Cuba to triple private sector's workforce

[Adi Shankara]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11409550


Cuba issues plans to expand its private sector

The authorities in Cuba have revealed plans to triple the communist country's private sector.

They include issuing about 250,000 licences allowing people to run their own businesses.
Under the new rules, Cubans will be able to rent out rooms to tourists, work as self-employed gardeners, iron clothes and shine shoes.
For the first time, Cubans will be allowed to employ people other than relatives.
Officials said the decision to relax the rules on private employment would increase production levels and efficiency.
They come weeks after it was announced that a million state employees would be laid off to help revive the economy.
The plans were published in Granma, the Cuban Communist Party's newspaper.

[The Vegan Marxist]

And so the propaganda continues. I give this a week until we're all shown how paranoid we are in the destruction of Cuban socialism.

[Adi Shankara]

And so the propaganda continues. I give this a week until we're all shown how paranoid we are in the destruction of Cuban socialism.

Considering how misleading the Atlantic interview was, I'm not assuming anything. just reporting this out of interest and to see comments.

[RadioRaheem84]

Officials said the decision to relax the rules on private employment would increase production levels and efficiency.

I hate this word. It just reminds me the wonkish technocratic stuff spewed out by my third way positionist Danish school mate when arguing for better economic principles. It just makes me cringe, sorry. I would hate to think Cuba is actually listening to a guy like him, consulting them on how to make the nation more "efficient".

Secondly, the mainstream press will not go into just what these new reforms constitute which most likely (and with much hope) are really worker owned enterprises and initiatives. And that they'll still be monitored by the State.

[12yearoldCommie]

Cuba is now run by fascists. FACT

[RadioRaheem84]

Was that sarcasm? :confused:

[Queercommie Girl]

Was that sarcasm? :confused:

I think he is just a troll.

[AK]

For the first time, Cubans will be allowed to employ people other than relatives.If this turns out to be true, I'd like to see what excuse the MLs have for this. The Cuban government is allowing capitalists to employ anyone (this is not "oh but they're just working for themselves so it's OK" or "but it's a nice and cosy family business" anymore) and extract surplus value from their workers.

[anticap]

Cubans will be allowed to employ people other than relatives.

*wince*


I hate this word.

Then you will love this video (that's Marxist economist Richard Wolff):

4D36R1xXpZk

[The Vegan Marxist]

If this turns out to be true, I'd like to see what excuse the MLs have for this. The Cuban government is allowing capitalists to employ anyone (this is not "oh but they're just working for themselves so it's OK" or "but it's a nice and cosy family business" anymore) and extract surplus value from their workers.

It is true. Raul Castro announced that there'll be an extension to the self-employment sector, in which those self-employed will be allowed to hire workers that are outside of the family. So of course, without trying to hide anything, there'll now be a real capitalist sector due to this expansion in Cuba's economy. Though, I've already discussed this with a fellow Comrade on this, & he's already explained that this'll merely effect close to 10% of the workforce. So this is a very small capitalist sector.

We can obviously state that these new economical rulings are being forced on them due to the international economic crisis. In Cuba, the foreign debt has vastly increased as a result from nickel prices falling & their tourist sector going down. A comrade of mine seems to think that this ruling may be used to try & encourage fellow Cubans who have money from remittances to invest it domestically.

This is definitely a risky move, but I'm quite certain they'll do just fine. They've pulled through this far, & these new rulings are a result in modernizing due to the economic crisis. Under Socialism, there's no rule stating that no capitalist sector must be present. This is a very small percentage in comparison to the rest of the economy, & the State-own sector is still vastly outnumbering the private sector. Hell, the main sectors of the economy - nickel, tourism, & medical technology - will remain in State hands.

So, although there'll be a real capitalist sector now, this does not mean that Socialism is being betrayed whatsoever. Again, this Cuban NEP is a result due to the crisis, & so to keep the Socialist economy alive in Cuba, these rulings are an absolute must. I truly do think Raul has a handle on this & knows what he's doing.

[RED DAVE]

State capitalism leading to private capitalism. notice how those million Cuban workers who lost their government jobs got to vote on what was going to happen to them.

RED DAVE

[AK]

So this is a very small capitalist sector.
Which is still too much.


Under Socialism, there's no rule stating that no capitalist sector must be present.
But if one exists, I would be very wary in labelling such a society "socialist".


So, although there'll be a real capitalist sector now, this does not mean that Socialism is being betrayed whatsoever.
A capitalist sector is emerging. That is the very definition of betraying socialism.


to keep the Socialist economy alive in Cuba, these rulings are an absolute must.
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in that last sentence? Capitalism fixes socialism?

Inb4 you denounce me as ultra-leftist. I'm sorry that opposing capitalism makes me an ultra-leftist, I truly am.

[gorillafuck]

And so the propaganda continues. I give this a week until we're all shown how paranoid we are in the destruction of Cuban socialism.
You're being far too uncritical. Regardless of whether this is even necessary, if Cubans are employing others and the private sector is tripling then it's obviously a bad thing happening.

[anticap]

I've already discussed this with a fellow Comrade on this, & he's already explained that this'll merely effect close to 10% of the workforce.

Does he mean that this will raise total private-sector employment to 10%, or that this will add another 10% on top of existing private-sector employment (which stood at ~17% as of 2008 according to one source (http://laborsta.ilo.org/))?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Which is still too much.

That may be so, but again, this is a result due to the economic crisis. They had no other choice.


But if one exists, I would be very wary in labelling such a society "socialist".

The means of production is still, of the vast majority, owned by the working class in Cuba. This capitalist sector by no means make Cuba any less Socialist.


A capitalist sector is emerging. That is the very definition of betraying socialism.

That is by no means the definition of betraying Socialism. They are not going to allow this to be permanent like China did through "Market-Socialism". This is a temporary retreat to private businesses to take place in order to boost the economy, again, as a result to the economic crisis.


Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in that last sentence? Capitalism fixes socialism?

Inb4 you denounce me as ultra-leftist. I'm sorry that opposing capitalism makes me an ultra-leftist, I truly am.

I'm not calling you a ultra-leftist, never have in fact. I just think you're clearly wrong on your assertions. Socialism is not needing to be "fixed". It's not broken. Though, it's in need to be protected, at least the economy does. And so, to protect the economy from the economic crisis, there needs to be a boost in production, though obviously under a small scale. Which is where we see the capitalist sector come in.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Does he mean that this will raise total private-sector employment to 10%, or that this will add another 10% on top of existing private-sector employment (which stood at ~17% as of 2008 according to one source (http://laborsta.ilo.org/))?

No no no. The private sector that was already present in Cuba before this expansion in self-employment was regulated where no exploitation could take place. It was either to remain self-employed or to only hire family members. This 10% is purely of self-employment where workers outside the family can be hired. This seems to be an act used to try & save money. As in, to save on State expenditures. That way the State can invest more in order to boost their industries.

This same comrade feels that the key goal here is merely an import substitution.

[anticap]

The private sector that was already present in Cuba before this expansion in self-employment was regulated where no exploitation could take place. It was either to remain self-employed or to only hire family members. This 10% is purely of self-employment where workers outside the family can be hired.

Right, so this 10% figure is on top of the existing ~17% private-sector.

How did he arrive at this figure?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Right, so this 10% figure is on top of the existing ~17% private-sector.

How did he arrive at this figure?

He's got contacts in Cuba. I can give you his contact's facebook, but only through PM. And no, rather 10% of that 17% would now allow the self-employed to hire other workers. I don't even think 17% is the right percentage for 2010. But I'd have to check back up on that. Remember this is an expansion of the self-employment sector, not an add-on.

[anticap]

He's got contacts in Cuba. I can give you his contact's facebook, but only through PM.

No, but thanks. I just figured you might know since you've talked with him about it.


And no, rather 10% of that 17% would now allow the self-employed to hire other workers. ... Remember this is an expansion of the self-employment sector, not an add-on.

That's what I was trying to nail down.


I don't even think 17% is the right percentage for 2010.

2008, according to that one source.

[The Vegan Marxist]

No, but thanks. I just figured you might know since you've talked with him about it.



That's what I was trying to nail down.



2008, according to that one source.

Ahhhh, I just got in contact with him, & I'm stupid for not realizing how he came up with this estimate. Alright, here's how he got it:

The population of Cuba is around 11 million. Now, due to reports on this new ruling, close to around 500,000 will be let go & transferred to the private sector. This would be less than 10%. Hell, it might not even be that big either, due to the fact that most of those won't be employees or employers, but self-employed, especially in farming.

[anticap]

I'd like to know if "triple" is BBC's word, or Granma's. It doesn't jibe with the International Labour Organization's data.

[Chimurenga.]

Man. the BBC sure is on fire lately, huh? :rolleyes:


Which is still too much.

If only we lived in a fantasy world, right?

[The Vegan Marxist]

That's what I was trying to nail down.

Sorry about this Comrade, but after looking it over a bit more closely, I was actually wrong about my claim of it not being an add on. The 10% is in fact an add on to the 17% private economy (17% being an unsure estimate). So, this'll make Cuba's economy be privately owned by 27%, at most. Though, we must take in the facts here, that 10% is an estimate as being the most in percentage. It'll more than likely be a lot less than 10% like I've already shown. And with 17% of that 27% will be non-exploitative. So, again, there'll only be 10% or less on exploitation. With the State-own sector being at least 73%, if not more. Making Cuba's means of production vastly owned by the working class still. So there's no need to worry about this ruling.

[AK]

The means of production is still, of the vast majority, owned by the working class in Cuba. This capitalist sector by no means make Cuba any less Socialist.
Increasing capitalist sector at the cost of a decreasing socialist sector = less socialist, although the notion that it ever once was is also a point of contention.


That is by no means the definition of betraying Socialism. They are not going to allow this to be permanent like China did through "Market-Socialism". This is a temporary retreat to private businesses to take place in order to boost the economy, again, as a result to the economic crisis.
So if this truly is just a temporary measure, I'm going to look forward to seeing the Cuban working class expropriating the new capitalists or even the capitalists voluntarily giving up their means of production. But both options look like they have an incredibly low chance of happening whenever this economic crisis ends - Cubans will still think they live under socialism so they're not going to expropriate any bourgeoisie or petit-bourgeoisie any time soon and it is extremely rare that the capitalist will give up their own means of production.

Also, something you should know: opening the door for private property is one of the single most obvious betrayals of socialism - but you cannot comprehend this for some strange reason.

Besides, the proposed time span of the existence of private property doesn't do anything to counter the fact that it is still a betrayal of socialism.


I'm not calling you a ultra-leftist, never have in fact. I just think you're clearly wrong on your assertions. Socialism is not needing to be "fixed". It's not broken. Though, it's in need to be protected, at least the economy does. And so, to protect the economy from the economic crisis, there needs to be a boost in production, though obviously under a small scale. Which is where we see the capitalist sector come in.
I'm fairly sure you indeed have labelled me as an ultra-leftist at one stage. I don't mind. It's meaningless slander used to insult someone whilst sounding like an intellectual whilst spewing dogma and rhetoric and ignoring any arguments at the same time.

[AK]

If only we lived in a fantasy world, right?
I think it's more the other way around: the notion that an economy with capitalist sectors can be called socialist is more along the lines of a fantasy world.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Increasing capitalist sector at the cost of a decreasing socialist sector = less socialist, although the notion that it ever once was is also a point of contention.

No, it's actually just a problem for you & the ISO "state-capitalist" theorists on the fact that Cuba is clearly Socialist.


So if this truly is just a temporary measure, I'm going to look forward to seeing the Cuban working class expropriating the new capitalists or even the capitalists voluntarily giving up their means of production. But both options look like they have an incredibly low chance of happening whenever this economic crisis ends - Cubans will still think they live under socialism so they're not going to expropriate any bourgeoisie or petit-bourgeoisie any time soon and it is extremely rare that the capitalist will give up their own means of production.

Also, something you should know: opening the door for private property is one of the single most obvious betrayals of socialism - but you cannot comprehend this for some strange reason.

Besides, the proposed time span of the existence of private property doesn't do anything to counter the fact that it is still a betrayal of socialism.

Again, we're looking at 10% or less in actual exploitation, on actual capitalism. To state that this 10% will be able to overthrow the workers State of Cuba & restore capitalism is absolutely laughable & only shows how simple minded you can be at times. And again, it's the vast majority of Cubans against you & ISO's when it comes to determining if Cuba is Socialist or not. Excuse me if I choose to not side with you & the rest of the crowd.

Also, yes, if they were willingly opening the doors to private property, it would be a betrayal to socialism. Though, for some odd reason, you seem to just want to completely disregard the fact that they were forced to do this as a result to the economic crisis. I would only conclude such disregards as being a sign of opportunism, rather than an actual critique.


I'm fairly sure you indeed have labelled me as an ultra-leftist at one stage. I don't mind. It's meaningless slander used to insult someone whilst sounding like an intellectual whilst spewing dogma and rhetoric and ignoring any arguments at the same time.

I give you my word that I've never, from the very time I've met you on this forum, labeled you as an ultra-leftist. Though, I'm not sure how well this'll remain in the future. Though, you clearly choose to think otherwise, in which allowed you to make an indirect attack towards me by stating that I ignore any arguments that you share. Though, I clearly quote each piece you share & then refute, & sometimes come to agree as well. So clearly you're wrong on these assertions as well.

[AK]

No, it's actually just a problem for you & the ISO "state-capitalist" theorists on the fact that Cuba is clearly Socialist.
You'd be mistaken if you thought I subscribed to any one of the numerous state capitalist theories.

Besides, is total political and economic power directly in the hands of the workers? No. That is indeed a problem.


Again, we're looking at 10% or less in actual exploitation, on actual capitalism. To state that this 10% will be able to overthrow the workers State of Cuba & restore capitalism is absolutely laughable & only shows how simple minded you can be at times. And again, it's the vast majority of Cubans against you & ISO's when it comes to determining if Cuba is Socialist or not. Excuse me if I choose to not side with you & the rest of the crowd.
I never said that this 10% will overthrow the present system in Cuba. I'm saying it is an obvious betrayal to socialism that the doors are being opened to capitalism.


Also, yes, if they were willingly opening the doors to private property, it would be a betrayal to socialism. Though, for some odd reason, you seem to just want to completely disregard the fact that they were forced to do this as a result to the economic crisis. I would only conclude such disregards as being a sign of opportunism, rather than an actual critique.
I think it's a telling sign about the economic character of the Cuba that it should succumb to a international capitalist crisis; that there are still individuals who can control whether or not hundreds of thousands of workers keep their jobs, and that there are individuals that can initiate the capitalist system at will.

[Ovi]

I'm glad to see that Cuban socialism works so well, that it's necessary to promote private business to keep the economy alive.

[anticap]

I did these for my own curiosity, but figured I'd post them in case anyone's interested:

Cuban private-sector as percentage of total employment:
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5254/cubanprivatesector.png

The same, zoomed in to show the trend:
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/2927/cubanprivatesectortrend.png

Source: ILO LABORSTA (http://laborsta.ilo.org/)

[The Vegan Marxist]

You'd be mistaken if you thought I subscribed to any one of the numerous state capitalist theories.

Besides, is total political and economic power directly in the hands of the workers? No. That is indeed a problem.

No, I didn't explicitly state that you share the same theoretical analysis as the ISO's, but I did compare you to them in regards of, for some reason, not realizing that Cuba is in fact Socialist.

And yes, it is a problem, but a problem that was forced on them to take. The State was losing money to help invest in several industries, which effects the workers controlling these industries. So it was either stay on the path of complete State domination & initially collapse due to the economic crisis, or to temporary retreat back to some private economic ruling (10% or less of that) to make sure the economy does not collapse.


I never said that this 10% will overthrow the present system in Cuba. I'm saying it is an obvious betrayal to socialism that the doors are being opened to capitalism.

Then what exactly do you fear of this 10% if not them re-storing capitalism in Cuba? In fact, from what I've seen, you don't believe they're socialist, so why are you getting bent out of shape over this? In my opinion, I believe you do think Cuba is socialist, though you being an anarchist it goes against your way of thinking. I could be absolutely wrong about that assertion, just stating what I feel out of this.


I think it's a telling sign about the economic character of the Cuba that it should succumb to a international capitalist crisis; that there are still individuals who can control whether or not hundreds of thousands of workers keep their jobs, and that there are individuals that can initiate the capitalist system at will.

You're not comparing Cuba to other countries are you? You do realize that Cuba is a vastly small island, just right below the beast itself, right? The DPRK is a very small country & is collapsing before our eyes due to the sanctions being brought against them. The only ones helping them out in trade is China. Though, again, Cuba is a completely different country, & they're gaining support from Bolivia, Venezuela, Belarus, & China. Which is why they haven't collapsed, but they're still in a need of controlling their economy.

I don't understand why it's so hard for you to realize this. You're obviously living in a fantasy world where you believe that the original ideal of gaining socialism must only be under complete worker control over the entirety of the economy. The problem with this is that, as time went by, it became a very betrayal to Marxist thought, because, as practice took place, we realized that this was not possible to happen within just a few short years. And so the utopia-like ideal became the view of an idealist, rather than a materialist.

[RED DAVE]

I think it's a telling sign about the economic character of the Cuba that it should succumb to a international capitalist crisis; that there are still individuals who can control whether or not hundreds of thousands of workers keep their jobs, and that there are individuals that can initiate the capitalist system at will.State capitalism at its finest leading to private capitalism

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

I don't understand why it's so hard for you to realize this. You're obviously living in a fantasy world where you believe that the original ideal of gaining socialism must only be under complete worker control over the entirety of the economy. The problem with this is that, as time went by, it became a very betrayal to Marxist thought, because, as practice took place, we realized that this was not possible to happen within just a few short years. And so the utopia-like ideal became the view of an idealist, rather than a materialist.And because you don't believe in having "complete worker control over the entirety of the economy," you can justify supporting state capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Lyev]

State capitalism at its finest leading to private capitalism

RED DAVEDave, please may you elaborate on this a bit more? Your views on state-capitalism itself are quite clear, yet you never seem to type more than a one or two sentences about. Why do you think Cuba are state-capitalist? When, how, why did the PCC and Castro become divorced from the working people of Cuba?

[The Vegan Marxist]

And because you don't believe in having "complete worker control over the entirety of the economy," you can justify supporting state capitalism.

RED DAVE

Too bad state capitalism is bullshit, just as much as you & the ISO's theoretical structure of thinking.

[RED DAVE]

Too bad state capitalism is bullshit, just as much as you & the ISO's theoretical structure of thinking.Ao what you're saying is that in "workers states" like China and the USSR, capitalism was restored with no signrificant protests by the working class. The workers just let the new bourgeoisie take over management of the economy, which the workers had had up till then, with no protest at all.

And it's perfectly cool in Nepal for a revolutionary workers party to head a bourgeois government. (Lest you have any illusions, a government that preserves capitalist relations in the workplace, like the on Prachandra headed, is a bourgeois government.)

And a government in Cuba that can lay off half a million workers without them voting on is ... .

RED DAVE

[Fulanito de Tal]

Here's a story.

My dad was in Cuba a few weeks ago. While there, he went to go by sugar cane juice. Sugar cane juice has to be fresh. If you let it sit for 10 mins, it goes bad. So, he asked the guy for a glass and the guy gave my dad old juice. My dad gave him an extra peso and the guy made him fresh juice. The second time he went back to the same guy and the same shit happened; he was given old juice. My dad told that he had it with that. He said, "Why don't you give everyone fresh sugar cane juice like your supposed to?!" This was his response, "The day that there is capitalism here, you will show up and I'll have fresh sugar cane juice in a nice cup waiting for you. The location will be clean and I will serve you with a smile and there will be no line. Until then, you get what I make you because that's socialism."

My point is that capitalist propaganda has been injected into Cuba and it's working. The people there are seeing American TV, such as Friends, and thinking that is what life is like here. On top of that, many people that leave Cuba, go back and tell them about all the marvelous luxuries that we have. Something tells me that they don't talk about how our luxuries are at the expense of "3rd World" countries and people assume that it's ALL due to the label of the economic model. They also don't mention our homeless, people that die from lack of healthcare, or our extreme individualism. The focus is on objects and our ability to accumulate. The benefits of Cuban culture and society is not given any weight. Therefore, the contrast it huge.

Underlying Assumption
Cuba is trying to build irreversible socialism. Their main leader, Fidel Castro, is near the end of his life and once he's gone, there will be unrest. I fear a possible invasion or coup promoted by the US. Hence, before he leaves, the system needs to be self-maintaining.

The point
I feel that this privatization is in part driven by the population's desires for capitalism. The Cuban government is enacting this policy to give people an option to explore their capitalist intrigue. Otherwise, there will be a portion of the population against the government, which is something that could be fatal given a crisis such as war or coup.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Ao what you're saying is that in "workers states" like China and the USSR, capitalism was restored with no signrificant protests by the working class. The workers just let the new bourgeoisie take over management of the economy, which the workers had had up till then, with no protest at all.

And it's perfectly cool in Nepal for a revolutionary workers party to head a bourgeois government. (Lest you have any illusions, a government that preserves capitalist relations in the workplace, like the on Prachandra headed, is a bourgeois government.)

And a government in Cuba that can lay off half a million workers without them voting on is ... .

RED DAVE

China is still Socialist, though is on a detrimental road back to capitalism. And there's plenty of worker protests taking place in China, each & every one of them being successful, allowing workers to gain higher wages. And yes, there were plenty of protests as a result of revisionism in the Soviet Union, especially when de-stalinization programs were being implemented.

And I'm not even going to try & explain Nepal with you, since me, Comrade A, & others have tried numerous times to explain, but you fail to even listen & continue to support your own flawed diatribe you call a "critique" about the UCPN (Maoist).

You have no idea what's going on in Cuba with your simplistic ISO bullshit. There haven't been protests erupting out of this decision, because in the majority hearts & minds of Cubans, Socialism is the initial goal & these decisions made are a necessary stand to preserve & protect the workers state of Cuba. When Comrade Raul did his speech recently, you could see millions of Cubans roaring in cheers for the support of the Cuban struggle. So again, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about whatsoever.

[RadioRaheem84]

Here's a story.

My dad was in Cuba a few weeks ago. While there, he went to go by sugar cane juice. Sugar cane juice has to be fresh. If you let it sit for 10 mins, it goes bad. So, he asked the guy for a glass and the guy gave my dad old juice. My dad gave him an extra peso and the guy made him fresh juice. The second time he went back to the same guy and the same shit happened; he was given old juice. My dad told that he had it with that. He said, "Why don't you give everyone fresh sugar cane juice like your supposed to?!" This was his response, "The day that there is capitalism here, you will show up and I'll have fresh sugar cane juice in a nice cup waiting for you. The location will be clean and I will serve you with a smile and there will be no line. Until then, you get what I make you because that's socialism."

My point is that capitalist propaganda has been injected into Cuba and it's working. The people there are seeing American TV, such as Friends, and thinking that is what life is like here. On top of that, many people that leave Cuba, go back and tell them about all the marvelous luxuries that we have. Something tells me that they don't talk about how our luxuries are at the expense of "3rd World" countries and people assume that it's ALL due to the label of the economic model. They also don't mention our homeless, people that die from lack of healthcare, or our extreme individualism. The focus is on objects and our ability to accumulate. The benefits of Cuban culture and society is not given any weight. Therefore, the contrast it huge.

Underlying Assumption
Cuba is trying to build irreversible socialism. Their main leader, Fidel Castro, is near the end of his life and once he's gone, there will be unrest. I fear a possible invasion or coup promoted by the US. Hence, before he leaves, the system needs to be self-maintaining.

The point
I feel that this privatization is in part driven by the population's desires for capitalism. The Cuban government is enacting this policy to give people an option to explore their capitalist intrigue. Otherwise, there will be a portion of the population against the government, which is something that could be fatal given a crisis such as war or coup.


It's stories like these that give me less for hope for successfully implementing socialism. I have to wonder just how the working class can really think that life under capitalism is so wonderful given they live in a socialist society that can refute this message? Aren't there documentaries in Cuba, information, etc on capitalist society? Do all Cuban just think it's propaganda?

This has been a trend among the population of Soviet Style economic nations. There has been this constant urge to have the material excess of the capitalist world while still retaining the social safety net. Why is this? Do they not know they're not going to get both? They would be under the thumb of capital and end up being exploited like the former Eastern Blocs.

I wish I could understand the mindset of the average Cuban, especially the one that wants capitalism.

[Fulanito de Tal]

It's stories like these that give me less for hope for successfully implementing socialism. I have to wonder just how the working class can really think that life under capitalism is so wonderful given they live in a socialist society that can refute this message? Aren't there documentaries in Cuba, information, etc on capitalist society? Do all Cuban just think it's propaganda?

This has been a trend among the population of Soviet Style economic nations. There has been this constant urge to have the material excess of the capitalist world while still retaining the social safety net. Why is this? Do they not know they're not going to get both? They would be under the thumb of capital and end up being exploited like the former Eastern Blocs.

I wish I could understand the mindset of the average Cuban, especially the one that wants capitalism.

I wouldn't say that the juice vendor expressed the average Cuban's ideas. Last time I went, I was talking about politics at a bus stop near the Capitol Building. When I said some points that pro-capitalism people use, I got a bunch of dirty looks from those around me. It was obvious that those were 100% against capitalism. However, there is a small percentage of people that are intrigued by capitalism, and my point was that this policy is a reaction to that percentage...in part of course.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Here's a story.

My dad was in Cuba a few weeks ago. While there, he went to go by sugar cane juice. Sugar cane juice has to be fresh. If you let it sit for 10 mins, it goes bad. So, he asked the guy for a glass and the guy gave my dad old juice. My dad gave him an extra peso and the guy made him fresh juice. The second time he went back to the same guy and the same shit happened; he was given old juice. My dad told that he had it with that. He said, "Why don't you give everyone fresh sugar cane juice like your supposed to?!" This was his response, "The day that there is capitalism here, you will show up and I'll have fresh sugar cane juice in a nice cup waiting for you. The location will be clean and I will serve you with a smile and there will be no line. Until then, you get what I make you because that's socialism."

My point is that capitalist propaganda has been injected into Cuba and it's working. The people there are seeing American TV, such as Friends, and thinking that is what life is like here. On top of that, many people that leave Cuba, go back and tell them about all the marvelous luxuries that we have. Something tells me that they don't talk about how our luxuries are at the expense of "3rd World" countries and people assume that it's ALL due to the label of the economic model. They also don't mention our homeless, people that die from lack of healthcare, or our extreme individualism. The focus is on objects and our ability to accumulate. The benefits of Cuban culture and society is not given any weight. Therefore, the contrast it huge.

Underlying Assumption
Cuba is trying to build irreversible socialism. Their main leader, Fidel Castro, is near the end of his life and once he's gone, there will be unrest. I fear a possible invasion or coup promoted by the US. Hence, before he leaves, the system needs to be self-maintaining.

The point
I feel that this privatization is in part driven by the population's desires for capitalism. The Cuban government is enacting this policy to give people an option to explore their capitalist intrigue. Otherwise, there will be a portion of the population against the government, which is something that could be fatal given a crisis such as war or coup.

Stories like these just helps point out the gullibility in people, even while under a clear Socialist country. We're being told the story of one person in a country of millions that supports Capitalism over Socialism, in which gives off a Capitalist mentality about serving his people. He says that how he works is how Socialism works? Isn't this a red flag in this one individual's mentality?

The vast majority of Cuba & Cuban citizens operate under the Socialist mentality, not Capitalist. So a tourist found himself at a Sugar Cane Juice bar run by a capitalist. Is this really big news? The person was obviously part of the self-employment sector where no workers could be hired other than himself or family members. His business operations are what'll determine if he makes money or not, & with that kind of attitude, people who actually live there [not tourists] will obviously not go to this man's bar, & rather go to one where real Socialists run it.

I really don't understand how people can fall for this propaganda that because a single capitalist is present that Socialism is being threatened. This story, whether true or not, is obviously a story of the vast minority in Cuba, whereas the story is the complete opposite on how the vast majority of Cuba runs - under the ideals of Socialism. This story proves nothing!

[Barry Lyndon]

Here's a story.

My dad was in Cuba a few weeks ago. While there, he went to go by sugar cane juice. Sugar cane juice has to be fresh. If you let it sit for 10 mins, it goes bad. So, he asked the guy for a glass and the guy gave my dad old juice. My dad gave him an extra peso and the guy made him fresh juice. The second time he went back to the same guy and the same shit happened; he was given old juice. My dad told that he had it with that. He said, "Why don't you give everyone fresh sugar cane juice like your supposed to?!" This was his response, "The day that there is capitalism here, you will show up and I'll have fresh sugar cane juice in a nice cup waiting for you. The location will be clean and I will serve you with a smile and there will be no line. Until then, you get what I make you because that's socialism."

My point is that capitalist propaganda has been injected into Cuba and it's working. The people there are seeing American TV, such as Friends, and thinking that is what life is like here. On top of that, many people that leave Cuba, go back and tell them about all the marvelous luxuries that we have. Something tells me that they don't talk about how our luxuries are at the expense of "3rd World" countries and people assume that it's ALL due to the label of the economic model. They also don't mention our homeless, people that die from lack of healthcare, or our extreme individualism. The focus is on objects and our ability to accumulate. The benefits of Cuban culture and society is not given any weight. Therefore, the contrast it huge.

Underlying Assumption
Cuba is trying to build irreversible socialism. Their main leader, Fidel Castro, is near the end of his life and once he's gone, there will be unrest. I fear a possible invasion or coup promoted by the US. Hence, before he leaves, the system needs to be self-maintaining.

The point
I feel that this privatization is in part driven by the population's desires for capitalism. The Cuban government is enacting this policy to give people an option to explore their capitalist intrigue. Otherwise, there will be a portion of the population against the government, which is something that could be fatal given a crisis such as war or coup.

Interesting. But I have talked to other people who have been to Cuba and what they tell me is that support for socialism is still strong.
People grumble and whine in just about any system that exists. I'm sure people will complain even if a communist utopia is achieved someday. Some people are simply dissatisfied regardless of what they have. I'm sure wev'e all met people like that.
If Cuba were to make a full-fledged transition to capitalism, in my view it would have done it in the 1990's, when it was totally isolated and had no allies. The capitalist press was almost totally united in declaring that socialism would collapse in Cuba. It didnt happen.
Now Cuba has allies in Venezuela, Bolivia, and elsewhere helping it out economically, support which didn't exist 10 years ago.
Maybe I'm engaging in wishful thinking, but at least its optimism backed by some measure of evidence and healthy skepticism towards personal anecdotes.

[RED DAVE]

China is still SocialistGame over! You have no idea what socialism is.


though is on a detrimental road back to capitalism.Uhh, they went down that road to the end about ten years ago. China is the most rapidly growing capitalist country in the world.


And there's plenty of worker protests taking place in China, each & every one of them being successful, allowing workers to gain higher wages.This is typical of capitalism when it's expanding. These are not protests against the restoration of capitalism; they are struggles within capitalism


And yes, there were plenty of protests as a result of revisionism in the Soviet Union, especially when de-stalinization programs were being implemented.There were protests against the decline of wages and the general deterioration of conditions, but compared to the civil war, when the workers fought to the death to preserve socialism, nothing much happened.


And I'm not even going to try & explain Nepal with you, since me, Comrade A, & others have tried numerous times to explain, but you fail to even listen & continue to support your own flawed diatribe you call a "critique" about the UCPN (Maoist).Funny that my critique of the UCPN(M) more or less corresponds to the criticism promulgated by the Indian Maoists.


You have no idea what's going on in Cuba with your simplistic ISO bullshit. There haven't been protests erupting out of this decision, because in the majority hearts & minds of Cubans, Socialism is the initial goal & these decisions made are a necessary stand to preserve & protect the workers state of Cuba. When Comrade Raul did his speech recently, you could see millions of Cubans roaring in cheers for the support of the Cuban struggle. So again, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about whatsoever.When Comrade Raul and his ilk restore private capitalism in Cuba, as the Maoists restored it in China, in the next 10 years, you'll sing a different tune.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

Game over! You have no idea what socialism is.

Can say the exact same thing to you. ;) In fact, I've been saying that for a while now.


Uhh, they went down that road to the end about ten years ago. China is the most rapidly growing capitalist country in the world.

The majority of the means of production did not go to private hands. Your idiocy on this is amusing. Even Iseul who's helped us be known about the Maoists present in China agrees that China is still hanging onto Socialism, just on a dangerous road to capitalist restoration.


This is typical of capitalism when it's expanding. These are not protests against the restoration of capitalism; they are struggles within capitalism

You're completely delusional to the fact that China is not yet Capitalist. This ultra-leftist mentality is detrimental to this movement, to say the least.


There were protests against the decline of wages and the general deterioration of conditions, but compared to the civil war, when the workers fought to the death to preserve socialism, nothing much happened.

That's because the civil war, when compared to trying to protect socialism, was in the need to be a bloody struggle. Those that were under socialism, fighting against revisionism was in no need to be bloody, in which it wasn't. So to compare both is a bit misleading.


Funny that my critique of the UCPN(M) more or less corresponds to the criticism promulgated by the Indian Maoists.

They see them as revisionists, not State Capitalists you idiot! They did not have the same critique as you, nor ever will. And to claim such just shows how misleading you are on every critique you make, promoting the bullshit ISO's spew.


When Comrade Raul and his ilk restore private capitalism in Cuba, as the Maoists restored it in China, in the next 10 years, you'll sing a different tune.

Your failure to understand Cuba is amusing at times, but excuse me as I continue to be a materialist & understand Cuba's struggle, rather than being an ISO idealist who hopes to see the workers state of Cuba collapse so that the ISO can fap to it.


RED DAVE

The Vegan Marxist

[AK]

No, I didn't explicitly state that you share the same theoretical analysis as the ISO's, but I did compare you to them in regards of, for some reason, not realizing that Cuba is in fact Socialist.
You put me in the same category as the ISO and made a point of it to mention that the ISO denounces Cuba as state capitalist. One could only assume. But I guess logic isn't your forte.


Then what exactly do you fear of this 10% if not them re-storing capitalism in Cuba? In fact, from what I've seen, you don't believe they're socialist, so why are you getting bent out of shape over this? In my opinion, I believe you do think Cuba is socialist, though you being an anarchist it goes against your way of thinking. I could be absolutely wrong about that assertion, just stating what I feel out of this.
What could I possibly have against capitalism, you say? :rolleyes: Worker exploitation, wage slavery, social inequality... the list goes on. Just because I don't think Cuba is socialist, it doesn't mean that I shouldn't oppose the restoration of a small capitalist sector.


You're not comparing Cuba to other countries are you? You do realize that Cuba is a vastly small island, just right below the beast itself, right? The DPRK is a very small country & is collapsing before our eyes due to the sanctions being brought against them. The only ones helping them out in trade is China. Though, again, Cuba is a completely different country, & they're gaining support from Bolivia, Venezuela, Belarus, & China. Which is why they haven't collapsed, but they're still in a need of controlling their economy.
My point was that there is a characteristic about the Cuban economy that shouldn't be there if it could succumb to a capitalist crisis.


I don't understand why it's so hard for you to realize this. You're obviously living in a fantasy world where you believe that the original ideal of gaining socialism must only be under complete worker control over the entirety of the economy. The problem with this is that, as time went by, it became a very betrayal to Marxist thought, because, as practice took place, we realized that this was not possible to happen within just a few short years. And so the utopia-like ideal became the view of an idealist, rather than a materialist.
Let's imagine your revolution for a second. You would be happy to label an economy with 80% workers' control and the other 20% being a capitalist sector as socialist. In your revolution, did you just think a sizable minority of the working class would not even try to overthrow their capitalists and managers? Or that those remaining petit-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie would not give up their means of production out of fear for their lives and flee? And then we take the your view of the state into account and say that the working class has achieved state power. If the working class itself had achieved state power, would the capitalists not flee out of fear of repression (especially considering the revolutionary atmosphere is still widespread at this stage)? If the workers truly became the ruling force in society, there are a host of reasons why all capitalist industry would crumble. But you seem to ignore these scenarios. Now the next bit is not actually intended as an attack against you funnily enough. The only way I could imagine that the state allowed for capitalist industry to continue running if the workers themselves were not in control of the state apparatus like you say would happen. But rather, if it were a minority of government officials, ministers and bureaucrats - because such a top-down system of managing the economy is the only way that a government (which in this case, cannot be the working class or the bourgeoisie) could resolve tensions between two antagonistic classes and continue the existence of a capitalist sector within a socialist economy. See, we just can't deal with the concept of socialism as mechanistically as we do with the other modes of production, because the workers are bound to overthrow the whole capitalist system in their country if revolution succeeds and the only way that a capitalist and a socialist mode of production can co-exist is if it were not the bourgeoisie or the proletariat in control of the state. The working class isn't one that settles for second best - it will not tolerate the continued exploitation and enslavement of its constituent members after a socialist revolution.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You put me in the same category as the ISO and made a point of it to mention that the ISO denounces Cuba as state capitalist. One could only assume. But I guess logic isn't your forte.

Um, if you actually read what I said, you'd realize that I wasn't stating that you & the ISO were in common for calling Cuba "state-capitalist", merely comparing you two for stating that Cuba is not Socialist. Here's what I said, read carefully:


No, it's actually just a problem for you & the ISO "state-capitalist" theorists on the fact that Cuba is clearly Socialist.


What could I possibly have against capitalism, you say? :rolleyes: Worker exploitation, wage slavery, social inequality... the list goes on. Just because I don't think Cuba is socialist, it doesn't mean that I shouldn't oppose the restoration of a small capitalist sector.

Well I'm against those things too, but are you not taking in the fact that they were forced to allow a small percentage of private production (10% or less to be exact)? Again, they're not doing this willingly, or because they agree with what'll take place, but because they have to in order to save the Cuban economy.


My point was that there is a characteristic about the Cuban economy that shouldn't be there if it could succumb to a capitalist crisis.

Why? The crisis is putting a blockade on socialist development, due to the economy being down. The State isn't gaining money from such in order to invest in State-run industries & worker cooperatives. The nickel prices fell drastically because of such, along with tourism. The position they're taking is in order to save money. This 10% (or less) won't effect much on the workers, but will allow the economy to boost back up again.


Let's imagine your revolution for a second. You would be happy to label an economy with 80% workers' control and the other 20% being a capitalist sector as socialist. In your revolution, did you just think a sizable minority of the working class would not even try to overthrow their capitalists and managers? Or that those remaining petit-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie would not give up their means of production out of fear for their lives and flee? And then we take the your view of the state into account and say that the working class has achieved state power. If the working class itself had achieved state power, would the capitalists not flee out of fear of repression (especially considering the revolutionary atmosphere is still widespread at this stage)? If the workers truly became the ruling force in society, there are a host of reasons why all capitalist industry would crumble. But you seem to ignore these scenarios. Now the next bit is not actually intended as an attack against you funnily enough. The only way I could imagine that the state allowed for capitalist industry to continue running if the workers themselves were not in control of the state apparatus like you say would happen. But rather, if it were a minority of government officials, ministers and bureaucrats - because such a top-down system of managing the economy is the only way that a government (which in this case, cannot be the working class or the bourgeoisie) could resolve tensions between two antagonistic classes and continue the existence of a capitalist sector within a socialist economy. See, we just can't deal with the concept of socialism as mechanistically as we do with the other modes of production, because the workers are bound to overthrow the whole capitalist system in their country if revolution succeeds and the only way that a capitalist and a socialist mode of production can co-exist is if it were not the bourgeoisie or the proletariat in control of the state. The working class isn't one that settles for second best - it will not tolerate the continued exploitation and enslavement of its constituent members after a socialist revolution.

It's not as easy as saying 1, 2, 3, my friend. Full workers control, as you ideal upon, is a gradual process, in which capitalist production is to decrease under that same gradual time.

Also, you state that "If the working class itself had achieved state power, would the capitalists not flee out of fear of repression (especially considering the revolutionary atmosphere is still widespread at this stage)? If the workers truly became the ruling force in society, there are a host of reasons why all capitalist industry would crumble."

Well, while the bourgeois is the ruling class here, we still have state-own industries. Why are the capitalists not eliminating them immediately? Why are the workers not running in fear? Well, for one, neither class is going to run in fear. This isn't some movie drama where the good conquers evil & the evil run in fear. And again, it's a gradual process to achieve complete domination. There's too many different factors one has to play in. Not this simplistic, black n' white idealism of the workers overthrowing it all over night.

[Paulappaul]

Well I'm against those things too, but are you not taking in the fact that they were forced to allow a small percentage of private production (10% or less to be exact)? Again, they're not doing this willingly, or because they agree with what'll take place, but because they have to in order to save the Cuban economy.


Which within itself participates within in the world wide Capitalist economy. It goes to show that "Socialism in one Country" is generally impossible. Cuba has become State Socialist/Market Socialist - otherwise known as State Capitalist - and we've seen that to be generally exploitative. The lack of workers control in industry and government is expressed through the amount of strikes and blockades.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Which within itself participates within in the world wide Capitalist economy. It goes to show that "Socialism in one Country" is generally impossible. Cuba has become State Socialist/Market Socialist - otherwise known as State Capitalist - and we've seen that to be generally exploitative. The lack of workers control in industry and government is expressed through the amount of strikes and blockades.

This doesn't prove that Socialism in one country is impossible. It prospered quite while before this economic crisis. That's evidence enough to show that the theory of there being no such thing as "one country socialism" to be wrong. The economic crisis put them in a position to make economic adjustments. The State-sector, which is run through state-own enterprises & worker cooperatives, is vastly larger than the private-sector. Hell, even the non-exploitive private-sector is larger than this new expansion. You also claim of strikes & blockades, despite the fact that this is highly rare in Cuba, & is almost never seen, except through capitalist Cubans trying gain some kind of power in the workforce. So, again, the "state-capitalist" theory is bullshit & does not apply to Cuba whatsoever.

[AK]

It's not as easy as saying 1, 2, 3, my friend. Full workers control, as you ideal upon, is a gradual process, in which capitalist production is to decrease under that same gradual time.
Revolution happens as quickly as the factors affecting social relationships are altered. Since revolutions tend to happen in periods of widespread and high class-consciousness, we have every right to assume that revolution would spread quickly - especially considering the potential capabilities that modern communications technology has given the working class.

Also, I'd like to know just what kind of worker would remain working for the bourgeoisie in this gradual process of yours, and why on earth they would not even try to continue the revolution - especially considering the bourgeoisie are certainly fearing for their lives and safety and have no doubt have tried to flee. I'd also like to know just what kind of so-called revolutionary would be content with leaving a few bourgeois enterprises untouched.

Maybe you're the idealist. You think that revolution will be a process that takes years and for some reason the workers still enslaved by the capitalists (in the "socialist" economy) will not gained class consciousness at all and everything will be fine and dandy until some mysterious force gradually swallows up all of the bourgeois industries.


Also, you state that "If the working class itself had achieved state power, would the capitalists not flee out of fear of repression (especially considering the revolutionary atmosphere is still widespread at this stage)? If the workers truly became the ruling force in society, there are a host of reasons why all capitalist industry would crumble."

Well, while the bourgeois is the ruling class here, we still have state-own industries. Why are the capitalists not eliminating them immediately?
State enterprise generally helps keep the economy in check so that bourgeois property remains safe. Of course, the state is more than happy to privatise its industries once they no longer need to be free from the forces of the market. After all, the bourgeois state's allegiance is to capital.


Why are the workers not running in fear?
The same reason the workers are not making revolution. They have been taught to accept the way things are.


Well, for one, neither class is going to run in fear. This isn't some movie drama where the good conquers evil & the evil run in fear. And again, it's a gradual process to achieve complete domination. There's too many different factors one has to play in. Not this simplistic, black n' white idealism of the workers overthrowing it all over night.
And you're not even going to accept the possibility that there would be revolutionary workers in the very few still-existing bourgeois industries?

[Amphictyonis]

"The authorities in Cuba have revealed plans to triple the communist country's private sector"

(LOL. There's no such thing as a communist countries private sector! If it were a communist nation there would be no private sector to triple.)

[Amphictyonis]

Basically whats happened, in my humble opinion, since the fall of the USSR Cuba has been somewhat isolated with no large oil supply such as Venezuela has to provide materially. They even had to grow shitloads of food in their cities due to the fall of the USSR. The real worries we should have are to be found in the larger advanced capitalist nations (although being concerned with smaller nation states staying on the path to communism is extremity valid). I say real concerns because again, in my humble opinion, revolutionary global socialism depends on the most advanced capitalist nations going socialist (especially the US- with it's military might).

The thing is, you can't have socialism in one nation (again, especially with the US military might). Eventually, if we in the advanced capitalist nations don't do our jobs, the smaller nation states will be consumed by capitalism. One of the main reasons Iran is so demonized is because it is keeping most of the smaller potentially communist nations afloat.

Cuba should go to The Bank Of The South if it's in need of development funds or after Castro's departure there some sharks in the water over there? In either even Cuba can never be an advanced communist nation on it's own.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Here's a story.

My dad was in Cuba a few weeks ago. While there, he went to go by sugar cane juice. Sugar cane juice has to be fresh. If you let it sit for 10 mins, it goes bad. So, he asked the guy for a glass and the guy gave my dad old juice. My dad gave him an extra peso and the guy made him fresh juice. The second time he went back to the same guy and the same shit happened; he was given old juice. My dad told that he had it with that. He said, "Why don't you give everyone fresh sugar cane juice like your supposed to?!" This was his response, "The day that there is capitalism here, you will show up and I'll have fresh sugar cane juice in a nice cup waiting for you. The location will be clean and I will serve you with a smile and there will be no line. Until then, you get what I make you because that's socialism."

My point is that capitalist propaganda has been injected into Cuba and it's working. The people there are seeing American TV, such as Friends, and thinking that is what life is like here. On top of that, many people that leave Cuba, go back and tell them about all the marvelous luxuries that we have. Something tells me that they don't talk about how our luxuries are at the expense of "3rd World" countries and people assume that it's ALL due to the label of the economic model. They also don't mention our homeless, people that die from lack of healthcare, or our extreme individualism. The focus is on objects and our ability to accumulate. The benefits of Cuban culture and society is not given any weight. Therefore, the contrast it huge.

Underlying Assumption
Cuba is trying to build irreversible socialism. Their main leader, Fidel Castro, is near the end of his life and once he's gone, there will be unrest. I fear a possible invasion or coup promoted by the US. Hence, before he leaves, the system needs to be self-maintaining.

The point
I feel that this privatization is in part driven by the population's desires for capitalism. The Cuban government is enacting this policy to give people an option to explore their capitalist intrigue. Otherwise, there will be a portion of the population against the government, which is something that could be fatal given a crisis such as war or coup.

I have a similar story.

I was in Cuba not so long ago (a matter of months). I talked to many Cubans about the political/economic situation there, both people from the country and people in the city. It was all the same. They don't like the economic system, for whatever reason. But they all say they like Castro et al.

For me, the press have things the wrong way round. It seems that, with the many CDRs that you will see on pretty much every street corner advertising a meeting, there is quite a lot of localised democracy and discussion in Cuba. Certainly, people are not afraid to voice their opinions. However, the problem is Cuba, for me, is almost exclusively economic.

It is difficult to know what to do. I get the feeling that the current State-controlled, relatively centralised economy has done all it can. With the collapse of the USSR, the continuing embargo by the US (strengthened from 1996 with the Helms-Burton Act) and the current economic downturn, it is clearly that Cuba's economy is not prosperous, and this shows in a lack of urban development, roads not being safe to drive on, buildings on the verge of collapse, empty-ish stores, shortages and generally low quality products.

So, that famous question, What is to be done?

A thoroughly tricky question. For me, a profound economic change is needed. I'm not talking about the current change of seemingly moving to co-operatives and private sector employment. I'm talking about dismantling the state. A mutualist, co-operative model, based on workers' DIRECT control of the means of production, could produce results. There seems a problem in Cuba right now that the state is not directing resources efficiently (sorry for that word!). They are not producing what the population needs/wants, and they are not setting things at the prices that are needed. Whilst, for me, they are not as bureaucratic a class as the Nomenklature that evolved in the USSR and former Eastern Bloc, they do not seem to realise what life is like on the ground (or realise, but like me, cannot find a way out).

If I were in control of Cuban economic policy right now, i'd establish closer trade links with the EU (purely pragmatic reasons here, many ordinary Cubans are suffering from a lack of basic goods, from fish being exported for necessary economic reasons, milk being a fiver for a small un-pasteurised bag etc.

Oh, by the way, there is a sub-class of people (i've met and stayed with some) who are doing very, very well out of letting people like me stay in their houses, far better than the rest of the population. That too, is a problem.

The situation is complicated in Cuba. As an economist, it has even stumped me. I would suggest, in the face of solely US economic sanctions, that Cuba engages in better relations with the EU, Far East and China, and starts to engage workers in terms of handing economic management functions back to ordinary workers, particularly outside of big cities like Havana.

Let us hope that the Cuban government is taking note.

[RED DAVE]

The majority of the means of production did not go to private hands. Your idiocy on this is amusing. Even Iseul who's helped us be known about the Maoists present in China agrees that China is still hanging onto Socialism, just on a dangerous road to capitalist restoration.You need to take up a new career: as a stand-up comic.

(1) Approximately 50% of heavy industry is in state hands;

(2) approximately 70% of medium and light industry is in private hands;

(3) state ownership is not socialism unless the working class "owns" the state;

(4) the working class does not "own" the state in China;

(5) China is state capitalism leading to private capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

(3) state ownership is not socialism unless the working class "owns" the state;

(4) the working class does not "own" the state in China.


A state that is politically controlled by the bureaucratic caste of the working class but still has majority public ownership is technically known as a deformed worker's state.

A state that is politically controlled by bureaucratic capitalists, even with majority public ownership, is a state-capitalist state.

Bureaucrats can still belong to different economic classes.

In the case of the PRC, a major transition point occurred in 2002, when big capitalists were allowed into the CCP itself for the first time in the country's history. In early Maoist China, the CCP had a law explicitly stating that no capitalists, landlords, or members of any economically exploiting class can ever join the CCP without first giving up their exploitation of workers and peasants, but this law was reversed in 2002.

Therefore by definition today's China is not just a classic deformed worker's state that the revisionist USSR in the 1980s was, because bureaucratic capitalists are now explicitly an important part of China's top ruling structure. The USSR, even during its most deformed phase in the 1980s, never explicitly allowed capitalists, let alone big capitalists, to join the communist party.

This, added to the fact that just over half of the nation's overall economy is already in private hands, means that technically speaking the PRC today is a semi-deformed worker's state semi-state-capitalist state. I think this is the most accurate technical label for the state of the PRC today.

Currently within the ruling CCP, there is still an ongoing political struggle, between the so-called "princelings", highly privileged bureaucrats who are either bureaucratic capitalists themselves or very closely linked to the new bureaucratic capitalists in the party as well as to Western capital in general, and the "tuan-pai", less privileged bureaucrats who have less direct link to bureaucratic capital and foreign investment, and come from relatively more grassroots layers of the party structure. Although the PRC doesn't have an explicit "two-party" system like Western capitalist states such as the US and the UK, the "princelings" and the "tuan-pai" within the CCP today act like the relative "right-wing" and "left-wing" of the ruling class. The "princelings" are like the Republicans in the US or the Conservatives in the UK, while the "tuan-pai" are like the Democrats in the US or the Labour Party in the UK. From a genuine socialist perspective, both tendencies are not really "socialist", but the "tuan-pai" is still relatively speaking slightly more left-wing than the "princelings".

The majority of the lowest layers of the Chinese Communist Party today still belong to the working and middle classes in the objective economic sense. I think we should not completely write-off the CCP as a whole, only its ruling layers which consist of the bureaucratic capitalist class and socialist bureaucrats that are closely linked to bureaucratic capitalism. But the only way for the CCP to re-vitalise itself is for a literal class war to be fought within the party and the state itself.

[RED DAVE]

I think we should not completely write-off the CCP as a whole, only its ruling layers which consist of the bureaucratic capitalist class and socialist bureaucrats that are closely linked to bureaucratic capitalism. But the only way for the CCP to re-vitalise itself is for a literal class war to be fought within the party and the state itself.To attempt to work with members of the CCP would be like working with Democrats. They fully support the system which they help to govern. Do you expect class war in the DP?

RED DAVE

[pranabjyoti]

Which within itself participates within in the world wide Capitalist economy. It goes to show that "Socialism in one Country" is generally impossible. Cuba has become State Socialist/Market Socialist - otherwise known as State Capitalist - and we've seen that to be generally exploitative. The lack of workers control in industry and government is expressed through the amount of strikes and blockades.
Well, probably "socialism" can not be established in one country, but "DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT" can certainly be established in one country. So far, it's a worldwide war between bourgeoisie and proletariat and NONE CAN EXPECT IT TO BE OVER IN SINGLE DAY LIKE EVENTS OF EPIC.
Actually, proponents of "world revolution" want to say that in one fine morning, everything will be red in this world. They are just unable to see and understand the worldwide struggle of gaining and loosing grounds.

[Queercommie Girl]

to attempt to work with members of the CCP would be like working with Democrats. They fully support the system which they help to govern. Do you expect class war in the DP?

RED DAVE

I expected better Marxist understanding from you.

The Democrat party is a completely bourgeois party, there are no Marxists in the Democrat party at all. It's not even like the Labour Party in the UK, which was actually originally a part of Engels' Second International. Many Labour Party members actually call themselves "socialists", even though they meant it in the reformist rather than revolutionary sense. In fact, the new Labour Party leader Ed Miliband's father (Ralph Miliband) was actually a famous Marxist theorist in the UK many years ago.

There are some genuine left reformists on the Labour left, but I doubt genuine reformist socialists exist at all in the Democratic Party. There is never going to be a "class war" in the Democratic Party because virtually no-one in the DP has any kind of class consciousness in the Marxist sense.

The Chinese Communist Party is a Marxist-Leninist Party, and while the ruling layers have completely gone over to the side of capitalism, among the grassroots layers there are still many subjectively genuine socialists and people who are very class-conscious (subjectively genuine because objectively they might have some wrong ideas).

The CWI used to be literally a part of the Labour Party in the UK (the Militant Tendency). In those days they called for a class war within the Labour Party to change it from a bourgeois party into a working class party. If Trotskyists like the CWI can work with the Labour Party in such a way, I really don't see why they cannot apply the same principle to the Chinese Communist Party.

[Fulanito de Tal]

I was in Cuba not so long ago (a matter of months). I talked to many Cubans about the political/economic situation there, both people from the country and people in the city. It was all the same. They don't like the economic system, for whatever reason. But they all say they like Castro et al.

I also found this to be true! The people that I talked to REALLY like Fidel Castro. As far as the economy, some mentioned that there's a lot of corruption, but since everyone is doing, it even things out. Also, a farmer stated that he would pay people a full-day's pay for half of a day on his farm, but since it was too far from a city, no one wanted to work there.

Regarding the US, I can't imagine that it could control the population there if it were to invade. They really don't like the US. By "US" I mean our government, not individual people. As my cousin stated, "It's not your fault you were born over there [in the US] and we understand that you cannot change things yourself. We are also aware that the North Americans that come over here are the ones that are not against us."

[RED DAVE]

The Chinese Communist Party is a Marxist-Leninist Party, and while the ruling layers have completely gone over to the side of capitalism, among the grassroots layers there are still many subjectively genuine socialists and people who are very class-conscious (subjectively genuine because objectively they might have some wrong ideas).While you can demonstrate, objectively, that such strata may exist, can you document, subjectively, that they exist: is there any evidence for protest against capitalism in China, private or state, with in the CCP at the present time?


The CWI used to be literally a part of the Labour Party in the UK (the Militant Tendency). In those days they called for a class war within the Labour Party to change it from a bourgeois party into a working class party. If Trotskyists like the CWI can work with the Labour Party in such a way, I really don't see why they cannot apply the same principle to the Chinese Communist Party.Fuck the CWI. I was skeptical of the strategy of entryism 45 years ago. The CWI, the Clifffites, etc., got zero results from this strategy as far as I know. Now, with the globalization of capitalism, spread to China and Russia, there is, in my arrogant opinion, no justification for it.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Getting back to Cuba, can anyone who supports the measures point to any votes by any working class institutions in the workplace, that advocated or supported these measures.

Surely if Cuba is a workers state, the workers councils who run the economy should have been discussing and voting on this drastic measure.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

While you can demonstrate, objectively, that such strata may exist, can you document, subjectively, that they exist: is there any evidence for protest against capitalism in China, private or state, with in the CCP at the present time?


There is plenty of evidence, mostly in the Chinese language though.

Here is one article on this issue posted right here on RevLeft.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoist-resistance-china-t142289/index.html



Fuck the CWI. I was skeptical of the strategy of entryism 45 years ago. The CWI, the Clifffites, etc., got zero results from this strategy as far as I know. Now, with the globalization of capitalism, spread to China and Russia, there is, in my arrogant opinion, no justification for it.


Yep, I thought so. Judging from your cavalier attitude of dismissing reputable orthodox Trotskyist doctrines on the deformed worker's state and so on, I think it is safe to say that your views are rather ultra-leftist.

[RED DAVE]

While you can demonstrate, objectively, that such strata may exist, can you document, subjectively, that they exist: is there any evidence for protest against capitalism in China, private or state, with in the CCP at the present time?
There is plenty of evidence, mostly in the Chinese language though.

Here is one article on this issue posted right here on RevLeft.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoist-res...289/index.htmlUnfortunately, this letter from a brave old comrade proves my point: (1) he is old and a veteran of earlier struggles; (2) his experience and actions are not matched by the bulk of the party, which is by its action having a good time on the road to capitalism; (3) rather than waging a class struggle within the party, he quit! This would seem to imply that there is no real possibility of struggle in a party that is hell-bent for capitalism.


Fuck the CWI. I was skeptical of the strategy of entryism 45 years ago. The CWI, the Clifffites [sic], etc., got zero results from this strategy as far as I know. Now, with the globalization of capitalism, spread to China and Russia, there is, in my arrogant opinion, no justification for it.
Yep, I thought so. Judging from your cavalier attitude of dismissing reputable orthodox Trotskyist doctrines on the deformed worker's state and so on, I think it is safe to say that your views are rather ultra-leftist.Why don't you engage in political criticism rather than political cursing? My dismissal of the deformed and degenerated workers state theories are far from cavalier but were developed over a period of more than 50 years.

You want to discuss and debate, fine. You want to curse, fuck you!

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

Unfortunately, this letter from a brave old comrade proves my point: (1) he is old and a veteran of earlier struggles;


Why discriminate against older people? Aren't you quite old too?



(2) his experience and actions are not matched by the bulk of the party, which is by its action having a good time on the road to capitalism; (3) rather than waging a class struggle within the party, he quit! This would seem to imply that there is no real possibility of struggle in a party that is hell-bent for capitalism.


It's just one letter. I posted it because there aren't that many materials of this kind in the English language, they are mostly in Chinese.

In a PSL book on China I bought there is a very good long article written by actual CCP members heavily criticising the current leadership. Unfortunately it's not online and it's quite long so I won't type all of it up now.

It does reflect the existence of a working class/socialist movement against the ultra-revisionist status quo in China at the moment.



Why don't you engage in political criticism rather than political cursing? My dismissal of the deformed and degenerated workers state theories are far from cavalier but were developed over a period of more than 50 years.


I didn't know you were so old actually. But you seem to completely dismiss relatively reputable organisations like the CWI just because they engaged in some "entryism". You sound a bit extreme sometimes.



You want to discuss and debate, fine. You want to curse, fuck you!


I'm not into old guys actually. :rolleyes:

[The Vegan Marxist]

In a PSL book on China I bought there is a very good long article written by actual CCP members heavily criticising the current leadership. Unfortunately it's not online and it's quite long so I won't type all of it up now.

It does reflect the existence of a working class/socialist movement against the ultra-revisionist status quo in China at the moment.

The article you're referring to is called "Our Views on the Black Brick Kiln and Other Incidents and Recommendations for the 17th Party Congress." It is actually online, so [to Red Dave] if you want to read it, which I highly recommend you do, then click the link below:

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2007/china070807.html

[RED DAVE]

Unfortunately, this letter from a brave old comrade proves my point: (1) he is old and a veteran of earlier struggles;
Why discriminate against older people? Aren't you quite old too?You entirely missed my point, which is not his age but his experience. The nature of his experience is qualitatively different from younger comrades, especially those who have joined the party in the past ten or fifteen years.

(2) his experience and actions are not matched by the bulk of the party, which is by its action having a good time on the road to capitalism; (3) rather than waging a class struggle within the party, he quit! This would seem to imply that there is no real possibility of struggle in a party that is hell-bent for capitalism.
It's just one letter. I posted it because there aren't that many materials of this kind in the English language, they are mostly in Chinese.But presumably you posted it for it typicality. One more time: this man felt he had no option, after a life of loyalty to the CPC, with efforts and sacrifices which younger generations could only dream of, to quite the party.


In a PSL book on China I bought there is a very good long article written by actual CCP members heavily criticising the current leadership. Unfortunately it's not online and it's quite long so I won't type all of it up now.

It does reflect the existence of a working class/socialist movement against the ultra-revisionist status quo in China at the moment.If you are referring to the “Black Brink Kiln” document linked to by TVM, while it certainly has strong criticisms of the course of the party, it is, nevertheless, a document written by Maoist loyalists inside the party. A document within the CPC that “reflect[ed] the existence of a working class/socialist movement” would call for the immediate removal of the party leadership for cr5imes against the working class and the renationalization of all privatized industry. It’s basically a liberal critique. (I’ll discuss it in more detail in a separate post.)


Why don't you engage in political criticism rather than political cursing? My dismissal of the deformed and degenerated workers state theories are far from cavalier but were developed over a period of more than 50 years.
I didn't know you were so old actually.I am slightly over 250. I was Karl Marx’s philosophy teacher. He had a hard time understanding the materialist basic of Hegelian dialectics, but he finally got it. :D


But you seem to completely dismiss relatively reputable organisations like the CWI just because they engaged in some "entryism". You sound a bit extreme sometimes.I was dealing with the specific tactic of entryism, which the CWI, the Cliffites, etc., were involved in. I have always been skeptical of it. I am far from extreme on this issue, but I certainly believe that the tactic needs to be re-evaluated.


You want to discuss and debate, fine. You want to curse, fuck you!
I'm not into old guys actually.Don’t knock it if you ain’t tried it. My wife thinks I’m cool, though.:D

RED DAVE