Cuba is not a dictatorship

[thriller]

Well I want to know what people think about the statement: Cuba is not a dictatorship. So I have been reading up on Cuba, since I do not know too much about it. And from my understanding, the government is organized from the bottom up through local county jurisdictions which elect Assembly members, who then elect the President. And from, what I have read, Fidel has been continuously elected due to his stance as a National Hero. However I do know only the Communist Party is the only legal party, which allows for domination of the political spectrum. So my question is: Is Cuba a dictatorship because it has had the same person in power since the revolution? Or is it a People's Republic because it does have official elections? Or I guess a third option would be it's hard to say due to human rights issues and political corruption.

[La Peur Rouge]

Actually, Fidel's brother Raúl has been president since 2008.

But other than that I honestly don't know too much about Cuba.

[Cultural Revolution]

Yeah it is

Dictattorship of the proletariat.

Nah, in all seriousness though, cuba is not socialist, it is state capitalist, at least that is my view, as an MLM, who does not like revisionism and whoring resources off and erecting a wall of beauracratic roadsters.

Ive actually been to Cuba, and while it is very progressive, it is becoming capitalist, and rather than focusing on producing and becoming self sustaining, it sellks its sugar and fruit, and tobacco, and makes its beaches for rich and working class holiday makers.

Its even illegal for cubans to fish the sea, and people use the black market to get things.

I support it against revisionism, but Castro and the revolution was never really marxist, Castro was an opportunist, not a marxist.

[Agnapostate]

Well, Fidel Castro isn't the head of state at present. While it's possible that he could still be exercising significant power in his capacity as First Secretary of the Communist Party (he exercised maximum power as Prime Minister of Cuba even though he wasn't actually the President until 1976), I would guess that his brother Raul is in control.

Fidel Castro was in many ways a benevolent dictator, partially legitimized by possessing the consent of the governed, since he was and is popular. His administration was subject to a double standard in many aspects. Representative democracy is indirect and entails an abrogation of policy management authority to a small class of individuals that are in many cases not subject to recall (as in the case of the U.S. President, for example). In essence, is that not just installment of a temporary dictatorship? Isn't it almost worse to have an unpopular elected government that cannot be recalled (such as we have at present in the U.S. and had during the last half of Bush's second term), than to have a popular unelected government that would have been elected anyway?

Going to Castro's human rights record, his intolerance for dissidence and compulsion of LGBT people into forced labor camps were regrettable, and his liberal use of capital punishment during and in the wake of the Revolution was wrong, in my view, but the U.S. had enforceable sodomy laws until the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that still enjoy popular support in some regions and localities, the government has executed individuals such as the Rosenbergs for espionage on "national security" grounds, and who is it that operates a prison in Cuba where people are indefinitely detained without trials on the same basis?

[Rotfront]

Cuba is a bureaucratic dictatorship but not the same extent than the GDR or the SU. Nevertheless, Cuba should be critically supported, especially against imperialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Any major deficiencies in Cuba's democracy are obviously attributable to the fact the empire of the north has been breathing down their neck and terrorizing them since their inception. This has forced them to basically militarize many aspects of their government. It doesn't quite excuse all of their policies, as massive bureaucratization and inner corrupt prevails too, but it does give you a foundation in which to build on when examining the Cuban system.

In some areas it's more democratic than the United States.

[Cultural Revolution]

Not really Raheem, if they were truly socialist, and focused on producing and self reliance, rather than selling the workers produce on the markets of capital, then the blockade and embargo would make no difference

[Sosa]

I can't say I know much about Cuba but I remember reading something a while back (a study perhaps?) that stated that while there is corruption in Cuban bureaucracy, it is lower than any other Latin American country. I don't know if anyone has ever heard of this or has any info on it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Not really Raheem, if they were truly socialist, and focused on producing and self reliance, rather than selling the workers produce on the markets of capital, then the blockade and embargo would make no difference

Yes, I have always known that the embargo was sort of a excuse by the regime to maintain power (very real but overblown). I mean when I looked the numbers, I was shocked to find out that it only cost the little island 70 billion over the course of nearly half a century. While that may be a lot to the little island, I was really expecting a more devastating number.

And no where did I say that I thought the Cuban System was socialist. It's surely progressive and rather state capitalist.

[Sosa]

Not really Raheem, if they were truly socialist, and focused on producing and self reliance, rather than selling the workers produce on the markets of capital, then the blockade and embargo would make no difference

Cuba is forced to work within the world capitalist system because the island has limited resources. I think its nearly impossible for it to be self reliant

[Redliberation]

Well I want to know what people think about the statement: Cuba is not a dictatorship. So I have been reading up on Cuba, since I do not know too much about it. And from my understanding, the government is organized from the bottom up through local county jurisdictions which elect Assembly members, who then elect the President. And from, what I have read, Fidel has been continuously elected due to his stance as a National Hero. However I do know only the Communist Party is the only legal party, which allows for domination of the political spectrum. So my question is: Is Cuba a dictatorship because it has had the same person in power since the revolution? Or is it a People's Republic because it does have official elections? Or I guess a third option would be it's hard to say due to human rights issues and political corruption.

Well, Cuba is certainly not the most democratic country in the world, but I definitely would not consider it as a dictatorship in bourgeois terms. When I was there, some guys from the opposition spoke to me freely, in a real dictatorship they would have all been thrown to jail.

BUT it is a dictatorship in marxist terms. The Communist Party is the only legal party, that is true. But if you take a closer look it's just a system defending itself. It's the same for bourgeois democracy countries: The system will do everything to defend itself. In capitalist countries this happens by sponsoring ruling parties etc.. If it looks very bad for the capitalists, they are also likely to establish fascism as the open dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to counter a possible revolution.

[Cultural Revolution]

Cuba is forced to work within the world capitalist system because the island has limited resources. I think its nearly impossible for it to be self reliant

Are you kidding, they have massive ammounts on natural resources, they also have perfect weather to grow other crops, rather than focusing on sugar cane, to sell on the markets.

They could be 100 percent reliant.

But they do not follow a socialist line, so they are in the situation they are and have been.

Seriously, they have everything they need, and for oil and metal, Iran and China would do a deal, for say, a ammount of cuban fruit for metal, and same with iran for oil, however they DONT need to do this, they could manage without and still build a great socialist society.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Societies are ruled by classes , not individuals , its clear for everyone who ever hit anything of Marx and Engels. Therefore declaring Cuba dictatorship requires lot of explanations.

[thriller]

Societies are ruled by classes , not individuals , its clear for everyone who ever hit anything of Marx and Engels. Therefore declaring Cuba dictatorship requires lot of explanations.

umm Hitler? Fascism?

Thanks for the responses everyone, learned a lot.

[Conscript]

Are you kidding, they have massive ammounts on natural resources, they also have perfect weather to grow other crops, rather than focusing on sugar cane, to sell on the markets.

They could be 100 percent reliant.

But they do not follow a socialist line, so they are in the situation they are and have been.

Seriously, they have everything they need, and for oil and metal, Iran and China would do a deal, for say, a ammount of cuban fruit for metal, and same with iran for oil, however they DONT need to do this, they could manage without and still build a great socialist society.

Self-reliance would have Cuba working with very basic necessities, with few adventures into other fields of work for its labor force (including health care), which could prove more valuable to cuban people as a whole than complete self-reliance. Cuba's disadvantage as a lone socialist state in a capitalist world also gives it the option of exchanging the value of its specialized labor for money which it can use to buy at its discretion (which ought to translate to the cuban peoples' discretion, but I guess that is another discussion for another time). The idea is that it leads to cuba's people collectively having greater buying power on the world market that surrounds it, potentially allowing it to have a greater living standard then if it relied completely on itself (this is where the definition of 'reliant' is challenged, as the cost of the reproduction of labor is largely a subjective thing now). This is the same tactic used by first world countries to help maintain their living standard, but at a greater extent with labor working in much more specialized (and therefore, valuable) fields.

It can be argued that complete self-reliance is not a 'socialist line' as it does not follow 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work', as any unmet demand has this is not being put in practice. Self-reliance in socialism translates to austerity, which is contrary to the interests of workers. Plus in cuba's case, self-reliance would mean austerity at a much more severe degree then it would for the USSR, for example.

Basically, it boils down to the cuban people asking themselves, which lets me live better? It would be redundant, and equally a non-socialist line for a socialist society to have workers managing without when they would choose differently. That is, after all, the point of socialism!

[RadioRaheem84]

Are you kidding, they have massive ammounts on natural resources, they also have perfect weather to grow other crops, rather than focusing on sugar cane, to sell on the markets.

They could be 100 percent reliant.

But they do not follow a socialist line, so they are in the situation they are and have been.

Seriously, they have everything they need, and for oil and metal, Iran and China would do a deal, for say, a ammount of cuban fruit for metal, and same with iran for oil, however they DONT need to do this, they could manage without and still build a great socialist society.

Could you please elaborate on this? How come the Cuban government has not thought of this yet?

[Cultural Revolution]

because they have never been real communists and have always whored its sugar and fruit off, wether it was to the revisionist state capitalist USSR or any other government

the people never had socialism

[Sosa]

Does anyone know why Cuba has to import about 80% of their food? just curious:confused:

[Cultural Revolution]

Because rather than growing their own they either sell it, or use it to feed tourists.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah it is

Dictattorship of the proletariat.

Nah, in all seriousness though, cuba is not socialist, it is state capitalist, at least that is my view, as an MLM, who does not like revisionism and whoring resources off and erecting a wall of beauracratic roadsters.

Ive actually been to Cuba, and while it is very progressive, it is becoming capitalist, and rather than focusing on producing and becoming self sustaining, it sellks its sugar and fruit, and tobacco, and makes its beaches for rich and working class holiday makers.

Its even illegal for cubans to fish the sea, and people use the black market to get things.

I support it against revisionism, but Castro and the revolution was never really marxist, Castro was an opportunist, not a marxist.
You say it is 'state capitalist' and then you say it is 'becoming capitalist'. This is a contradiction; Cuba is either capitalist or it is not. You can criticise the policies of sugar production and tourism and so on, but how does a wrong policy make something non-socialist ?? Yes, it is heading in the wrong direction and I can imagine it turning back to capitalism in the future if things dont go our way globally, but in economic terms Cuba is a socialist country because the workers seem to collectively have power. I'd love to visit to gain more of an insight though

[Tablo]

Does anyone know why Cuba has to import about 80% of their food? just curious:confused:
Because they are an island nation. They don't have vast farmlands like other countries. Also they seem to have made it a point to leave large portions of land undeveloped(no clue why, but it is pretty).

[Kléber]

Nah, in all seriousness though, cuba is not socialist, it is state capitalist, at least that is my view, as an MLM, who does not like revisionism and whoring resources off and erecting a wall of beauracratic roadsters.
The Cuban bureaucracy is slowly restoring market capitalism, encouraging the growth of the tourism sector and private sector as a whole. But what you define as "state capitalism," a self-proclaimed workers' state exploiting the workers for their own good, existed in the USSR under Lenin and the PRC under Mao.


I support it against revisionism, but Castro and the revolution was never really marxist, Castro was an opportunist, not a marxist.Sure, Castro's regime did not expropriate the bourgeoisie until years after taking power, it maintained bourgeois state institutions, and on coming to power, Castro supported class collaboration between workers, farmers and "patriotic" capitalists. But Mao's party did all of these things too.

[gorillafuck]

Any major deficiencies in Cuba's democracy are obviously attributable to the fact the empire of the northhas been breathing down their neck and terrorizing them since their inception.
I'm being nit picky here, but saying "Empire Of The North" is less ridiculous than Amerikkka but it's still silly.


This has forced them to basically militarize many aspects of their government. It doesn't quite excuse all of their policies, as massive bureaucratization and inner corrupt prevails too, but it does give you a foundation in which to build on when examining the Cuban system.
I'm pretty positive that Cuba isn't very militarized, so I don't know what you're talking about there. How is Cuba militarized? :confused:

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm being nit picky here, but saying "Empire Of The North" is less ridiculous than Amerikkka but it's still silly.

Why so picky? Does it really matter?


I'm pretty positive that Cuba isn't very militarized, so I don't know what you're talking about there. How is Cuba militarized?

It's definitely not in the sense of it being like Pinochet's Chile or Suharto's Indonesia, but it is on alert. I meant to say that from the liberal bourgoise perspective that it's "militarized" is only due to it's surviving the onslaught of it's northern neighbor.

[Sosa]

Because they are an island nation. They don't have vast farmlands like other countries. Also they seem to have made it a point to leave large portions of land undeveloped(no clue why, but it is pretty).

I see. I know that they have limited agriculture, but I thought that 80% was pretty high for them.

[gorillafuck]

Why so picky? Does it really matter?
No it doesn't really matter.


It's definitely not in the sense of it being like Pinochet's Chile or Suharto's Indonesia, but it is on alert. I meant to say that from the liberal bourgoise perspective that it's "militarized" is only due to it's surviving the onslaught of it's northern neighbor.
I know they're always alert but as far as I know it is not a society that is very focused on military, nor is their military large. Am I wrong?

[RadioRaheem84]

I know they're always alert but as far as I know it is not a society that is very focused on military, nor is their military large. Am I wrong?


That is true. It's 'militarized' in the sense that it's on more alert than your average nation, something that the bourgeois mistake for 'dictatorship' ala Suharto's Indonesia.

[Adil3tr]

Not really Raheem, if they were truly socialist, and focused on producing and self reliance, rather than selling the workers produce on the markets of capital, then the blockade and embargo would make no difference

Maoist or not, I hope you like the new fascist china

[Cultural Revolution]

no its state capitalist, but its heading for private capitalism.

[RadioRaheem84]

I emailed a historian of the Cuban Revolution and he said that the Cuban government is pushing for a more Venezuelan model and likewise Venezuela is pushing for a more Cuban model, which he gathered they were both trying to meet in the middle I think.

I took it to mean they're pushing for an old school Soc Dem government ala Olaf Palme's Sweden.

[manic expression]

Cuban democracy (http://www.cubasolidarity.com/aboutcuba/topics/government/0504elecsys.htm)
An American professor's take (http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html)

Some stuff to consider there. Cuban working-class democracy is nothing short of impressive, especially considering the imperialist aggression it faces.


Because they are an island nation. They don't have vast farmlands like other countries. Also they seem to have made it a point to leave large portions of land undeveloped(no clue why, but it is pretty).
I wouldn't be surprised if it's due to environmental concerns. Cuba is the only country in the world to achieve "sustainable development" by the standards of the WWF:

http://www.ecosherpa.com/news/cuba-only-country-with-sustainable-development/


Not really Raheem, if they were truly socialist, and focused on producing and self reliance, rather than selling the workers produce on the markets of capital, then the blockade and embargo would make no difference
As others have said...why? A worker state can trade with non-socialist countries, so long as the workers are in control of the process and the capitalist mode of production is not introduced. Self-reliance is a nice idea, but producing things that only comes from Cuba would make for a pretty crappy diet, to say nothing of little trifles like medicine, automobiles, specialized electronics, oil, the internet and all that.

[Redliberation]

I emailed a historian of the Cuban Revolution and he said that the Cuban government is pushing for a more Venezuelan model and likewise Venezuela is pushing for a more Cuban model, which he gathered they were both trying to meet in the middle I think.

I took it to mean they're pushing for an old school Soc Dem government ala Olaf Palme's Sweden.

Well, as Castro and Chavez are left to the social democrats it's quite unlikely that they meet there I think. Cuba has its strengths (in the education sector i.e. but also ) and Venezuela has its strengths (direct democracy, much oil money).

Hopefully they can benefit from each other much longer.

[Cultural Revolution]

Having been to cuba, the great healthcare story is a little misleading.

They do have fine hospitals and doctors, however, for alot of the people, these places are out of reach, and when i went on a hike in cuba, we went into the real cuba, off the tourist track, and they had this small hospital with smelly beds, filthy walls and floors, hardly any staff and about 4 beds in the main room.

And, education and degrees are nothing, if, rather than building up socialism and creating quality for everyone, your stuck cutting cane for the government to sell, or cleaning tourists bedsheets, or unemployed like a million in cuba recently became, or if you have to prostitute yourself to get some money to buy food on the black market for your kids, who are skinny and hungry.

Cuba is not controlled by the workers, it is sontrolled by a parasitic beauracracy that is capitalist.

We need to see real socialism, real controlled economy, and the products the workers and peasants make, being made for them, not for castro and his high ups, to puff cigars, when a regualr cuban will have one only maybe once a month.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well, as Castro and Chavez are left to the social democrats it's quite unlikely that they meet there I think. Cuba has its strengths (in the education sector i.e. but also ) and Venezuela has its strengths (direct democracy, much oil money).

Hopefully they can benefit from each other much longer.

You're right, probably more of democratic socialist nation.

[RadioRaheem84]

Having been to cuba, the great healthcare story is a little misleading.

They do have fine hospitals and doctors, however, for alot of the people, these places are out of reach, and when i went on a hike in cuba, we went into the real cuba, off the tourist track, and they had this small hospital with smelly beds, filthy walls and floors, hardly any staff and about 4 beds in the main room.

And, education and degrees are nothing, if, rather than building up socialism and creating quality for everyone, your stuck cutting cane for the government to sell, or cleaning tourists bedsheets, or unemployed like a million in cuba recently became, or if you have to prostitute yourself to get some money to buy food on the black market for your kids, who are skinny and hungry.

Cuba is not controlled by the workers, it is sontrolled by a parasitic beauracracy that is capitalist.

We need to see real socialism, real controlled economy, and the products the workers and peasants make, being made for them, not for castro and his high ups, to puff cigars, when a regualr cuban will have one only maybe once a month.


Did you ever think that most of these problems were due to the Special Period?

[Cultural Revolution]

because they rely on the market, not socialism, which is my point, the blockade only affects them, cause they are state capitalist not socialist.

[manic expression]

Having been to cuba, the great healthcare story is a little misleading.

They do have fine hospitals and doctors, however, for alot of the people, these places are out of reach, and when i went on a hike in cuba, we went into the real cuba, off the tourist track, and they had this small hospital with smelly beds, filthy walls and floors, hardly any staff and about 4 beds in the main room.

And, education and degrees are nothing, if, rather than building up socialism and creating quality for everyone, your stuck cutting cane for the government to sell, or cleaning tourists bedsheets, or unemployed like a million in cuba recently became, or if you have to prostitute yourself to get some money to buy food on the black market for your kids, who are skinny and hungry.

Cuba is not controlled by the workers, it is sontrolled by a parasitic beauracracy that is capitalist.

We need to see real socialism, real controlled economy, and the products the workers and peasants make, being made for them, not for castro and his high ups, to puff cigars, when a regualr cuban will have one only maybe once a month.
Lots of claims here. First, I don't deny that the quality of healthcare varies. I think partially this has to do with how diseases can spread quicker in urban settings. However, it also has to do with the fact that resources are more readily available in cities. That's simply because Cuba is a developing country, and in that context it is "great healthcare". Rural areas in Latin America oftentimes don't have a doctor around at all, much less a hospital.

Second, I don't get why you write-off education because workers still have working-class jobs. The point of education is to uplift everyone, give them access to knowledge and culture, even people who cut sugar cane or clean bedsheets at hotels. For those people, education is far more than "nothing". It's about human dignity, you see. You seem to think that if everyone's educated, sugar cane will cut itself. I've got news for you: socialism's not like that.

Third, Cuba has eliminated child malnutrition, if you don't believe me then ask UNICEF. Prostitution is not only very scarce but unnecessary for a good livelihood. Stop resorting to stereotypes dressed up as statistics.

Most importantly, what's your answer to all these shortages in Cuban society? More isolation! Less trade! I don't know if someone forgot to tell you, but the fact that Cuba is under an illegal blockade is why those shortages occur. As if misstating the problem was bad enough, the solution you propose is precisely the problem itself.

Fourth, if you have any evidence to show us that Cuba is not controlled by the workers, please do us all a favor and post it here. I'm more than interested to see what you can produce to justify this belief of yours.

Fifth, it's funny that you think that Castro only puffs cigars. It must have been difficult for him to lead the Revolution when he was so lazy. But then again, in your estimation, cheap stereotypes about Cuba count for more than facts, I suppose, thus the jab about cigars.

[Cultural Revolution]

ok, first

No i am not against cutting cane, but why get an education, to cut cane, to be whored off abroad, rather than being used to benefite the cuban proletariat, better yet, why not waste that labour on cutting cane, and use it to produce things to benefit the workers of cuba, not to sell to europeans or canadians.

second, say what you like, you see prostitutes in cuba, and you see fucking hungry children, they dont live in palaces.

Tin shacks, in the rural areas, rather than building houses for them the government would rather play the markets, great.

Somethings wrong, when the best job on the island is a waiter at a hotel, because he gets dollars and pounds, which mean he can live well of the black market.

[manic expression]

No i am not against cutting cane, but why get an education, to cut cane, to be whored off abroad, rather than being used to benefite the cuban proletariat, better yet, why not waste that labour on cutting cane, and use it to produce things to benefit the workers of cuba, not to sell to europeans or canadians.
What do you think funds the healthcare, education, arts, etc. of Cuba? Revenue from that production (sugar cane not so much anymore, minerals like nickel are far more important), that's what. Those workers' labor is what makes the exceptional living conditions possible. The most important thing is that Cuban workers are in control of the process that decides how those resources are used. Check the two links in my first post on this thread.


second, say what you like, you see prostitutes in cuba, and you see fucking hungry children, they dont live in palaces.I don't claim that they live in palaces, but I do claim that they are all living under roofs, which is more than you can say for any capitalist country. Widespread hunger hasn't been an issue since the Special Period...I don't know what you saw but I've never seen that posited by any in-depth study. On prostitution, the government goes to great lengths to cut down on the practice...you can hardly blame the revolutionary government when people find ways around their policies (from what I've heard, the "escort" loophole is most popular).


Tin shacks, in the rural areas, rather than building houses for them the government would rather play the markets, great.The inability to build better housing is due to economic isolation illegally imposed by the US. Construction requires input from a wide variety of industries (which is why it's a useful economic barometer), and if even one of those industries is under-supplied, then it's a no-go.


Somethings wrong, when the best job on the island is a waiter at a hotel, because he gets dollars and pounds, which mean he can live well of the black market.If you read the history, the importance of the black market shows an almost-perfect direct proportionality to the strength of the imperialist blockade. In the 80's, the black market wasn't much to write home about...after Cuba lost its only major trading partner, the black market grew astronomically. It's been marginalized since then, and the recent reforms are aimed to cut down on the black market, but it is definitely a product of Cuba's present circumstance, not the system itself.

[Cultural Revolution]

READ CAREFULLY

The only reason the bloackade has any effect, is becasue Cuba is state capitalist, and relies on the markets.

If it was really socialist, rather than state capitalist, then the bloackade would be useless.

[manic expression]

READ CAREFULLY

The only reason the bloackade has any effect, is becasue Cuba is state capitalist, and relies on the markets.

If it was really socialist, rather than state capitalist, then the bloackade would be useless.
So if Cuba was socialist, it would magically create resources out of thin air? Your plan would make stuff like medicine and automobiles and soap and underseas internet cables happen by themselves? "Click your heels together three times" isn't exactly a materialist policy. Your answer, when faced with a country half-crippled by imperialist-imposed isolation, is more isolation. Doesn't make too much sense.

[Robocommie]

Not really Raheem, if they were truly socialist, and focused on producing and self reliance, rather than selling the workers produce on the markets of capital, then the blockade and embargo would make no difference

You can't expect a small island to be able to provide everything that people need at a modern level of human development, that's absurd. There are some resources that you must trade on the world market for.

[RadioRaheem84]

Just how devastating is the US embargo to Cuba? I know it's cost them 70 Billion since it's inception. Does this translate into a massive loss for the Cuban State?

I am assuming especially now since the loss of the USSR?

[RadioRaheem84]

Occasionally, I came across someone who was alienated from the system. There disaffection was not rooted in the political system but in the economic hardships that have emerged during the "special period."

From the article posted by Manic.

This is what I gathered from reading up on Cuba as well. Most of the trauma the little island has faced has been because of the loss of it's trading partner and the embargo.

The Special Period opened up a whole new can of worms for the Cuban planners.

It's been really the bread and butter of anti-Cuban propaganda ever since.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Well, from personal experience in Cuba, how else can you define a place where people are NOT free to come and go or organize independent parties? I love Cuba. I love Fidel and Che's sacrifice (in Cuba). But it isnt a paraidse. Its also not communist. Socialist, it is, to an extent; it was one of the first countries to provide universal care for everyone for example. Also Fidel was never a Marxist, nor did he have marxist rhetoric, initially. He was simply a pro-independent Cuban holding up Jose Marti while calling for the end of US imperialism on the island. It wasnt until later, after the US had officially rejected him, that Che embarked off to Siberia and Moscow. Its increasingly following the Chinese model. Whether thats bad or good.

Recently, since Fidel stepped down, a few significant events have happened in Cuba.
1) People can now grow/harvest agriculture for private sales. (legally).
2) Havana is considering opening up many of its beautiful and ecologically diverse coastlines to foreign investment. Which could lead to tourist traps like Vegas.
3) Havana has introduced many new 'liberalizations' aimed at stimulating entrepenureship on the island. In recognition of what some leaders have openly called, 'a failed model.'

[syndicat]

Cuba has a bureaucratic, administrative elite -- a dominating class -- that controls planning and the big decisions. They allow a certain amount of limited say at local level via local councils. Compared to the other "Communist" countries, it seems to be a relatively enlightened bureaucratic class regime, and one that has been able to maintain quite a bit of popular support. Because the USA is on their doorstep and has tried at various times to overthrow the current government (e.g. Bay of Pigs invasion in early '60s), they need to maintain popular support if they are to have a chance of staying in power. I think this can explain part of the reason they have quite enlightened policies in areas such as medical care or agricultural experimentation.

Of course we should oppose the embargo. It's an imperialist act of war. Supporting U.S. imperialism won't help the populace of Cuba at all. But this is not about supporting the Cuban ruling class.

We can trace the bureaucratic class character of the regime there back to the way they came to power. There was not a working class revolution that created the new institutions. There was a rebel army that had no particular links of accountabiliity to a mass movement. There was a general strike when Batista was overthrown. One of the main worker organizations involved in this was the Revolutionary Sugar workers union. David Santiago was head of this union and he was elected first head of the Cuban Workers Confederation after the Batista leadership was ousted. But he was eventually given a 20 year prison sentence due to his opposition to the Communist Party seizure of control over the labor federation. At that time the Havana transport union was under trotskyist leadership and the Havana food workers union was under anarcho-syndicalist leadership. These radical activists had to either flea or were put in prison by the Fidelista regime. Workers power was not an aim or reality of the Cuba revolution.

some of this is discussed in Victor Alba's history of the labor movement in Latin America.

Cuba is a one-party state where there are limits on allowable dissent. It is a class dictatorship of the bureaucratic elite. so, yes, it's a dictatorship.

[Agnapostate]

Has anyone read the agronomist René Dumont's Cuba: Socialism and Development or Is Cuba a Socialist Country? Also, are there analyses available of the independent zones that were populated by peasants of the Sierra Maestra during the Revolution?

[Robocommie]

Just how devastating is the US embargo to Cuba? I know it's cost them 70 Billion since it's inception. Does this translate into a massive loss for the Cuban State?

I am assuming especially now since the loss of the USSR?

Well, the GDP of Cuba was estimated at 111.1 billion USD in 2009, so...

[Hiero]

I can understand and partially agree with what Cultural Revolution is saying, but there are a few flaws.

First changing a country from market dominated/revisionist Socialism is alot of effort. At the time the USSR pushed for a social-imperialist style economy, you keep providing sugar because we will buy it.

Now at that time in the heat of Cold War, to change from USSR to self-sufficiency and still be anti-Imperialist and anti USA would have been suicide. In that scenario all you have left is Cuba or Albania to side with. Albania can't really help you, and China's foreign policy was unstable. So with minimum help from China, Albania and maybe some other third world nationalist countries Cuba would have had to intitated 5 year plan styles while both the USA and USSR would have attempted sabotage and blockade. Cuba would have had to rip up it's sugar cane fields, it's main productive economy and then focused the argiculture on feeding the nation. This would have just lead to famine.

Now in 2010, riping up the sugar cane fields and transforming the direction of argiculture from sale to needs would also result in famine. Given the fact that the USA has such a hostile policy towards local rule any little country that breaks from international capitalist system often end in hard times. Countries have seen the examples of rushing self-sufincy from China's Great Leap Forward, to Albania, DPRK, Laos. Look East Timor, once it achieved independence it immedialty put it's hand up to join the international community. The historical rootes lie wit the USSR, it really screwed in trying to compete with the USA as it sent alot of countries towards a social-imperialist dependency. Maybe if it ignored compatative markets as benchmarks now at this time we would see a strong second world and would have skipped alot of famines in the processes.

Any the point is, without a either a giant blow to USA imperialism small nations like Cuba are not going to change to self-dependent models. Unless a large bloc of larger third nations step up and make a transition plan from profit based trade to self-sufficient based trade. CulturalRevolution, you propose changing to self-suficiency but have not taken into account any of logistics behind such a move. It would probally result in a popular moderate to right-wing coup of the political elites.

[Q]

Are you kidding, they have massive ammounts on natural resources, they also have perfect weather to grow other crops, rather than focusing on sugar cane, to sell on the markets.

They could be 100 percent reliant.

But they do not follow a socialist line, so they are in the situation they are and have been.

Seriously, they have everything they need, and for oil and metal, Iran and China would do a deal, for say, a ammount of cuban fruit for metal, and same with iran for oil, however they DONT need to do this, they could manage without and still build a great socialist society.
Socialism is not about self-reliance. What utter nonsense. I'll quote Zanthorus' excellent post on this matter from another topic:


For Communism to become a reality, commodity production has to be replaced with some form of planned production. This is impossible within the bounds of a single nation-state. The international division of labour and division of resources forces individual states to participate in the world-market to acquire resources. One of the conclusions which Marx and Engels drew from the 1848 revolutions was that this made Communism impossible in a single country, since any country with a workers' government would be subject to England, "the despot of the world-market." In order for Communism to become a reality, they concluded it would be necessary for "at least the decisive productive forces" to be under the control of a working-class political administration. Concretely, this meant that the big imperialist powers would have to be overthrown internally by their own working-class. To relate this to modern times, we only need to look at the US trade blockade of Cuba.

Another consideration is the fate of previous Communist societies. In The German Ideology, Marx noted that the geographical isolation of primitive communist societies made them particularly susceptible to dissolution by outside forces as well as by the further development of their own internal productive forces. The conclusion drawn that a viable Communist society could not be small and isolated, but could only have a 'world-historic' existence. Part of what he saw as progressive about capitalism was the development of the world-market, the forcing of all people's and cultures into relation with one another and the destruction of all idyllic and isolated conditions of existence. This development forces any group attempting an alternative to capitalism to attempt it's overthrow on a world scale.


because they have never been real communists and have always whored its sugar and fruit off, wether it was to the revisionist state capitalist USSR or any other government

the people never had socialism

So, if only we had the "right" leaders, everything would be fine and dandy? This is a very idealistic proposition that ignore materialist processes that affect societies. Put another way, the history of Great (Communist) Men is profoundly anti-Marxist.

[Cultural Revolution]

This is not post scarcisty communism we are talking about, we are talking about trying to make Cuba a real socialist workers state, and wether you like it or notself sufficiency is a big part of being socialist.

Cuba does not have the united fruit company, it does not just rape and pillage neocolonies like european countries do, so it needs to stop focusing on producing commodities to sell on the market, and focus on replacing cane, with other crops, removing tourist sector, and focusing more on agriculture, and industrialising cuba at a steady speed.

This is not me being "ultraleft", its me wanting to see real workers control and socialism implemented.
The revolution was a good anti imperialist struggle, but Cuba became a neocolony of the USSR, and it became dependent on the USSR, buying its cane, so when the USSR capitalist regime fell, it left cubans without a pot to piss in.

The only way to avoid things like this, is to be producing and running society independently, without outside influence from supposed "allies", who are capitalist roadsters, and without the world markets.

[4 Leaf Clover]

umm Hitler? Fascism?

Thanks for the responses everyone, learned a lot.

What makes you think german national-socialism was anything but ultimate stadium of domination of Industrial class.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think this can explain part of the reason they have quite enlightened policies in areas such as medical care or agricultural experimentation.

Their enlightened policies are due to keeping popular support? All this in order to maintain bureaucratic power and hold back the US?

Just because it wasn't a communist revolution from the start and a workers state wasn't it's aim, could it not be said that it at least became it's goal in the end?

[RED DAVE]

Fidel Castro was in many ways a benevolent dictator, partially legitimized by possessing the consent of the governed, since he was and is popular.But still a dictator, for which there is no excuse.


His administration was subject to a double standard in many aspects. Representative democracy is indirect and entails an abrogation of policy management authority to a small class of individuals that are in many cases not subject to recall (as in the case of the U.S. President, for example).The US is a capitalist country and, therefore, oligarchic. For the record, the US President is removable from office (remember Richard Nixon?).


In essence, is that not just installment of a temporary dictatorship?It doesn't matter since the dictatorship of capitalism is, in any case, always present.


Isn't it almost worse to have an unpopular elected government that cannot be recalled (such as we have at present in the U.S. and had during the last half of Bush's second term), than to have a popular unelected government that would have been elected anyway? No. It implies, as was always true of Castro and Co., that they have no respect for the people or for democracy. And I'm not even talking about socialism.


Going to Castro's human rights record, his intolerance for dissidence and compulsion of LGBT people into forced labor camps were regrettable[.]"Regrettable" is a disgusting word: as disgusting as Castro's record, for which there was no excuse.


[A]nd his liberal use of capital punishment during and in the wake of the Revolution was wrong, in my view[.]Not only was it wrong, but it was stupid as the show trials turned Americans away from supporting Cuba.


ut the U.S. had enforceable sodomy laws until the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that still enjoy popular support in some regions and localities, the government has executed individuals such as the Rosenbergs for espionage on "national security" grounds, and who is it that operates a prison in Cuba where people are indefinitely detained without trials on the same basis?The US is a capitalist country, pure and simple. We know it's going to be disgusting. This does not excuse a so-called progressive or even so-called socialist country from being disgusting as well.

[B]RED DAVE

[thriller]

What makes you think german national-socialism was anything but ultimate stadium of domination of Industrial class.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but I think you are asking what makes me think the Nazi's did anything but dominate the working class (please correct me if I am wrong).

My answer is that, yes of course it kept the working class submissive. However the ideas and practices of Nazi Germany were handed down from Hitler (holocaust, Lebensraum, etc). Obvisously Hitler didn't kill every Jew himself, or fight WWII by himself, but the policies were from a single person. Mein Kampf was Hitlers alone, not the work of a ruling class.

[Redliberation]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but I think you are asking what makes me think the Nazi's did anything but dominate the working class (please correct me if I am wrong).

My answer is that, yes of course it kept the working class submissive. However the ideas and practices of Nazi Germany were handed down from Hitler (holocaust, Lebensraum, etc). Obvisously Hitler didn't kill every Jew himself, or fight WWII by himself, but the policies were from a single person. Mein Kampf was Hitlers alone, not the work of a ruling class.

This is very dangerous thinking. The German capitalists feared that the communists would take over the state as it happened in Russia. They became stronger and stronger by each election.

Furthermore the industry was down because of 1929. Not much profits for the capitalists, very little demand.

Important German capitalists (Thyssen & Krupp among others) endorsed the Nazis with millions of Reichsmark. They got in return: communists and socialists in concentration camps, forced labor and much demand as Nazi Germany was preparing for war.

"Fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital" - Dimitroff

[RadioRaheem84]

But still a dictator, for which there is no excuse.

The US is a capitalist country and, therefore, oligarchic. For the record, the US President is removable from office (remember Richard Nixon?).

It doesn't matter since the dictatorship of capitalism is, in any case, always present.

No. It implies, as was always true of Castro and Co., that they have no respect for the people or for democracy. And I'm not even talking about socialism.

"Regrettable" is a disgusting word: as disgusting as Castro's record, for which there was no excuse.

Not only was it wrong, but it was stupid as the show trials turned Americans away from supporting Cuba.

The US is a capitalist country, pure and simple. We know it's going to be disgusting. This does not excuse a so-called progressive or even so-called socialist country from being disgusting as well.

RED DAVE

Over the top!

[thriller]

This is very dangerous thinking. The German capitalists feared that the communists would take over the state as it happened in Russia. They became stronger and stronger by each election.

Furthermore the industry was down because of 1929. Not much profits for the capitalists, very little demand.

Important German capitalists (Thyssen & Krupp among others) endorsed the Nazis with millions of Reichsmark. They got in return: communists and socialists in concentration camps, forced labor and much demand as Nazi Germany was preparing for war.

"Fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital" - Dimitroff

I realize the Nazi's had to make alliances and were the biggest political group to advance anti-communist practices. Hell Henry Ford did business with the Nazi's

But (and let me know if I am wrong) are you saying that the very culture of Nazi Germany was the collective ideas of the capitalist class and not Hitler's fucked up vision of a master race with swastika's plastered everywhere?

[Redliberation]

I realize the Nazi's had to make alliances and were the biggest political group to advance anti-communist practices. Hell Henry Ford did business with the Nazi's

But (and let me know if I am wrong) are you saying that the very culture of Nazi Germany was the collective ideas of the capitalist class and not Hitler's fucked up vision of a master race with swastika's plastered everywhere?

I suggest watching "Ordinary Fascism" by Michael Romm. You'll get a better picture of what fascism in general and fascism in Germany specially is and how it came to power.

[4 Leaf Clover]

I realize the Nazi's had to make alliances and were the biggest political group to advance anti-communist practices. Hell Henry Ford did business with the Nazi's

But (and let me know if I am wrong) are you saying that the very culture of Nazi Germany was the collective ideas of the capitalist class and not Hitler's fucked up vision of a master race with swastika's plastered everywhere?

I'll quote Michael Parenti "If you strip Fascism from its ideological and organizational crap , you get nothing but ultimate solution for the class struggle"

Nazism was specific , but only specific that it added more ideological bullshit to cover up the ultimate exploitation of world-wide proletariat for the interest of German , Italian , Japanese aristocracy etc. etc.... German proletariat had great role in this pursue , only being fooled that their social problems will be solved when proletariat of the other countries were supposed to work for Germany as slaves. But hard and not so much mentioned reality , is that German workers worked 24/7 to maintain German war-machine and ultimately got nothing but new devastation and new humiliation. Nazi economical paradise is nothing but media fraud.

[RadioRaheem84]

I just finished doing a report on Nazi propaganda and the reactionary class politics.

I used Parenti as one of the sources and you're right, it was pretty much the final solution to class struggle.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

If i got things right, the situation is that the communist party is the only one allowed, but they cant suggest any candidates which means that people have to vote for those they want in the parliament. In other words not so different frome the borgeous parlamentarianism where you vote for wich party you want in the parlament.

What Cuba has managed to do is just incredible, truly a David-Goliath story. They have had all things against them, theive had few resources and still they have managed to create a good life with a functionig and effective society, just look at the WWF rapport saying that Cuba is the only ecologily sustainable country in the world.

[Agnapostate]

But still a dictator, for which there is no excuse.

You must be arguing with a ghost, since I never claimed that there was any excuse for the existence of a dictatorship. However, if political power is legitimately derived from the "consent of the governed," those who consider U.S. republicanism vastly preferable to popular dictatorship have to explain why, since the consent of the governed is present in both cases.


The US is a capitalist country and, therefore, oligarchic.

Oligopolistic, in the economic sense.


For the record, the US President is removable from office (remember Richard Nixon?).

That is not a recall mechanism, but an impeachment mechanism. There is no means to remove the head of state because of popular dissatisfaction with his or her performance, as there is in, say, Venezuela.


It doesn't matter since the dictatorship of capitalism is, in any case, always present.

Actually, it does matter, since there are divergences and degrees of liberty and self-management.


No. It implies, as was always true of Castro and Co., that they have no respect for the people or for democracy. And I'm not even talking about socialism.

Socialism cannot be separated from participatory democracy, so you are.


"Regrettable" is a disgusting word: as disgusting as Castro's record, for which there was no excuse.

Actually, equating whatever words are used on an Internet forum to the existence of real, concrete oppression itself seems disgusting, though I'd never claim it was as disgusting, by the same principle.


Not only was it wrong, but it was stupid as the show trials turned Americans away from supporting Cuba.

You're focusing on public image before ethical behavior? Isn't that also disgusting?


The US is a capitalist country, pure and simple. We know it's going to be disgusting. This does not excuse a so-called progressive or even so-called socialist country from being disgusting as well.

There's significant variation in the degree of freedom in capitalist countries. The Third Reich was obviously a bit distinct than currently existing Scandinavian social democracy. But as I said, I was evaluating a double standard. Remember?

[Cultural Revolution]

To be fair to Cuba, even if they tried to become socialist after all these years, they probably couldn't, as after being a social colony of the Soviets, and copying their state capitalist program, tthey are too intwined with capital, they might not be able to extricate themselves out of it, without it leading to mass starvation.

And until Colombia has its revolution, and venezuela becomes socialist, rather than progressive capitalist, then, its doomed to be isolated and dependent on the markets.

But if we see colombia fall to the farc, who despite alot of rank and file, social democrats, have a maoist leadership, then this could lead to chavez implementing a peasant and workers dictatorship, aswell as maybe Bolivia being transformed.

These nations would then have the ability to be self resourcefull and to cooperate militarily against any future threats from imperialism.

Wether the FARC would even be anti revisionist is up for debate, but hopefully, a whole latin american federation could create the society we want for the amazing workers and peasants of Cuba.

[Adil3tr]

READ CAREFULLY

The only reason the bloackade has any effect, is becasue Cuba is state capitalist, and relies on the markets.

If it was really socialist, rather than state capitalist, then the bloackade would be useless.

I think they are too, but socialism doesn't make goods appear out of thin air.

[L.A.P.]

Cuba is definitely the closes thing to a socialist country we have and I still would say it is a socialist state, I'm mainly a pretty negative person but I don't really think Cuba will end up like China.

[Adil3tr]

I just think they're state capitalist because their forced, but socialist at heart. Not totally Marxian, but for a third world country with no resources, they did a damn good job.

[NKVD]

I disagree. Cuba is a dictatorship. A dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Cane Nero]

I disagree. Cuba is a dictatorship. A dictatorship of the proletariat.
So in your view, workers are taking their own decisions with regard to Cuba and not the party bureaucrats?

[Unidos Marchemos]

I just think they're state capitalist because their forced, but socialist at heart. Not totally Marxian, but for a third world country with no resources, they did a damn good job.

Explain to me how Cuba is state capitalist? do you know the definition of State Capitalist?

By any measuring stick, Cuba is a socialist country, on the path to worker's communism.

Cuba is the only country in the western hemisphere to have completely destroyed Child Malnutrition.

Cuba has the 2nd highest life expectancy in the western hemisphere.

Cuba is the only country in Latin America that notably has no slums or shantytowns.

there are no starving in Cuba, no homeless, no uneducated, no unemployed, no disease-ridden who remain untreated.

If Cuba is a bad example of a socialist nation on the path to worker's paradise, I do not know what is a good one then.

[redz]

Well I want to know what people think about the statement: Cuba is not a dictatorship. So I have been reading up on Cuba, since I do not know too much about it. And from my understanding, the government is organized from the bottom up through local county jurisdictions which elect Assembly members, who then elect the President. And from, what I have read, Fidel has been continuously elected due to his stance as a National Hero. However I do know only the Communist Party is the only legal party, which allows for domination of the political spectrum. So my question is: Is Cuba a dictatorship because it has had the same person in power since the revolution? Or is it a People's Republic because it does have official elections? Or I guess a third option would be it's hard to say due to human rights issues and political corruption.


Cuba is a bureaucratically deformed workingclass state with a basically socialized economy. Primary political decisions are made by a petit-bourgeois bureaucracy, deploying authoritarian methods, but there is unusually strong grassroots participation in political activities.

The working class in Cuba needs to seize direct political power (via workers councils or soviets) through a political revolution - this will require the development of an effective Bolshevist-type revolutionary combat party.

The alternative is a likely reversion to capitalism (and neo-colonial status) along the lines of the collapse of the USSR, through capitulation and disintegration of the petit-bourgeois bureaucracy.

Redz

[Cane Nero]

Explain to me how Cuba is state capitalist? do you know the definition of State Capitalist?

By any measuring stick, Cuba is a socialist country, on the path to worker's communism.

Cuba is the only country in the western hemisphere to have completely destroyed Child Malnutrition.

Cuba has the 2nd highest life expectancy in the western hemisphere.

Cuba is the only country in Latin America that notably has no slums or shantytowns.

there are no starving in Cuba, no homeless, no uneducated, no unemployed, no disease-ridden who remain untreated.

If Cuba is a bad example of a socialist nation on the path to worker's paradise, I do not know what is a good one then.

http://www.tasteofcuba.com/cuba_photo_3.html

http://governmentdirt.com/recent_photos_taken_from_a_trip_to_cuba

What you just described is a utopia on earth.

[NKVD]

So in your view, workers are taking their own decisions with regard to Cuba and not the party bureaucrats?

You make it sound like the party doesn't represent the proletariat and the class struggle.

[Cane Nero]

You make it sound like the party doesn't represent the proletariat and the class struggle.
That's right, does not.

[RED DAVE]

Explain to me how Cuba is state capitalist? do you know the definition of State Capitalist?State capitalism is an economic situation where the ruling class, rather than operating through corporations, operates through the state. In general, within a few decades, state capitalism morphs into private capitalism. This is happening in Cuba as we watch.


By any measuring stick, Cuba is a socialist country, on the path to worker's communism.Consdidering that the workers of Cuba do not control the economy of the country, this is not true.


Cuba is the only country in the western hemisphere to have completely destroyed Child Malnutrition.

Cuba has the 2nd highest life expectancy in the western hemisphere.

Cuba is the only country in Latin America that notably has no slums or shantytowns.

there are no starving in Cuba, no homeless, no uneducated, no unemployed, no disease-ridden who remain untreated.None of these accomplishments are, per se, socialism. All of the above can be accomplished by liberal capitalism without any change in the ruling class.


If Cuba is a bad example of a socialist nation on the path to worker's paradise, I do not know what is a good one then.None yet. We'll have to wait for and prepare for a genuine workers revolution.

RED DAVE

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.tasteofcuba.com/cuba_photo_3.html

http://governmentdirt.com/recent_photos_taken_from_a_trip_to_cuba

What you just described is a utopia on earth.


I don't get how this is supposed to deter people who understand the Cuban Revolution and it's development through history?

Do you think we're all just naive people that can be swayed by pics?

Cuba has major problems, most of them due to the economic embargo and the loss of their major trading partner; the USSR.

The Cubans run a rickety economy mostly based on tourism. Since the loss of the USSR they went through the Special Period which made life in Cuba a living hell, not to mention the strengthening of the Cuban embargo during this time.

But Instead of giving in to the US and the Little Havana mafia just waiting to get back to the Island, the Cuban Revolution did not give everything up to satisfy the wants of foreign prospects.

The entire point of any support for Cuba what so ever does not rely on the fact that there are rickety cars and dilapidated buildings or not, but that the vast majority of people can work, be educated and fed for the most part.

I asked a Cuban lady here in the States, if Cuba would be a USA or a Dominican Republic if it opened it's doors to a flood of foreign investment? She said she didn't know, it could go both ways, but all she cared about was to give her Cuban compatriots the "liberty" to sink or swim.

We all know Cuba would not become a Western wealthy nation, not even the Eastern European blocs had that luxury.

It would become another poor capitalist nation in the periphery of global capitalism; exploitation for the poor and privilege for the upper rust.

[Cane Nero]

I don't get how this is supposed to deter people who understand the Cuban Revolution and it's development through history?

Do you think we're all just naive people that can be swayed by pics?


The pictures simply show that Cuba has problems. The pictures simply show that Cuba has problems, different from what Unidos Marchemos said ie "a picture is worth more than a thousand words".

[NKVD]

That's right, does not.

You're wrong.

[B0LSHEVIK]

On my one and only trip to Cuba, on arrival at Jose Marti we were told by 'guides' that in Cuba, there are no homeless, racists, ghettos, prostitutes, drugs, etc etc. I knew from the start this was bullshit, obviously. You have to be pretty intellectualy incompetent, naive and/or gullible to believe such a statement from anyone. But, problems like these, they're not the revolutions fault. They're just natural (for lack of better words), to civilization.

Its important to remember that today Cuba enjoys trade with many other industrial powers. But that wasnt always the case. Until 1978, I think, most of the NATO countries embargoed Cuba. As a matter of fact, only Mexico, in all of latin america, recognized Fidel and the revolution in early '59. Canada was the first country to lift the embargo. Country after country has followed suit, and now, only the US and Israel (big surprise) find themselves in support of the embargo. Even the US's little puppet in Colombia has voted against the embargo. Doesnt matter though.

Cuba has problems like many other countries. The state is bourgeois, no doubt. It was always bourgeois though. And from my experience, many Cubans have lost faith in the revolution. And, in all honesty, I dont see how you can have a true proletarian revolution without popular approval. Another observation, people in Cuba think its much better in other places in latin america. I find that the people, dont trust what is said about news. So, while one would think of Cuba as being higher up in the ladder than say El Salvador, Cubans think that El Salvador must be a paradise! Because, obviously the media is lying to us! Its ironic really. The state media really isnt that bad. Though, its very patritotic and thats fine and dandy.

The fall of the USSR IMO was actually a positive for Cuba. Obviously it hurt, but Cuba has emerged a much more independent nation no longer the 'colony' of any Euro power. It no longer depends on subsidies. Those from Venezuela help. But it fails in comparison to subsidies provided by Russia. Now, Cuba is on a path to becoming the little China off of florida. A good or bad thing, you decide.

But untill now, I think the revolution has performed exceptionally. Literacy is up. The level of intellect of Cuba is surprising. Ive never heard 'common' street laborers in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, speak like those in Havana. The vocabulary and knowledge is far beyond actually. Obviously, Cubans dont see this. But this is thanks to the revolution. All cubans have health-care. Thanks, to the revolution. Cubans enviromental situation is very good, thanks to the revolution. Its not the freest, nor is it perfect. But its survived, despite the US boot desperately trying to squash it.

[red cat]

I think that the proletariat is able to solve the prostitute problem almost instantaneously in areas in which it seizes power. Also, it does not take more than a month to construct shelters for everyone.

[B0LSHEVIK]

I think that the proletariat is able to solve the prostitute problem almost instantaneously in areas in which it seizes power. Also, it does not take more than a month to construct shelters for everyone.

Lol, I dont even consider it a problem in the first place.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Well I want to know what people think about the statement: Cuba is not a dictatorship. So I have been reading up on Cuba, since I do not know too much about it. And from my understanding, the government is organized from the bottom up through local county jurisdictions which elect Assembly members, who then elect the President. And from, what I have read, Fidel has been continuously elected due to his stance as a National Hero. However I do know only the Communist Party is the only legal party, which allows for domination of the political spectrum. So my question is: Is Cuba a dictatorship because it has had the same person in power since the revolution? Or is it a People's Republic because it does have official elections? Or I guess a third option would be it's hard to say due to human rights issues and political corruption.

Please explain what you mean by human rights. Also, give some examples of major human rights.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To the OP:

The Communist Party of Cuba does not stand in elections. Elections are not fought in terms of a closed party list, but - especially at a local level - are fought on the reputation of that person amongst their peers. Often, elections are devolved to as low as block level.

It is true that, with the likes of Fidel and Raul, there has been some element of gerontocracy in Cuba, but this is probably partly due to the unique nature of the Cuban revolution - it's not an orthodox Marxian or Marxist-Leninist revolution that could, after 5 or 10 years, be handed over to some young bureaucrat to nurture. The Cuban revolution is a product of the vision of Fidel Castro, as well as being borne out of the material and political conditions in Cuba pre-1959, particularly in the period of Fulgencio Batista.

I could elaborate, but I think the essential point is that Cuba is not a 'dictatorship', as such. At a national level it may be true to say that, politically speaking, there is something of a democratic deficit. But it's important to understand the context in which this is occurring - effectively being in an economic war with a far mightier enemy for over 50 years and having their main trading partner(s) cease to exist overnight. In addition, we should also consider that at a sub-national level, there is most certainly a strong element of democracy that perhaps puts the liberal democracies of the West to shame.

[thriller]

Please explain what you mean by human rights. Also, give some examples of major human rights.

By human rights violation I mean the imprisonment of political enemies (capitalists) and from what I've heard from immigrants themselves, a lot of LGBTQ people are imprisoned when they are "found out" so to speak.


The Workers United Will Never Be Defeated!

[Rodrigo]

Yeah it is

Dictattorship of the proletariat.

Nah, in all seriousness though, cuba is not socialist, it is state capitalist, at least that is my view, as an MLM, who does not like revisionism and whoring resources off and erecting a wall of beauracratic roadsters.

etc

That's true, comrade. Not developing productive forces/relying solely on Khruschev's social-imperialist USSR economical aid was very bad for Cuba after 1991. But we can't deny the successes of Cuban Socialism. And I wouldn't say they're "developing capitalism"; it's not the will either of the Party's direction neither of the Cuban people. Then, NEP transformed USSR in a capitalist country? Of course not. It was a failure at long term, but it didn't made USSR capitalist.