirect that everyone gets a direct say.


There's no way I can do that, I have no access to the internal workings of the Cuban political system...
There are plenty of eyewitness reports on Cuban elections. Surely, if that dark and brooding candidature commission is so repressive, you'll be able to find plenty of examples of its heavy hand of oppression upon would-be legitimate candidates.


Not really. None of the workers have direct responsibility over any decision, they have to rely on representation. That's not real democracy. We have this now in bourgeois nations.
The workers not only have direct responsibility for who represents them, but they have the responsibility of serving as office holders. And plus, representatives are expected and required to meet with their constituents at any point. I believe this is in one of my links.


Explain to me how the candidates are controlled by the workers?
Well, for one, they are the workers. For another, they don't get elected to the municipal level or above unless they have the explicit support and trust of the workers. That's how the whole thing works, and it carries to the very top.


Except all you've demonstrated is that Cuban workers have the ability to elect representatives to positions of authority. Where is the accountability? Where is the possibilities of dissent? Where is the ability to have a direct participation in decision making?
Read my links. It's all there.


Wait a minute...

Direct doesn't mean getting to field candidates every 2, 3 or 5 years, who then go on to make decisions on your behalf. That's not direct democracy, that's representative democracy and they're quite different.
Of course it's direct. It starts from the grassroots and goes all the way up. It's as direct as you can get. Just because you disagree on the semantics of the thing doesn't make it indirect.

Case in point: how is the system of nominating candidates "indirect"? If you can't prove this then you have nothing.


What cause? Cuba has the same political systems than any bourgeois country. Of course it's packaged differently and the rhetoric all sounds very nice, but the reality is that the Cuban working class have about as much direct control than the workers in England do.
Obviously you're mistaken. Like I said, educate yourself on the system.


Firstly, "working-class state power" is nothing more than a rhetorical device. Secondly, to support socialist state power is to turn your back on revolutionary opportunity and the possibilities of creating real direct workers control.
It's not a rhetorical device, read what's been written. And socialist state power means working-class control.


While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State
From the perspective of the Cuban bourgeoisie, I would say that statement holds water. From the perspective of the Cuban workers, though, liberation has been achieved and is being defended by the Revolution.

[Saorsa]

As usual, the overly excitable get overly excited at a single media report. Imagine how these people would have denounced the Bolsheviks in 1917!

Fidel Castro says his comment on Cuban model was misunderstood
By Shasta Darlington, CNN
September 10, 2010 -- Updated 2352 GMT (0752 HKT)

Fidel Castro says he was properly quoted, but the meaning of the quote was misunderstood.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The former leader said, "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore"

He was correctly quoted but misunderstood, he says

He says he was emphasizing how his opinion of capitalism is even lower

Havana, Cuba (CNN) -- Former Cuban President Fidel Castro said Friday that he was misinterpreted when he recently told an American journalist that the Cuban model no longer works.

In a speech at the University of Havana that was then broadcast on Cuban TV, Castro said he meant "exactly the opposite" of what was understood by Jeffrey Goldberg, who was interviewing him for The Atlantic.

According to Goldberg, when he asked Castro during an interview last week if the Cuban model could be exported, the 84-year-old former leader answered: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."

The comment was widely interpreted as Castro's admission that the Soviet-style economic model he introduced after his revolution no longer works.

Goldberg wrote on The Atlantic's blog that he turned to Julia Sweig of the Council on Foreign Affairs, who was present at the interview, "to interpret this stunning statement for me."

"She said, 'He wasn't rejecting the ideas of the revolution. I took it to be an acknowledgment that under "the Cuban model" the state has much too big a role in the economic life of the country,' " he wrote.

On Friday, Castro said that he was correctly quoted but that, "in reality, my answer meant exactly the opposite of what both American journalists interpreted regarding the Cuban model."

"My idea, as the whole world knows, is that the capitalist system no longer works for the United States or the world," he said. "How could such a system work for a socialist country like Cuba?"

[4 Leaf Clover]

But I'm not talking about Cuba implementing communism right now. I'm not talking about Cuba becoming a communist country. I'm not even suggesting that's possible.



But that's neither here nor there. The point I'm making is that when the time comes Cuba won't be able to progress to communism.



It has worked in creating its own political and economic model. That's it.
so what do you advocate ? for cubans to overthrow their government to create the same one , or they overthrow their government to implement capitalism ? there is no other way cuba can work as a single state among the pack

[The Vegan Marxist]

The Anarchist Tension states "You don't half talk some nonsense" because I stated a thank you to We Shall Rise Again's confirmation of the Goldberg interview being misleading & that everyone should start taking things more dialectically. Is there any reason for this TAT? Are you even a real communist?

[4 Leaf Clover]

im dont understand , what do you support here ? for cubans to overthrow their government is useless when cuba is 1 of very few socialist states in the world .. for cuba to become capitalist , or for cuba to go into single state anarchy awaiting foreign military intervention ? i need precise explanation

[The Feral Underclass]

No, validity of opinion is based on its own consistency. If you say you're offering something constructive and yet you're critical one way and the other way equally, then why should workers listen to you?

I don't understand what your point is. Are you saying that if I am critical of a centralised, planned economy and a liberalised economy then I have no alternative?


The necessary conditions to create communism cannot be created in one country alone.

Yes, you've said that.

My response has been in two parts. I agree that a country like Cuba cannot transition to communism by itself and relies on certain conditions to achieve that, but at the same time must instigate certain processes internally, in order to meet separate conditions. Conditions which will form the basis of the ability to transition to communism when external conditions are met.


Cuba is the most progressive country on the planet, but it can only advance so far without liberation in other countries.

This is historically refuted. There is no evidence to suggest that a large region cannot decentralise it's political and economic systems and in fact these processes are necessary if it is to meet the required material conditions to transition to communism.

The process of "withering away" has to actually translate into objective reality. The problem is, as we are facing, is that a centralised political system cannot "wither away", because of the nature of what it aims to do. In order to begin the process of transition to a stateless, classless society, the region in question has to reject the state and decentralise, which allow those internal material conditions to be realised.


Nice comeback.

You can't honestly expect me to take you lecturing me on the virtues of political activity seriously?


I'm simply translating the argument to show how ridiculous it is. Cuba, by itself, cannot and will not be able to achieve a classless society because that takes the defeat of the bourgeoisie in total. Cuba can't do that one its own...so I'm not sure why you expect the Cuban workers to magically make the world classless for you.

"But I'm not talking about Cuba implementing communism right now. I'm not talking about Cuba becoming a communist country. I'm not even suggesting that's possible." - Post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1860521&postcount=127)

"I am not, nor have I been over the last god knows how many posts, been saying that Cuba should or is even able to transition into communism right now. I am saying that if Cuba wishes to transition into communism, then it needs to create the necessary conditions for that to happen." - Post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1860551&postcount=129)

"But you're conflating these issues. International political similarities and the internal conditions of a nation or region are not the same thing. Similar conditions existing in other countries are what will make the transition happen, but each nation or region must achieve certain internal conditions to be bale to allow that transition to happen in the first place." - Post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1860839&postcount=136)

It seems your "translating" of my argument has been to ignore what I'm actually saying and then attack me for saying something you've made up.


You say socialism entrenches itself and cannot wither away, but this is, again, nothing but self-contained logic that is based on nothing but belief and hope.

But that doesn't even make sense...It's essentially gobble-de-gook.


As there is no reason to think that Cuba possibly could create a classless society or advance any further than it has, there is no reason to conclude that it is refusing to move forward. It is not moving so much forward because it cannot.

Well, I don't agree that it cannot "move forward" any more than it has. I see no reason why it cannot decentralise political and economic authority. It's happened before with great success.


It's not about magic, it's about necessity. States, after the defeat of the bourgeoisie, will become to future generations as flails and iron armor are to us...the state will be an antique, something for the museums. Only then will statelessness be possible.

How?


But to suggest that workers protecting their gains from imperialists means that they will not, when the conditions are right, do away with a now-needed but then-unneeded institution, is just wishful thinking.

How is it "wishful thinking". What the fuck are you on about? :blink:

Explain to me how the workers will "do away" with the state?


Imports aren't a form of production? Tell that to the workers who deal with transportation.

Well, imports aren't a form of Cuban production...:bored:

And workers dealing with transportation are absolutely of no consequence to what we're talking about. You claimed that human necessity was what drives the socialist state, yet the socialist state can't even produce what it needs to survive. Whether or not there are people to drive the trucks isn't the same as Cuban production being about "human necessity".


And it's not about agricultural mismanagement

Well, yes, actually, it is.


it's about Cuba not being the breadbasket of Latin America. It is, you know, under blockade. For you to talk of petulance is absolutely laughable when you make such arrogant, flippant claims about the struggle of the Cuban workers.

I'm well aware of the blockade, but it has trade deals with countries not under a blockade. It's not completely isolated from the rest of the world...


Bureaucracies, of one form or another, are necessary in any modern state.

Yes, I know. That's precisely the problem.


Anything else is naive idealism. Simple as that.

Believing that the working class have the ability to take direct control over decisions is naive idealism, is it?


Cuban democracy is working-class democracy. Once again, read up on what I provided.

:lol:

Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.


Yes, so horrifyingly convoluted and bureaucratic that it has a participation rate of 85% to 95%.

The number of participants don't determine the scale of convolutedness and bureaucracy though...


And it's so indirect that everyone gets a direct say.

Well, yes, that goes without saying. That's pretty much how representative democracies work. You couldn't really have a representative democracy without people being directly involved in voting for them...


There are plenty of eyewitness reports on Cuban elections. Surely, if that dark and brooding candidature commission is so repressive, you'll be able to find plenty of examples of its heavy hand of oppression upon would-be legitimate candidates.

Well, firstly, I've never claimed that the NCC was repressive, you were the one that accused me of claiming it was repressive. Secondly, what I said is that the ultimate decision of candidates is the party led NCC who draw up the final list of candidates...Which is true.


The workers not only have direct responsibility for who represents them, but they have the responsibility of serving as office holders. And plus, representatives are expected and required to meet with their constituents at any point. I believe this is in one of my links.

This is the same in any bourgeois country


Well, for one, they are the workers. For another, they don't get elected to the municipal level or above unless they have the explicit support and trust of the workers. That's how the whole thing works, and it carries to the very top.

What is so exceptional about this? In the context of a revolution, what is so profound about what you're describing? All politicians require the support of those who elect them...


Read my links. It's all there.

Yes, I read them. They don't explain at all. I ask again: Where is the accountability? Where is the possibilities of dissent? Where is the ability to have a direct participation in decision making?


Of course it's direct. It starts from the grassroots and goes all the way up. It's as direct as you can get. Just because you disagree on the semantics of the thing doesn't make it indirect.

Being directly involved in electing a representative goes without saying. You can't elect a representative without being directly involved in it. But that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about workers having direct control over decision making. I'm talking about direct democracy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy)


Case in point: how is the system of nominating candidates "indirect"? If you can't prove this then you have nothing.

Yes, nominating candidates is direct, but I'm talking about actual real democracy. Real control and authority. I'm not talking about handing those responsibilities to a politician.


Obviously you're mistaken. Like I said, educate yourself on the system.

I'm sorry, but I have and these are my criticisms. If you're unable to respond then fine, but it's pretty dishonest to try and make out I don't know what I'm talking about just because you have nothing left to say.


From the perspective of the Cuban bourgeoisie, I would say that statement holds water. From the perspective of the Cuban workers, though, liberation has been achieved and is being defended by the Revolution.

That was a quote from Lenin...

[Adi Shankara]

As usual, the overly excitable get overly excited at a single media report. Imagine how these people would have denounced the Bolsheviks in 1917!

It was a mistake, I admitted it. I just will take media reports quoting communists directly for now on a lot more carefully.

[Jazzhands]

2. You haven't 'explained' anything before, so let's see your reasons -- or are you content to allow others to think for you?

goddammit Vegan. you had to say dialectics, didn't you?

also, Rosa? this is what I mean. Mystic as in your ability to somehow divine whenever you or dialectics are ever mentioned even in brief passing.

[Jazzhands]

Fidel Castro says his comment on Cuban model was misunderstood
By Shasta Darlington, CNN
September 10, 2010 -- Updated 2352 GMT (0752 HKT)


aaaand I declare this thread over.

[The Vegan Marxist]

goddammit Vegan. you had to say dialectics, didn't you?

also, Rosa? this is what I mean. Mystic as in your ability to somehow divine whenever you or dialectics are ever mentioned even in brief passing.

I think me saying "Rosa" is what brought him/her here lol. I think s/he keeps tabs on who talks about him/her.

[The Feral Underclass]

so what do you advocate ?

As a transitional phase I advocate collectivist anarchism, as practiced in the Ukraine and in the Aragon & Catalonian regions of Spain. When the necessary external conditions were met, then it would be possible to create a gift economy.

Collectivist anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism)

Collectivist anarchism (http://eng.anarchopedia.org/collectivist_anarchism)

Ideas on Social Organisation (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm)


for cubans to overthrow their government to create the same one , or they overthrow their government to implement capitalism ? there is no other way cuba can work as a single state among the packOverthrowing the state is an unfortunate reality, but unless the state hands over its authority to the workers for them to control the political and economic systems directly, then they will have to use force


foreign military intervention ? It's plausible that America may invade Cuba if it began to feel threatened. But how threatened would it feel if there was another revolution in Cuba? They'd probably attempt to mount some kind of counter-revolutionary strategy, but I think in that unlikely event the Cuban working class, if properly armed, would be able to mount a convincing defence of the island.

[The Feral Underclass]

Are you even a real communist?

As far as you're concerned? Probably not. But I'm OK with that. I'm sure your communist enough for the both of us.

[Q]

Thanks for this WSRA. I hope people start taking these things more dialectically next time.

Your nonsensical use of the word "dialectics" only adds ammunition to Rosa's holy war...

[pranabjyoti]

In fact, in my opinion, what Castro wanted to say is that WE SHOULD GO FOR A BETTER ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL MODEL OF SOCIALISM THAN WE KNOW TODAY. I agree with him totally in this respect. In fact, little has been done after Lenin and Mao to establish the model of socialism and in my opinion, the point of debate should be HOW TO IMPROVE THE PRESENT MODEL OF SOCIALISM WE KNOW TODAY. I hope someone will start a thread on this matter.

[manic expression]

Before I make this response, let me just reiterate that Fidel was completely misquoted. Hardly a surprise for me.


I don't understand what your point is. Are you saying that if I am critical of a centralised, planned economy and a liberalised economy then I have no alternative?
No viable alternative.


Yes, you've said that.
And it's true.


My response has been in two parts. I agree that a country like Cuba cannot transition to communism by itself and relies on certain conditions to achieve that, but at the same time must instigate certain processes internally, in order to meet separate conditions. Conditions which will form the basis of the ability to transition to communism when external conditions are met.
Those processes can only come, and will only have any sort of use, when those separate conditions are met. Until then, the steadfast defense of socialism is what is needed.


This is historically refuted. There is no evidence to suggest that a large region cannot decentralise it's political and economic systems and in fact these processes are necessary if it is to meet the required material conditions to transition to communism.

The process of "withering away" has to actually translate into objective reality. The problem is, as we are facing, is that a centralised political system cannot "wither away", because of the nature of what it aims to do. In order to begin the process of transition to a stateless, classless society, the region in question has to reject the state and decentralise, which allow those internal material conditions to be realised.
"Decentralization", in that sense, is semantic. The issue is who is in control.

Centralized political systems "aim to do" whatever its rulers aim to do. The workers will find themselves with an institution that no longer holds any relevance without a bourgeoisie, and therefore it will fall into history.


You can't honestly expect me to take you lecturing me on the virtues of political activity seriously?
It wasn't about virtues, it was about what liberates workers.


It seems your "translating" of my argument has been to ignore what I'm actually saying and then attack me for saying something you've made up.
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear, but I do not agree that Cuba isn't far enough towards communism. I find that it's exactly where it should be, given the present situation. That's where we disagree.


But that doesn't even make sense...It's essentially gobble-de-gook.
In other words, you have nothing to base your assertion on.


Well, I don't agree that it cannot "move forward" any more than it has. I see no reason why it cannot decentralise political and economic authority. It's happened before with great success.
Political authority is already as directly democratic as it can be, really. Economic authority follows from that. So while there are improvements that can undoubtedly be made, the fundamental political and economic organization in Cuba is exactly what is needed.


How?
It's quite clear. The state will be rendered useless by the lack of class conflict. The only thing that the state does is enforce one class' rule over other classes. Without other classes to rule over, the state will be an anachronism, and will be something for the museums.


How is it "wishful thinking". What the fuck are you on about? :blink:

Explain to me how the workers will "do away" with the state?
By liquidating their armed forces, judicial systems, police forces and all the vestiges of the state when they no longer have a use for them. You don't think the workers are going to spend lots of time and energy sustaining institutions that no longer matter, do you?


Well, imports aren't a form of Cuban production...:bored:

And workers dealing with transportation are absolutely of no consequence to what we're talking about. You claimed that human necessity was what drives the socialist state, yet the socialist state can't even produce what it needs to survive. Whether or not there are people to drive the trucks isn't the same as Cuban production being about "human necessity".
So the imports juts appear on Cuban shores every day? No work goes into them? Organizing for imports has everything to do with this discussion.


Well, yes, actually, it is.
Hardly.


I'm well aware of the blockade, but it has trade deals with countries not under a blockade. It's not completely isolated from the rest of the world...
The blockade is extraterritorial (and illegal). Any firm that trades with Cuba is disqualified from trading with the US. So trade is severely limited, and Cuba is quite isolated...and without the gains of workers in Venezuela, Bolivia and elsewhere, it would be even more isolated.


Yes, I know. That's precisely the problem.
It's not a problem at all, it's just a fact of the world we live in. We might as well bemoan the necessity for Cuban workers to maintain a standing army. Sure, it's not great, but it's necessary. Both will be done away with in time, when the conditions are right.


Believing that the working class have the ability to take direct control over decisions is naive idealism, is it?
No, believing they can feasibly do that without some form of bureaucracy is naive idealism. The modern state and bureaucracy are very much intertwined...if you want working-class state power, you need at least a bit of it.


:lol:

Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
But citing evidence that you have yet to refute or even passingly address proves my point.


The number of participants don't determine the scale of convolutedness and bureaucracy though...
Of course it does. If everyone is involved and everyone has a strong voice in the matter, it's hardly convoluted, and the bureaucracy has nothing to do with it. It's just a buzzword for people who don't like how working-class rule functions in real life.


Well, yes, that goes without saying. That's pretty much how representative democracies work. You couldn't really have a representative democracy without people being directly involved in voting for them...
But the manner in which they vote, the voice that the people possess...is everything. For it determines how direct or not the process is. For instance, you cannot seriously argue that the US system of nominations through two political parties controlled by moneyed interests is the same as neighborhoods getting together, discussing issues important to them and nominating one of their own. They are diametrically opposed systems.

Every concrete assertion you've made on this has been shown to be false. The workers have control of the state from first to last.


Well, firstly, I've never claimed that the NCC was repressive, you were the one that accused me of claiming it was repressive. Secondly, what I said is that the ultimate decision of candidates is the party led NCC who draw up the final list of candidates...Which is true.
:rolleyes: If you're (apparently) not saying that the NCC is an obstacle to the voice of the working class, then why did you bring it up in the first place? You mentioned it to clearly suggest that Cuban workers are not in control of the nomination process. Now that I asked you for actual examples of the NCC taking power away from the workers, you've rolled this back as far as you can. It just goes to show that Cuban workers hold state power in Cuba.

The NCC is a rubber stamp for what the workers decide. It's only there for extraordinary situations (such as a meeting being disrupted, etc.). The fact that no one can find a single instance of the NCC barring otherwise-legitimate candidates is indisputable proof that the Cuban workers are in control of the process.


This is the same in any bourgeois country
Only if you ignore everything about Cuba.


What is so exceptional about this? In the context of a revolution, what is so profound about what you're describing? All politicians require the support of those who elect them...
Wrong. In bourgeois elections, the workers are presented with pre-selected politicians from parties they have no real voice in. Even without discussing the role of the media, we can clearly see that capitalist elections follow the money.

In Cuba, on the other hand, campaigns consist of people being nominated by their neighbors and fellow community members in open, public and well-attended meetings (aka councils). The people who vote for them know them through everyday life. Their campaigns (which are not tied to any political parties) have nothing to do with money but with who represents the genuine voice of that community.


Yes, I read them. They don't explain at all. I ask again: Where is the accountability? Where is the possibilities of dissent? Where is the ability to have a direct participation in decision making?
They do explain all of that. We've already seen how the workers have a direct participation in decision making, how workers control who gets to the National Assembly, how the NA elects the executive. That means the workers control the state.


I'm talking about workers having direct control over decision making. I'm talking about direct democracy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy)
You mean something that has never successfully functioned in the real world? Yes, how dare the Cuban workers offend us by creating a system that works.


Yes, nominating candidates is direct, but I'm talking about actual real democracy. Real control and authority. I'm not talking about handing those responsibilities to a politician.
They're only politicians in the most general sense. They're community members who keep their jobs when they take office. As in the Commune, workers choose delegates from among their own workplaces and neighborhoods.


That was a quote from Lenin...
And I agreed with it. Freedom for the bourgeoisie is greatly limited. But it is because of this that the Cuban workers are liberated.

[*PRC*Kensei]

Don't let this nonsense bother you, silly interview quotes.

Fidel is still a great, maybe one of the greatest examples of a revolutionary intellectual and leader. A true humanist.
Better to put energy in spreading his thought and work - his stream of 21st century humanism, which, in my brief opinion, still holds some of the best idea's and examples of how to be a good human and activist.

[The Feral Underclass]

No viable alternative.

Directly and collective working class control is a viable alternative. What objective empirical evidence do you have to make such an emphatic statement?


Those processes can only come, and will only have any sort of use, when those separate conditions are met.So you reject the idea that there are separate kinds of conditions that have to be met and that the Cuban working class is unable to effect any of them right now?

If that's the case I think it would be appropriate for you to explain why.


Until then, the steadfast defense of socialism is what is neededYour premise is that bringing direct and collective control over the political and economic system is not a defence of revolutionary gains. I reject that premise. There is no evidence to suggest that both things cannot happen at the same time.


Centralized political systems "aim to do" whatever its rulers aim to do. The workers will find themselves with an institution that no longer holds any relevance without a bourgeoisie, and therefore it will fall into history.How will it "fall into history"? Just saying it will is not a sufficient answer, since there has been no example in history when a state (i.e. centralised political authority) has ever just stop existing. In fact, the opposite is true. States have historically always consolidated their control.


I do not agree that Cuba isn't far enough towards communism. I find that it's exactly where it should be, given the present situation. That's where we disagree.Not only that, but you reject the idea that it is necessary or that the Cuban working class should make changes. Yet you have provided no reason for your opinions.


In other words, you have nothing to base your assertion on.Erm. No. What you said doesn't make sense...


Political authority is already as directly democratic as it can be, really. Economic authority follows from that. So while there are improvements that can undoubtedly be made, the fundamental political and economic organization in Cuba is exactly what is needed.That's not a response to what I said. All you have done is repeat your opinion. Are you going to offer any kind of reasoning for your opinions?


It's quite clear. The state will be rendered useless by the lack of class conflict.But class conflict exists inside Cuba between those that govern and those that are governed.


The only thing that the state does is enforce one class' rule over other classes.That's clearly not the case is it? A state has many other functions, including maintaining civil order; executing laws; managing an economy etc etc etc.


Without other classes to rule over, the state will be an anachronism, and will be something for the museums.

By liquidating their armed forces, judicial systems, police forces and all the vestiges of the state when they no longer have a use for them. You don't think the workers are going to spend lots of time and energy sustaining institutions that no longer matter, do you?


So the imports juts appear on Cuban shores every day? No work goes into them? Organizing for imports has everything to do with this discussion.


Hardly.


The blockade is extraterritorial (and illegal). Any firm that trades with Cuba is disqualified from trading with the US. So trade is severely limited, and Cuba is quite isolated...and without the gains of workers in Venezuela, Bolivia and elsewhere, it would be even more isolated.


It's not a problem at all, it's just a fact of the world we live in. We might as well bemoan the necessity for Cuban workers to maintain a standing army. Sure, it's not great, but it's necessary. Both will be done away with in time, when the conditions are right.


No, believing they can feasibly do that without some form of bureaucracy is naive idealism. The modern state and bureaucracy are very much intertwined...if you want working-class state power, you need at least a bit of it.


But citing evidence that you have yet to refute or even passingly address proves my point.


Of course it does. If everyone is involved and everyone has a strong voice in the matter, it's hardly convoluted, and the bureaucracy has nothing to do with it. It's just a buzzword for people who don't like how working-class rule functions in real life.


But the manner in which they vote, the voice that the people possess...is everything. For it determines how direct or not the process is. For instance, you cannot seriously argue that the US system of nominations through two political parties controlled by moneyed interests is the same as neighborhoods getting together, discussing issues important to them and nominating one of their own. They are diametrically opposed systems.

Every concrete assertion you've made on this has been shown to be false. The workers have control of the state from first to last.


:rolleyes: If you're (apparently) not saying that the NCC is an obstacle to the voice of the working class, then why did you bring it up in the first place? You mentioned it to clearly suggest that Cuban workers are not in control of the nomination process. Now that I asked you for actual examples of the NCC taking power away from the workers, you've rolled this back as far as you can. It just goes to show that Cuban workers hold state power in Cuba.

The NCC is a rubber stamp for what the workers decide. It's only there for extraordinary situations (such as a meeting being disrupted, etc.). The fact that no one can find a single instance of the NCC barring otherwise-legitimate candidates is indisputable proof that the Cuban workers are in control of the process.


Only if you ignore everything about Cuba.


Wrong. In bourgeois elections, the workers are presented with pre-selected politicians from parties they have no real voice in. Even without discussing the role of the media, we can clearly see that capitalist elections follow the money.

In Cuba, on the other hand, campaigns consist of people being nominated by their neighbors and fellow community members in open, public and well-attended meetings (aka councils). The people who vote for them know them through everyday life. Their campaigns (which are not tied to any political parties) have nothing to do with money but with who represents the genuine voice of that community.


They do explain all of that. We've already seen how the workers have a direct participation in decision making, how workers control who gets to the National Assembly, how the NA elects the executive. That means the workers control the state.


You mean something that has never successfully functioned in the real world? Yes, how dare the Cuban workers offend us by creating a system that works.


They're only politicians in the most general sense. They're community members who keep their jobs when they take office. As in the Commune, workers choose delegates from among their own workplaces and neighborhoods.


And I agreed with it. Freedom for the bourgeoisie is greatly limited. But it is because of this that the Cuban workers are liberated.As you can see above I have replied to about a third of your post. I re-read the remainder of it and I just don't see any point in continuing this discussion with you. On various occasions I have made an argument that tackles the issues you keep repeating, but on every occasion, not just in this debate but in others also, you fail to actually address what I'm saying. I'm tired of repeating myself to you. It's completely pointless.

Therefore I'm just stopping this now. I don't see any reason to keep having this argument with you. It's neither interesting nor stimulating. You offer nothing new or insightful to this discussion and frankly, it's just boring.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Cuban democracy is working-class democracy. Once again, read up on what I provided.

From my second link:

The Cuban political system is based on a foundation of local elections. Each urban neighborhood and rural village and area is organized into a "circumscription," consisting generally of 1000 to 1500 voters. The circumscription meets regularly to discuss neighborhood or village problems. Each three years, the circumscription conducts elections, in which from two to eight candidates compete. The nominees are not nominated by the Communist Party or any other organizations. The nominations are made by anyone in attendance at the meetings, which generally have a participation rate of 85% to 95%. Those nominated are candidates for office without party affiliation. They do not conduct campaigns as such. A one page biography of all the candidates is widely-distributed. The nominees are generally known by the voters, since the circumscription is generally not larger than 1500 voters

Yes, so horrifyingly convoluted and bureaucratic that it has a participation rate of 85% to 95%. And it's so indirect that everyone gets a direct say.

There are plenty of eyewitness reports on Cuban elections. Surely, if that dark and brooding candidature commission is so repressive, you'll be able to find plenty of examples of its heavy hand of oppression upon would-be legitimate candidates.


The workers not only have direct responsibility for who represents them, but they have the responsibility of serving as office holders. And plus, representatives are expected and required to meet with their constituents at any point. I believe this is in one of my links.


Well, for one, they are the workers. For another, they don't get elected to the municipal level or above unless they have the explicit support and trust of the workers. That's how the whole thing works, and it carries to the very top.


Read my links. It's all there.


Of course it's direct. It starts from the grassroots and goes all the way up. It's as direct as you can get. Just because you disagree on the semantics of the thing doesn't make it indirect.

Case in point: how is the system of nominating candidates "indirect"? If you can't prove this then you have nothing.

From my understanding, there is the Popular Power (or whatever it's called) process as described above since the early 1990s but they only make up a fixed percentage of candidates while the others are, in fact, picked by the party and state-trade-unions and other organizations connected to the government and party.

Also I think it's telling that these popularly chosen candidates do not actually run for office based on political ideas - they are allotted a paragraph about their personal life and that is how workers are supposed to decide to vote for them or not. That sounds like US elections to me - just less wasteful spending on campaigns.

But the important thing IMO is that these reforms were brought in from the top and are not the structures created or demanded by the working class through an organic and democratic process from below. Because of this, the convoluted election system in Cuba is more like bourgeois democracy than democratic control by workers through Soviets or councils: i.e. it is formal democracy to give a sense of popular involvement in a process that is already more or less politically rigged from the top.


how dare the Cuban workers offend us by creating a system that works.When and how was this system created by workers? Why did they decide to run things this way, what were the political arguments in favor of this election process that workers made at the time? Or was this a top-down initiative of the government?


One of the principal functions of trade unions under socialism is to serve as vehicles for orientation, directives and goals which the revolutionary power must convey to the working masses… The party is the vanguard. Trade unions are the most powerful link between the party and the working masses.

And as the trade-union itself states:
The CTC and its unions openly and consciously recognise the authority of the Communist Party as the vanguard and ultimate organisation of the working class, accepting and adhering to its policies.So not only are workers not able to organize their own rule directly, without strikes or independent unions, they can not even organize to defend their interests and for reforms! The catch-22 is that the government would argue that since it's a worker's government, there is no different sets of interests between the working class and the government, and if there is, that difference must be that the individual workers must have reactionary interests. But then supporters of the regime also claim that popular support by workers of the government shows that it's a legitimate worker's state... then why would they not allow strikes and worker self-organization!? Why would special pockets of commercial business in Cuba since the 1990s be given more political autonomy than the freaking trade-union membership?

In reality, there is a space between the interests of the government and the workers - at first it was the government's need to satisfy the demands of their relationship with Russia, and now it is the satisfy the interests of the party (and mostly military) elite.

This is not socialism, this is the result of two problems with the revolution IMO: 1) The USSR - while the new government outlawed strikes at the time of revolution (and never lifted this in practice) the organization of the country became even more top-down after Castro decided the Revolution was a socialist one afterall and set up ties to the USSR. 2) A revolution in which the working class played a secondary and supporting role does not create the conditions for working class democracy and power because the working class wasn't self-consciously learning to lead and run society - at most they were supporting a change at the top which they understandably saw as better - it's like revolutionary reformism.


Political authority is already as directly democratic as it can be, really. Economic authority follows from that. So while there are improvements that can undoubtedly be made, the fundamental political and economic organization in Cuba is exactly what is needed.So the superstructure in Cuba determines the base?

I don't agree that anything that might be called a worker's state will somehow automatically become beurocratic or top-down or create a new group of exploiters, but I do think that the cold-war "socialist" countries which based themselves on a USSR model did not achieve socialism and are not on a path that would allow the working class to run society. I think the examples of the Paris Commune, the early couple of years of the Russian Revolution and aspects of other Revolutions that ultimately failed, show how society can be run collectively by workers. I also think that the ideas Lenin outlined in "State and Revolution" show how a society could be run democratically by the working class and how the "worker's state" would look nothing like Cuba, North Korea or what the USSR became.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's clearly not the case is it? A state has many other functions, including maintaining civil order; executing laws; managing an economy etc etc etc.Maintaining civil order for what - in capitalism, for the continued trade of goods and the continued production of good by workers... so the order that's maintained is a specific class-order of society. Laws? Same thing - laws for what ultimate purpose - for the maintenance of the capitalist system. Managing an economy - well that's obvious how class is involved in that isn't it?

If workers ran society, then there would still need to be coordination and defense of the new democratic control of the economy and so on. I think most revolutionary anarchists agree with this - they just don't use the word "state" to describe it and call it "federation" or some other term, but it's still something designed to preserve and maintain the gains made by workers after a revolution. But since the working class doesn't need to exploit other groups, there is no need for such structures to be permanent. Here's a clear example of the "state" withering away: a worker's militia - most anarchists and socialist agree things like this might need to be organized in the short-term to protect from counter-revolutionary attempts or violence by reactionaries. But if the revolution wins, then this is no longer needed by workers and can be dismantled once remaining capitalist forces have been scattered and demoralized. In Capitalism, Feudalism, and State-Capitalism, organizational structures become permanent because there is never a point when the whole population submits to their own exploitation - strikes, property theft, and so on are permanent and so the state is also permanent.

Edit: Ut-oh, now I'm arguing with both sides of this debate... I just turned this into a Mexican standoff! :D

[The Feral Underclass]

Maintaining civil order for what - in capitalism, for the continued trade of goods and the continued production of good by workers... so the order that's maintained is a specific class-order of society.

And in Cuba the protection of the socialist state against anyone. Even those who wish to democratise society.


Laws? Same thing - laws for what ultimate purpose - for the maintenance of the capitalist system. Managing an economy - well that's obvious how class is involved in that isn't it?The same thing as above.


But if the revolution wins, then this is no longer needed by workers and can be dismantled once remaining capitalist forces have been scattered and demoralized. In Capitalism, Feudalism, and State-Capitalism, organizational structures become permanent because there is never a point when the whole population submits to their own exploitation - strikes, property theft, and so on are permanent and so the state is also permanent.We're saying the same thing, except I'm being specific about what a state is, namely centralised political authority.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Vegan Marxist,

I don't understand how you can be agreeing with manic expression and Jimmie Higgin's, when they're opinions are fundamentally different. Do you actually even know what we're discussing?

[Long Dong Silver]

Look, comrades, the fact of the matter is that Cuba has no money. They subsidize products for the workers, but because of their dwindling economy they've had to take things off the subsidy list. Their workers are close to having nothing. They're doing what they need to keep their people alive and well. This is more important then any amount of "ideals" they died for in the revolution. This is for the lives of actual workers that their government are looking out for. Yes, it may not be the deepest shade of red socialism, but it's as good as I've seen come from cuba in a long time

[vyborg]

cuban stalinist model never worked properly, even if before it was less inefficient.
The problem is what to do now. 2 broad option: forwards to workers' democracy or backward, probably by means of the "chinese model" to capitalism.
the cuban bureaucracy has choosen, obviously, capitalism. this choice will also affect venezuelan situation.

[4 Leaf Clover]

cuban stalinist model never worked properly, even if before it was less inefficient.
The problem is what to do now. 2 broad option: forwards to workers' democracy or backward, probably by means of the "chinese model" to capitalism.
the cuban bureaucracy has choosen, obviously, capitalism. this choice will also affect venezuelan situation.
did you read latest news ? we need a proof that Cuban model didn't work , and why it worked less then Capitalism ?

[pranabjyoti]

cuban stalinist model never worked properly, even if before it was less inefficient.
The problem is what to do now. 2 broad option: forwards to workers' democracy or backward, probably by means of the "chinese model" to capitalism.
the cuban bureaucracy has choosen, obviously, capitalism. this choice will also affect venezuelan situation.
At least it had clearly proved that it can withstand harsh imperialist blockade. Kindly remember that Cuba is not China.

[vyborg]

I know very well the enormous advances made thanks to the cuban revolution. the problem is that to save them you must get rid off the bureucracy.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The Vegan Marxist,

I don't understand how you can be agreeing with manic expression and Jimmie Higgin's, when they're opinions are fundamentally different. Do you actually even know what we're discussing?

I don't agree with everything they say. Such as the statements that Socialism is not present in Cuba, & rather call it as merely a progressive state. This, in my opinion, is absolutely false.

[manic expression]

From my understanding, there is the Popular Power (or whatever it's called) process as described above since the early 1990s but they only make up a fixed percentage of candidates while the others are, in fact, picked by the party and state-trade-unions and other organizations connected to the government and party.
Nope, I haven't seen anything to suggest any other nomination process besides the one I described. The candidates come from the neighborhood meetings, I've never seen anything to the contrary.


Also I think it's telling that these popularly chosen candidates do not actually run for office based on political ideas - they are allotted a paragraph about their personal life and that is how workers are supposed to decide to vote for them or not. That sounds like US elections to me - just less wasteful spending on campaigns.
But you're forgetting one big thing: the candidates are very often known to their constituents on a personal basis. Since it's only a neighborhood-wide meeting, people hear first-hand what others have to say, what they believe...but more importantly they know the candidates' everyday commitment to the Cuban proletariat from everyday life.


But the important thing IMO is that these reforms were brought in from the top and are not the structures created or demanded by the working class through an organic and democratic process from below. Because of this, the convoluted election system in Cuba is more like bourgeois democracy than democratic control by workers through Soviets or councils: i.e. it is formal democracy to give a sense of popular involvement in a process that is already more or less politically rigged from the top.

When and how was this system created by workers? Why did they decide to run things this way, what were the political arguments in favor of this election process that workers made at the time? Or was this a top-down initiative of the government?
Everything top-down in Cuba is bottom-up. The workers directly elect fellow community members to those positions, and those delegates enact the will of the workers. Just like the Commune.


And as the trade-union itself states: So not only are workers not able to organize their own rule directly, without strikes or independent unions, they can not even organize to defend their interests and for reforms!
It's an oxymoron for workers to strike independently in a socialist society. It would be tantamount to workers striking against themselves.


In reality, there is a space between the interests of the government and the workers - at first it was the government's need to satisfy the demands of their relationship with Russia, and now it is the satisfy the interests of the party (and mostly military) elite.
That's not reality at all, it's your conjecture, buffered by rightist criticisms of the Revolution. The workers found that the Soviet Union provided assistance to them in their struggle against imperialism, and decided to pursue a comradely partnership with that socialist state.

And on this "military elite", that has nothing to do with reality.


This is not socialism, this is the result of two problems with the revolution IMO: 1) The USSR - while the new government outlawed strikes at the time of revolution (and never lifted this in practice) the organization of the country became even more top-down after Castro decided the Revolution was a socialist one afterall and set up ties to the USSR. 2) A revolution in which the working class played a secondary and supporting role does not create the conditions for working class democracy and power because the working class wasn't self-consciously learning to lead and run society - at most they were supporting a change at the top which they understandably saw as better - it's like revolutionary reformism.
How in the world do you expect a government under siege from imperialism to permit strikes? That's not revolution, that's suicide. It would serve you well to learn the difference. And besides, strikes against a socialist government are, in general, counterrevolutionary.

Fidel didn't just decide the Revolution was socialist, the revolutionaries of Cuba acted like socialists when they expropriated the capitalists and put the means of production in the hands of the workers. It's not about what people say, it's about what they do. That's why the Cuban Revolution is a shining example of a working-class revolution.

The working class played the primary role in the Revolution.


So the superstructure in Cuba determines the base?
Superstructure reflects the base.


I don't agree that anything that might be called a worker's state will somehow automatically become beurocratic or top-down or create a new group of exploiters, but I do think that the cold-war "socialist" countries which based themselves on a USSR model did not achieve socialism and are not on a path that would allow the working class to run society. I think the examples of the Paris Commune, the early couple of years of the Russian Revolution and aspects of other Revolutions that ultimately failed, show how society can be run collectively by workers. I also think that the ideas Lenin outlined in "State and Revolution" show how a society could be run democratically by the working class and how the "worker's state" would look nothing like Cuba, North Korea or what the USSR became.
Cuba is not top-down in any meaningful sense of the word. If by "top-down" you mean a society with a functioning state, then yes, sure, but then the word loses all meaning. As we've seen, the system of Cuban elections is quite like that of the Paris Commune, and that just drives home the fact that the workers of Cuba direct and control their own society.

[robbo203]

Nope, I haven't seen anything to suggest any other nomination process besides the one I described. The candidates come from the neighborhood meetings, I've never seen anything to the contrary.


But you're forgetting one big thing: the candidates are very often known to their constituents on a personal basis. Since it's only a neighborhood-wide meeting, people hear first-hand what others have to say, what they believe...but more importantly they know the candidates' everyday commitment to the Cuban proletariat from everyday life.


Everything top-down in Cuba is bottom-up. The workers directly elect fellow community members to those positions, and those delegates enact the will of the workers. Just like the Commune..

Bottom up?

From Summary of the 20 January 2008 Cuban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba)National Assembly of People's Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_of_People%27s_Power)election results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_legislative_election,_2008):


614 candidates (one candidate per seat). Up to 50% of the candidates must be chosen by the Municipal Assemblies. The candidates are otherwise proposed by nominating assemblies, which comprise representatives of workers, youth, women, students and farmers as well as members of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committees_for_the_Defense_of_the_Revolution), after initial mass meetings soliciting a first list of names (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura). The final list of candidates is drawn up by the National Candidature Commission taking into account criteria such as candidates' merit, patriotism, ethical values and revolutionary history (my emphasis)

And

from http://www.cubaverdad.net/elections_in_cuba.htm


For the local elections candidates are nominated in open meetings run by the CDR (http://www.cubaverdad.net/cdr.htm) (Committees to Defend the Revolution) [1] (http://www.cubaverdad.net/elections_in_cuba.htm#_ftn1) that are closely linked to police and security forces. They report and sanction dissent. Prison terms of 4 years threaten those that openly oppose the regime [2] (http://www.cubaverdad.net/elections_in_cuba.htm#_ftn2) in that public meeting filled with informants. People not supporting can be threatened with losing their home [3] (http://www.cubaverdad.net/elections_in_cuba.htm#_ftn3), job, ....
These "candidates" then are to be approved by "electoral committees" stuffed with representatives of the
communists front organizations (see the Cuban electoral law) [4] (http://www.cubaverdad.net/elections_in_cuba.htm#_ftn4).
For national elections the local "elected candidates" at the local level can "select" candidates from a restricted list drawn up by the communist front organizations




It's an oxymoron for workers to strike independently in a socialist society. It would be tantamount to workers striking against themselves.
.

Another reason why Cuba is not a socialist society by any stretch of the imagination

[Revolutionair]

From the Dutch news:
http://nos.nl/artikel/184155-fidel-castro-is-verkeerd-begrepen.html


Hij zei afgelopen week tegen een Amerikaanse journalist dat de staatsgeleide economie in Cuba niet meer functioneert.Voor sommigen leek het of Fidel Castro daarmee het communisme afzwoer. Anderen zagen er steun in voor de economische hervormingen van zijn opvolger, zijn broer Raúl.
Fidel zegt dat zijn uitspraak verkeerd is begrepen. "Ik heb het wel zo gezegd, maar bedoelde juist het omgekeerde, namelijk dat het kapitalisme niet werkt en zich van crisis naar crisis sleept."


Last week Castro said to an American Journalist that the state-run economy of Cuba no longer works.
For some, that appeared to be a statement from Castro to denounce Communism.
Others saw support for the economic changes that Raul wants to make.


Castro says that his statement has been misunderstood. "I did say that, but I meant something else." "What I actually wanted to say, is that capitalism doesn't work. Capitalism only moves from crisis to crisis."






You will probably get a better translation if you use google translate. :(


Oh well at least the Castro-lovers are happy that Castro was not denouncing the Cuban state planning.

[manic expression]

Bottom up?

From Summary of the 20 January 2008 Cuban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba)National Assembly of People's Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_of_People%27s_Power)election results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_legislative_election,_2008):


614 candidates (one candidate per seat). Up to 50% of the candidates must be chosen by the Municipal Assemblies. The candidates are otherwise proposed by nominating assemblies, which comprise representatives of workers, youth, women, students and farmers as well as members of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committees_for_the_Defense_of_the_Revolution), after initial mass meetings soliciting a first list of names (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura). The final list of candidates is drawn up by the National Candidature Commission taking into account criteria such as candidates' merit, patriotism, ethical values and revolutionary history (my emphasis)
We've already dealt with this. Please pay closer attention. But now that you've brought up that old point, then please cite a single instance of the NCC blocking an otherwise-legitimate nominee. If you can't, then it stands to reason that the NCC is acting as a rubber stamp for the public, working-class meetings you so kindly alluded to. Thus it is bottom-up, after all.


And

from http://www.cubaverdad.net/elections_in_cuba.htm

For the local elections candidates are nominated in open meetings run by the CDR (http://www.cubaverdad.net/cdr.htm) (Committees to Defend the Revolution) [1] (http://www.cubaverdad.net/elections_in_cuba.htm#_ftn1) that are closely linked to police and security forces. They report and sanction dissent. Prison terms of 4 years threaten those that openly oppose the regime [2] (http://www.cubaverdad.net/elections_in_cuba.htm#_ftn2) in that public meeting filled with informants. People not supporting can be threatened with losing their home [3] (http://www.cubaverdad.net/elections_in_cuba.htm#_ftn3), job, ....
These "candidates" then are to be approved by "electoral committees" stuffed with representatives of the
communists front organizations (see the Cuban electoral law) [4] (http://www.cubaverdad.net/elections_in_cuba.htm#_ftn4).
For national elections the local "elected candidates" at the local level can "select" candidates from a restricted list drawn up by the communist front organizations Once again, let's test your hypothesis: please provide an instance of someone being threatened with "prison terms of 4 years" or "losing their home, job, ..." for speaking their mind. Go ahead, I'm intensely curious to see this supposedly wide-range of oppression.

Until you provide cases of this actually happening, you have nothing. Good luck, don't be afraid to ask me for help if you don't find anything.


Another reason why Cuba is not a socialist society by any stretch of the imaginationYou would know a thing or two about imagination, wouldn't you.