Cuba marks 58th anniversary of communist revolution

[LegendZ]

wqOHA933EXs

Sounds like they are ready for the new generation to take over.

[RedSonRising]

Don't they celebrate it in January, on the first? And it has been 52 years since the revolution (1959), not 58. In any case, the prospects of a new generation engaging in the government structure are interesting.

[Rusty Shackleford]

the revolution really began with the moncada barracks attack. the victory was only a step. as was the moncada barracks attack. but, it was the first step to victory.

https://whewert.wikispaces.com/file/view/Cuban_Revolution.jpg/34106753/Cuban_Revolution.jpg

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

you know, i would like to live in cuba.

[Proukunin]

open up real estate and private businesses? wtf kinda communist revolution is this?

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

wait id like to live in a communist or socailiste country

[Weezer]

open up real estate and private businesses? wtf kinda communist revolution is this?

It's called a socialist revolution adapting to a hostile economic environment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy)

[Proukunin]

sadly there are none.

[Proukunin]

I feel like they are going backwards from the beginning.

[Proukunin]

But I guess I can see how this equates with a new economic policy...or does it equate with a Dengist pro market route????

guess we'll find out sooner or later

[Weezer]

^How about you merge your three separate posts?

Saying Cuba is going the Dengist route to capitalism because of its new economic policies is the equivalent of saying America is becoming socialist because of the bailout of General Motors.

[CHE with an AK]

:castro:


:star2: History has already absolved Fidel Castro :star2:
NW1Yh8D-xCgoPlnGiS488s
:cubaflag: Hasta la Victoria Siempre :cubaflag:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

^How about you merge your three separate posts?

Saying Cuba is going the Dengist route to capitalism because of its new economic policies is the equivalent of saying America is becoming socialist because of the bailout of General Motors.

You must be joking.

Cuba has opened up its 3rd sector for nearly 20 years now. It's quite clear that the new economic policies it is pursuing are permanent privatisations of the Cuban economy.

Do you really believe that the privatisation of small professions, the laying off of much of the state workforce and the opening up of Capitalist property relations is anything other than a step towards private Capitalism?

C'mon, stop kidding yourself. This isn't Russia in the 1920s, you can't even consider making that comparison.

Fact is that Cuba's economy has stagnated since the 1990s and instead of seeking localist, bottom-up ways to rejuvinate the economy by handing power to the workers and investing in a program of industrialisation and better agri-production, and instead of solving the dual currency problem and releasing the state from the housing sector, the Cuban government has done the exact opposite.

[RED DAVE]

It's called a socialist revolution adapting to a hostile economic environment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy)It's called state capitalism becoming private capitalism, as in the USSR and China.

RED DAVE

[brigadista]

moncada barracks building is now a school with a great exhibition .

[Jose Gracchus]

It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which some socialists, whose convictions are apparently based on hero- and utopia-worship, will go to defend their hollow idols long after they themselves have sold out and gone for open and naked exploitation.

Raul has obviously shown himself in power to be Cuba's Deng, or perhaps even a more successful Gorbachev. Which road of particular exploitation he has the Cuban producers on remains to be seen; the overall trajectory, does not.

[CHE with an AK]

It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which some leftists let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

There is theory, and then there is survival.
Some live in ivory towers, others in gun towers.

[Octavian]

Isn't it the Marxist stance to progress through stages? Instead of forced communism?

[Jose Gracchus]

It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which some leftists let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

There is theory, and then there is survival.
Some live in ivory towers, others in gun towers.

Yeah, like you have fired a gun in anger. Who do you think you're showing off for, with your he-man posturing bullshit? How old are you? :rolleyes:

It is simple: is there any evidence the leadership is committed to developing toward a classless society, and is carrying out that to the best of their ability? Or none whatsoever, aside from self-justifying rhetoric?


Isn't it the Marxist stance to progress through stages? Instead of forced communism?

Crude stageism is a fabrication of Kautskyism. Marx suggested that the development of capitalism in general (that is, on the world stage, not in any particular nation) created the prerequisites for the dissolution of class society which could not be possible before, obviously. The concept of a separate 'socialist' stage is a fabrication of Stalin. In Marxism there is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is under capitalism, and it proceeds until the workers are in power world over, and capital as a social relation is successfully suppressed, and states, classes, and commodity production is superceded. The "lower" phase of communism is still a classless and stateless society without commodity production.

[CHE with an AK]

like you have fired a gun in anger.
Actually I have, thank you.




How old are you?
Possibly old enough to be your Daddy, or at least your teacher - assuming you are a most-likely a teenager.

[RED DAVE]

It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which some leftists let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

There is theory, and then there is survival.
Some live in ivory towers, others in gun towers.And some people like to pretend that state capitalism is socialism.

RED DAVE

[Optiow]

I think Cuba has done well in the circumstances they have faced over the years. I admire Fidel, and I admire what he built for Cuba. Cuba is heavily involved in ALBA, and has one of the best education and health systems in the world.

Compared to what we're doing, Cuba is doing a hell of a lot to further socialism, and although they are not an ideal society (state capitalist?) I believe they deserve to be supported, if only for their continued opposition to US imperialism in the region, and aid to Chavez in Venezuela.

[RedSonRising]

I think Cuba has done well in the circumstances they have faced over the years. I admire Fidel, and I admire what he built for Cuba. Cuba is heavily involved in ALBA, and has one of the best education and health systems in the world.

Compared to what we're doing, Cuba is doing a hell of a lot to further socialism, and although they are not an ideal society (state capitalist?) I believe they deserve to be supported, if only for their continued opposition to US imperialism in the region, and aid to Chavez in Venezuela.

The problem is, so many people see socialism in black and white. It's either a completely worker-run collection of communities making decisions on a decentralized level with no dilemmas concerning security, human rights, distribution economics, the vestiges of the previous capitalist system, imperialist aggression & isolation, etc... or it's a completely exploitative bureaucracy in which the elite throw an extra socially beneficial bone to the masses to keep them in line while extracting their wealth and freedom as harshly as capitalist ruling classes did.

Some people can't grasp the concept that class struggle is a process with no definitive end in sight, and that sometimes, the results fall short of what we expect, even though they can still create concrete and meaningful progressive steps for the working class participants themselves. The Cuban revolution was organized by a coalition of oppressed peasants and coordinated with working class activists in the cities. The fact that applying State socialism in a way that intended to booster the third world economy of the previously colonially designed economy of Cuba created a layer of bureaucrats who benefit from the centralization of certain decision-making organs makes the system completely corrupted, non-salvageable, and not worthy of study or partial admiration in some peoples' eyes. The citizens of Cuba will tell you differently. The Cuban model was a learning experience and an admiral attempt at a socialist society during a wave of soviet-model establishments of which most eventually decayed much faster than Cuba's.

I fear for the Cuban people today and have always been troubled by the flaws in their statist model, but to scoff at the mixed but vital results of their genuine struggle for freedom from exploitation seems to be a disingenuous disregard for the material condition of the global working class and a step towards a nonconstructive idealist mindset.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which some leftists let the perfect be the enemy of the good.



You're right. Cuba pre-2011 Congress was a worthy advocate of human, medical and environmental progress.

Cuba post-2011 Congress, and with the announcing of the housing reforms, is clearly going to become an openly Capitalistic society.

Also, I would say (I think it was The Inform Candidate who raised this) that comparisons between Raul Castro and Gorbachev are incredibly unfair. Gorbachev said he was (always, it seems) a self-proclaimed anti-Communist who worked from within the system to bring it down.

I find it hard to believe that, lying in the grass outside Moncada in 1953 with half a dozen comrades for company, Raul Castro was anything other than a fanatic revolutionary. In fact we know that by 1959, when Fidel Castro was not yet a Marxist in the orthodox sense, Raul was already a committed revolutionary Socialist in terms of his theoretical outlook. I doubt he is more than a figurehead for the younger generation that is probably (!) behind these reforms now, to be honest.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The problem is, so many people see socialism in black and white. It's either a completely worker-run collection of communities making decisions on a decentralized level with no dilemmas concerning security, human rights, distribution economics, the vestiges of the previous capitalist system, imperialist aggression & isolation, etc... or it's a completely exploitative bureaucracy in which the elite throw an extra socially beneficial bone to the masses to keep them in line while extracting their wealth and freedom as harshly as capitalist ruling classes did.

Some people can't grasp the concept that class struggle is a process with no definitive end in sight, and that sometimes, the results fall short of what we expect, even though they can still create concrete and meaningful progressive steps for the working class participants themselves. The Cuban revolution was organized by a coalition of oppressed peasants and coordinated with working class activists in the cities. The fact that applying State socialism in a way that intended to booster the third world economy of the previously colonially designed economy of Cuba created a layer of bureaucrats who benefit from the centralization of certain decision-making organs makes the system completely corrupted, non-salvageable, and not worthy of study or partial admiration in some peoples' eyes. The citizens of Cuba will tell you differently. The Cuban model was a learning experience and an admiral attempt at a socialist society during a wave of soviet-model establishments of which most eventually decayed much faster than Cuba's.

I fear for the Cuban people today and have always been troubled by the flaws in their statist model, but to scoff at the mixed but vital results of their genuine struggle for freedom from exploitation seems to be a disingenuous disregard for the material condition of the global working class and a step towards a nonconstructive idealist mindset.

Admirable post. But that some of us should (And, do, in my personal case) view the history of revolutionary Cuba with some admiration for its undoubted achievements, even though it has historically fallen short of what i'd define as revolutionary Socialism, that doesn't mean that it should be immune from our harshest criticism should it take a wrong turn, as it clearly has done in the past 12 months.

[RedSonRising]

Admirable post. But that some of us should (And, do, in my personal case) view the history of revolutionary Cuba with some admiration for its undoubted achievements, even though it has historically fallen short of what i'd define as revolutionary Socialism, that doesn't mean that it should be immune from our harshest criticism should it take a wrong turn, as it clearly has done in the past 12 months.

Thank you, and I can agree with that, but a lot of that criticism is based on historical patterns without looking at Cuba's unique set of circumstances. The liberalization of the housing market is a troubling sign, no question, but we cannot predict how far it will go with certainty; the political situations in the Soviet republics was different, as it was in China. I believe the people of Cuba are more conscious of what they have gained, and more importantly, what they have to lose. The housing market is only formalizing a practice already tolerated, because it was inefficient. Once businesses beyond small business start opening up to private enterprise and large pieces of land come under foreign control, and the government shamelessly announces these themselves (as opposed to some western business news source), then I will feel very badly for the Cuban people; but I doubt it will come without some form of resistance. I'm worried, don't get me wrong, but by assessing the political orientation of the people and their views of the system, I can't say for certain, like so many others seem to think they can, that Cuba is going to turn into the Dominican Republic within the next 5 years.

[Susurrus]

The problem is, so many people see socialism in black and white. It's either a completely worker-run collection of communities making decisions on a decentralized level with no dilemmas concerning security, human rights, distribution economics, the vestiges of the previous capitalist system, imperialist aggression & isolation, etc... or it's a completely exploitative bureaucracy in which the elite throw an extra socially beneficial bone to the masses to keep them in line while extracting their wealth and freedom as harshly as capitalist ruling classes did.

Some people can't grasp the concept that class struggle is a process with no definitive end in sight, and that sometimes, the results fall short of what we expect, even though they can still create concrete and meaningful progressive steps for the working class participants themselves. The Cuban revolution was organized by a coalition of oppressed peasants and coordinated with working class activists in the cities. The fact that applying State socialism in a way that intended to booster the third world economy of the previously colonially designed economy of Cuba created a layer of bureaucrats who benefit from the centralization of certain decision-making organs makes the system completely corrupted, non-salvageable, and not worthy of study or partial admiration in some peoples' eyes. The citizens of Cuba will tell you differently. The Cuban model was a learning experience and an admiral attempt at a socialist society during a wave of soviet-model establishments of which most eventually decayed much faster than Cuba's.

I fear for the Cuban people today and have always been troubled by the flaws in their statist model, but to scoff at the mixed but vital results of their genuine struggle for freedom from exploitation seems to be a disingenuous disregard for the material condition of the global working class and a step towards a nonconstructive idealist mindset.

I thought communism was supposed to be the end result...

Also, although certainly better than the other soviet-sphere dictatorships, it is still a product of that philosophy. Fidel has done good things for Cuba, but it is a long shot from socialism. State capitalism is the best term for it. I thought that when Fidel said that the Cuban model of socialism didn't work that we might see a turn farther left, but it is clear now that it is on the path to become a tourist-oriented "socialism with cuban characteristics."

[RedSonRising]

I thought communism was supposed to be the end result...

Also, although certainly better than the other soviet-sphere dictatorships, it is still a product of that philosophy. Fidel has done good things for Cuba, but it is a long shot from socialism. State capitalism is the best term for it. I thought that when Fidel said that the Cuban model of socialism didn't work that we might see a turn farther left, but it is clear now that it is on the path to become a tourist-oriented "socialism with cuban characteristics."

Hence the term "in sight". We're a far ways off from seeing true communism established. Cuban politics always referenced building socialism, rather than claiming to have perfected it.

I don't like using the term state capitalism for Cuba, because the structures in place have organs with which the unions of workers, farmers, teachers, and everyday citizens vote nationally and municipally and directly effect the production and distribution decisions of their economy. It's a centralized structure with some hierarchical tendencies, but like I said, it's not black and white.

"Didn't work" is also a term I dislike using, because for the millions of Cubans who were liberated, fed, housed, and educated for decades who wouldn't have been otherwise, "didn't work" seems like an overlook of those achievements. Economies like Hungary, for example, didn't work because the bases of the economy became fundamentally unsound and political decisions were entirely hierarchical; that doesn't really work long-term. Decades of economic isolation and a lack of revolutionary activity surrounding Cuba, well it was bound to start cracking sometime, and considering all they've achieved, many aspects of the model are worth considering.

In terms of Fidel's quote, it was taken completely out of context, and an emphasis on decentralizing decision-making has come alongside all those worrying reforms which point to liberalization. I'm just waiting on the sidelines before letting my arrogance as a leftist engaged in politics has me predicting the future wholeheartedly as if I have a crystal ball.

[Jose Gracchus]

Also, I would say (I think it was The Inform Candidate who raised this) that comparisons between Raul Castro and Gorbachev are incredibly unfair. Gorbachev said he was (always, it seems) a self-proclaimed anti-Communist who worked from within the system to bring it down.

I don't see why people cling to this statement. Gorbachev climbed the ranks as a loyal Brezhnevite hack, until it no longer suited him, just like the rest of them that now fill the ranks of the CIS state apparatuses and oligarchies (frequently the same folks in each). I'm sure had Gorbachev's "market socialist" and "socialist pluralist" gambits worked like Deng, he would still be gloating he saved the USSR, while turning it de facto into a whored-out-to-the-West conventional capitalist shithole, like modern China. Since he failed and was thrown out on his ass, and has to have his birthday celebrated in London by Western bourgeois, intellectuals, and celebrities, and scrapes by on pathetic speech tours for the edification of gloating Western privileged (there's actually an autographed picture of the bastard from a paid talk he gave at UF in the 90s, hanging on the wall of the frat bar and grill in town), he conjured up this story of himself as noble infiltrator from within. I know it makes the MLs feel better to imagine this Great Man-version, but it is just ass-covering, and certainly not what Gorbachev in 1985 or even 1989 thought, or how and why he managed to do what he did.

[RadioRaheem84]

Who in the hell thinks Gorbachev was not the Dengist-like reformer he always was?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't see why people cling to this statement. Gorbachev climbed the ranks as a loyal Brezhnevite hack, until it no longer suited him, just like the rest of them that now fill the ranks of the CIS state apparatuses and oligarchies (frequently the same folks in each). I'm sure had Gorbachev's "market socialist" and "socialist pluralist" gambits worked like Deng, he would still be gloating he saved the USSR, while turning it de facto into a whored-out-to-the-West conventional capitalist shithole, like modern China. Since he failed and was thrown out on his ass, and has to have his birthday celebrated in London by Western bourgeois, intellectuals, and celebrities, and scrapes by on pathetic speech tours for the edification of gloating Western privileged (there's actually an autographed picture of the bastard from a paid talk he gave at UF in the 90s, hanging on the wall of the frat bar and grill in town), he conjured up this story of himself as noble infiltrator from within. I know it makes the MLs feel better to imagine this Great Man-version, but it is just ass-covering, and certainly not what Gorbachev in 1985 or even 1989 thought, or how and why he managed to do what he did.

Surely there's a qualitative difference between being a tankie bureaucrat and actually making revolution, no?

Obviously Gorbachev didn't bring about the demise of some great nation by himself, someone summarised it well (sorry can't source) when they said that by the 1980s the USSR was at most a radical social democracy anyway. And obviously, Gorbachev was probably neither the first person to coin the counter-revolutionary ideas that defined his tenure, nor the only person pushing for them to be enacted. But at the time he was the General Secretary and anybody judging history will characterise the period as the 'Gorbachev period'.

[CHE with an AK]

I think that every Revlefter should start using the phrase "I gotta take a Gorbachev" - when they have to shit. :)

[Weezer]

Cuba's reforms are worrying yes, but we just can't assume things.

Small private businesses are not a real threat to socialism or even a dictatorship of the proletariat. Private businesses to some extent have existed in nearly all socialist(or degenerated worker states or state capitalist or whatever the hell you call them) states at some point of time.

It's when these private businesses turn into large partnerships or corporations or become branches of foreign corporations that it turns into a counterrevolutionary problem.

Cuba is the only vaguely socialist state on the face of the planet left over from the 20th Century revolutions. It is perfectly unreasonable to think that Cuba wouldn't make small concessions to the market economy. It's incredibly regrettable, but Cuba shouldn't have to stay in isolation from the market with it's struggling economy.

Though the situation in Revolutionary Russia was different, again, I draw the parallel to the New Economic Policy. If more market reforms are made, I will see that Cuba is restoring capitalism. But at the moment, there is no sign of an imperialist and capitalist reconquering of Cuba and its economy.

[RadioRaheem84]

Look for all that we complain about Cuba, we're talking about a nation that uses the abysmal piddly resources it has to give the people some modicum of living standards that put the rest of Latin America to shame. I mean neighboring Haiti (State) realized it's futility when the earthquake decimated the nation and exposed it for the entrenched corruption.

Here in the States alone, the mere thought of crises or a drop in wealth accumilation, sends US planners into a frenzy as they rush to gut us to give the rich what they want. They've been doing it for 40 years and now they want our bones.

Cuba on the other hand, had a chance to open it's doors and tell the world that it was free to exploit the nation all it wants. Instead, they chose to use their tourist industry as the backbone to fund their social programs.

Even with the bare minimum they manage to keep Cuban kids off the streets and people from shooting themselves over debt.

That is an amazing feat and what keeps people so interested in Cuba despite their many, many, many flaws. What a nation can do with so little to keep the whole of their people from total destituion is what makes the Cuban Revolution worth celebrating.

[RED DAVE]

Cuba's reforms are worrying yes, but we just can't assume things.What we can observe, we don't have to assume, is the increased role of private enterprise in the economy.


Small private businesses are not a real threat to socialism or even a dictatorship of the proletariat. Private businesses to some extent have existed in nearly all socialist(or degenerated worker states or state capitalist or whatever the hell you call them) states at some point of time.No one is worried about a barber shop.


t's when these private businesses turn into large partnerships or corporations or become branches of foreign corporations that it turns into a counterrevolutionary problem.That i exactly what is going to happen. The Cuban Revolution was never socialist but state capitalist. And, as we have seen in Russia and China, the road from state capitalism to private capitalism is a relatively short on.


Cuba is the only vaguely socialist state on the face of the planet left over from the 20th Century revolutions.There is no such thing as a "vaguely socialist state." A remark like this shows how vague your analysis is. Look at the property forms and the relationships at the workplace. Does the working class run the place from the bottom up? Clearly not. It ain't socialism, and by now there should be no mystery as to what it is, state capitalism, and where it is going, private capitalism.


It is perfectly unreasonable to think that Cuba wouldn't make small concessions to the market economy. It's incredibly regrettable, but Cuba shouldn't have to stay in isolation from the market with it's struggling economy.The market is much bigger than Cuba. It is going to be swallowed up in it.


Though the situation in Revolutionary Russia was different, again, I draw the parallel to the New Economic Policy.The NEP was a limited situation which lasted less than ten years. Individuals were permitted to make money, yes, but they were not permitted to invest in new enterprises. This is not the case in Cuba.


If more market reforms are made, I will see that Cuba is restoring capitalism. But at the moment, there is no sign of an imperialist and capitalist reconquering of Cuba and its economy.There is every sign of it once you take off your rose-colored glasses. Why, do you think, the Cuban working class is not fighting the restoration of private capitalism? Because it is already being exploited; surplus value is forceably extracted.

http://www.commerceincuba.com/

RED DAVE

[CommunityBeliever]

Cuba deserves enormous praise just for resisting the imperialists and NATO not to mention their great health care system and their other progressive programs.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The defensiveness here is amazing.

Not all of us (I know I don't speak for Red Dave on this issue) are saying that Cuba hasn't done well over the years. That's not the point.

The point is that the reforms of 2011 are a clear step towards Capitalism. If one of the 'social-democratic' Scandanavian states took the same policy reforms, i've no doubt that the defenders of these Cuban reforms would be up in arms shouting IMPERIALIST CAPITALIST PIGS etc.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Cuba's reforms are worrying yes, but we just can't assume things.

Small private businesses are not a real threat to socialism or even a dictatorship of the proletariat. Private businesses to some extent have existed in nearly all socialist(or degenerated worker states or state capitalist or whatever the hell you call them) states at some point of time.

It's when these private businesses turn into large partnerships or corporations or become branches of foreign corporations that it turns into a counterrevolutionary problem.

Cuba is the only vaguely socialist state on the face of the planet left over from the 20th Century revolutions. It is perfectly unreasonable to think that Cuba wouldn't make small concessions to the market economy. It's incredibly regrettable, but Cuba shouldn't have to stay in isolation from the market with it's struggling economy.

Though the situation in Revolutionary Russia was different, again, I draw the parallel to the New Economic Policy. If more market reforms are made, I will see that Cuba is restoring capitalism. But at the moment, there is no sign of an imperialist and capitalist reconquering of Cuba and its economy.

Are you a Social Democrat or a revolutionary Socialist? That post by a newbie would almost certainly result in a ban.

[CommunityBeliever]

The point is that the reforms of 2011 are a clear step towards Capitalism. If one of the 'social-democratic' Scandanavian states took the same policy reforms, i've no doubt that the defenders of these Cuban reforms would be up in arms shouting IMPERIALIST CAPITALIST PIGS etc. You have to understand Cuba in the context of Latin American history. Latin American has been raped by the by the imperialists for personal profit for far too long.

Consider the history of Jaime Roldos, Omar Torrijos, Salvador Allende, Jacobo Arbenz, Joao Goulart, the 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez, and so on.

Amongst all of this imperialism, Cuba is inspiration for anyone every believer in Latin American independence. Say what you will about the countries tragically capitalist economic policies.

In light of all this are you seriously comparing Cuba to the social-democracies in Scandinavia?

[Weezer]

Are you a Social Democrat or a revolutionary Socialist? That post by a newbie would almost certainly result in a ban.

Are you trolling me or just being really fucking cocky? Maybe both.

[CHE with an AK]

Cuba is inspiration for anyone every believer in Latin American independence.
:cubaflag: ¡Venceremos! :cubaflag:
jwQf-HGYyGs

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You have to understand Cuba in the context of Latin American history. Latin American has been raped by the by the imperialists for personal profit for far too long.

Consider the history of Jaime Roldos, Omar Torrijos, Salvador Allende, Jacobo Arbenz, Joao Goulart, the 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez, and so on.

Amongst all of this imperialism, Cuba is inspiration for anyone every believer in Latin American independence. Say what you will about the countries tragically capitalist economic policies.

In light of all this are you seriously comparing Cuba to the social-democracies in Scandinavia?

It was an analogy, not a comparison.

And yet again, I am fully aware of the history, of Bolivar and of Marti, and if you had paid any attention to my positions you'd know that i'm historically a supporter of Cuba.

That still doesn't mean i'm going to provide pathetic excuses for Capitalistic property reforms and the expansion of the private sector.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

:cubaflag: ¡Venceremos! :cubaflag:
jwQf-HGYyGs

What does that contribute to this thread, comrade?

[CHE with an AK]

What does that contribute to this thread, comrade?
Having been to Cuba many times, it gives me 50 seconds of inspiration and apparently 2 other users who thanked it got something as well. :)

[Jose Gracchus]

Who in the hell thinks Gorbachev was not the Dengist-like reformer he always was?

I think he was. I think some have this idea because he said for money later that he was never a communist and wanted to save freedom or some shit that's actually secretly how he felt in the 1980s. I think he was an opportunist politician, incurious and simple, and probably did think he was doing things "in the interest of the USSR" and perhaps even "socialism".

[manic expression]

The achievements of the Cuban workers, all in the face of imperialist aggression at every step, stand among the greatest examples and inspirations for our movement. The Cuban Revolution's continued defense of liberation is nothing short of exemplary, and it must be defended by all progressives.

Long live the Cuban Revolution.

[Jose Gracchus]

Hopefully slogans will help end the exploitation of man by man, including the ability to sell homes and own small businesses for profit.

[manic expression]

Hopefully slogans will help end the exploitation of man by man, including the ability to sell homes and own small businesses for profit.
Selling homes isn't a contradiction of socialism at all...unless you think socialism means no one can move from one house to another. Remember, no one can own more than one house, and ownership of homes is limited to Cuban residents.

On small businesses, you must mean self-employment, family-run restaurants (etc.) and cooperatives.

But it's nice to know that your opposition to Cuban socialism began this year, since your misunderstanding of these reforms is apparently your only complaint.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Selling homes isn't a contradiction of socialism at all...unless you think socialism means no one can move from one house to another. Remember, no one can own more than one house, and ownership of homes is limited to Cuban residents.

On small businesses, you must mean self-employment, family-run restaurants (etc.) and cooperatives.

But it's nice to know that your opposition to Cuban socialism began this year, since your misunderstanding of these reforms is apparently your only complaint.

Are you really hailing these moves as a step towards Socialism?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Also, Cuba is not a Socialist society. Progressive, well meaining and not without great achievements for sure, but in terms of its economic and political system it is not, by Marxian standards, Socialist.

[RadioRaheem84]

Agreed. The Cuban Revolution ended up being the most progressive revolution in history producing massive results with so few resources, under constant attack, and suffering from a crippling blockade.

But not really socialist. No pun intended but close but no cigar.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well that's the point i've been trying to make.

If I were a liberal I might be pleased with these 2011 reforms. But the fact is that, as communists, we must have higher standards for Socialism, and i'm afraid that whilst a slight opening up of the housing market is not 'full blown western Capitalism' per se, it is certainly a step in that direction. I don't see how that can be refuted.

In fact, I invite any of you Cuba-idolisers to defend the 2011 reforms as Socialist.

[Jose Gracchus]

Selling homes isn't a contradiction of socialism at all...unless you think socialism means no one can move from one house to another. Remember, no one can own more than one house, and ownership of homes is limited to Cuban residents.

On small businesses, you must mean self-employment, family-run restaurants (etc.) and cooperatives.

But it's nice to know that your opposition to Cuban socialism began this year, since your misunderstanding of these reforms is apparently your only complaint.

No, Cuba has always been a commodity producing society, characterized by the domination of the law of value (that is, where the producers necessarily confront production as a force alien and antagonistic to them), and necessarily, capital. But I have no desire to help you practice your recitations and devotions in pursuit of demonstrating your fealty to PSL.

[RedSonRising]

I wouldn't say Cuba is fully socialist, but the workers do have influence on the organs of decision-making which are built into the state apparatus. They don't have a complete decentralized autonomy, but their removed representatives aren't directing municipal distribution from an empowered class of exploitative elite directly. Usually I'm not at all hesitant to draw a line between what is socialist (workers' control) and what isn't (class system), but in Cuba's unique case, it's a situation where the level of workers' control is not optimal but still exists on some level.

Not that I'm comparing these terms directly, but when people say a society is either "democratic" or not, it really distorts the gray areas and leaves out the potential for identifying the in-between. I think in terms of the definition of socialism, this applies to Cuba's model.

[CHE with an AK]

No, Cuba has always been a commodity producing society, characterized by the domination of the law of value.

On this point you are correct. However, early on after the Cuban Revolution, Che Guevara (who had become President of the National Bank) argued for the full elimination in the law of value - but was overruled both in Cuba and by the Soviets. If you are interested, I would recommend the new book by Helen Yaffe, entitled Che Guevara: The Economics of Revolution.


http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0230218202.01._SX240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

In Yaffe's excellent new book, she truly shows just how well Che had begun to understand Marxism in the years before his death. In Guevara's private writings from 1964 (since released), he displays his growing criticism of the Soviet political economy, believing that they had "forgotten Marx". This led Guevara to denounce a range of Soviet practices including what he saw as their attempt to "air-brush the inherent violence of class struggle integral to the transition from capitalism to socialism", their "dangerous" policy of peaceful co-existence with the United States, their failure to push for a "change in consciousness" towards the idea of work, and their attempt to "liberalise" the socialist economy. It was Guevara's desire to see the complete elimination of money, interest, commodity production, the market economy, and "mercantile relationships"; all conditions that the Soviets argued would only disappear when world communism was achieved. Disagreeing with this incrementalist approach, Guevara's critique of the Soviet Manual of Political Economy was encapsulated with him correctly predicting that since the Soviets were not willing to abolish the law of value (as Guevara desired), they would eventually return to capitalism.

Perhaps Cuba might follow suit. But for now, they deserve our support as they are lone wolf (in many respects) surrounded by hunters.

[Weezer]

Well that's the point i've been trying to make.

If I were a liberal I might be pleased with these 2011 reforms. But the fact is that, as communists, we must have higher standards for Socialism, and i'm afraid that whilst a slight opening up of the housing market is not 'full blown western Capitalism' per se, it is certainly a step in that direction. I don't see how that can be refuted.

In fact, I invite any of you Cuba-idolisers to defend the 2011 reforms as Socialist.

It's not like I'm not going out into the streets, praising the 2011 reforms and yelling "Viva Raul!"

Would I want the reforms to be more Marxist in orientation? I think we all do.

Again, these reforms are worrying, but it is not a complete transformation to capitalism. There is still room and time for Cuba to turn back to more collectivist reforms.

The proletariat in Cuba definitely has more say in government than the Cuban bourgeoisie. Cuba may not be an orthodox Marxist socialist state, but I would say at the least some kind of a dictatorship of proletariat which has faced temptation to convert back to the capitalist third world enslavement status since it has existed, but for 52 long struggling years, Cuba has retained at the least a progressive stance on things and has not joined the ranks of Haiti and other poor enslaved third world countries in the Caribbean. Cuba has the highest doctor to person ratio in the entire world, heavily contributed to the movement of history in Africa, and has defied imperialism in perhaps in the most radical sense for 52 years. It is astonishing that only now that Cuba is turning to free market reforms, despite the collapse of the USSR, the Eastern European counterrevolutions in the Soviet-aligned states in the 1980's and 1990's, and the almost complete reversion of East Asian 'socialist' states to capitalism or in North Korea's case, isolation. We should all proud that Cuba has held out for this long.

But of course, for ultra-leftists, it's never good enough. Everything has to be perfect, otherwise it's a return to capitalism or "state capitalism to private capitalism" transition.

[Jose Gracchus]

I think Guevara's economics were totally voluntarist and utopian, but at least he was able to see the pig behind the lipstick some behind the Soviet "socialism".

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's not like I'm not going out into the streets, praising the 2011 reforms and yelling "Viva Raul!"

Would I want the reforms to be more Marxist in orientation? I think we all do.

Again, these reforms are worrying, but it is not a complete transformation to capitalism. There is still room and time for Cuba to turn back to more collectivist reforms.

The proletariat in Cuba definitely has more say in government than the Cuban bourgeoisie. Cuba may not be an orthodox Marxist socialist state, but I would say at the least some kind of a dictatorship of proletariat which has faced temptation to convert back to the capitalist third world enslavement status since it has existed, but for 52 long struggling years, Cuba has retained at the least a progressive stance on things and has not joined the ranks of Haiti and other poor enslaved third world countries in the Caribbean. Cuba has the highest doctor to person ratio in the entire world, heavily contributed to the movement of history in Africa, and has defied imperialism in perhaps in the most radical sense for 52 years. It is astonishing that only now that Cuba is turning to free market reforms, despite the collapse of the USSR, the Eastern European counterrevolutions in the Soviet-aligned states in the 1980's and 1990's, and the almost complete reversion of East Asian 'socialist' states to capitalism or in North Korea's case, isolation. We should all proud that Cuba has held out for this long.

But of course, for ultra-leftists, it's never good enough. Everything has to be perfect, otherwise it's a return to capitalism or "state capitalism to private capitalism" transition.

Firstly, if you could provide a more analytical response than 'ULTRA LEFTISTS UTOPIAN HERP DERP'.

I've not once labelled Cuba State Capitalist, so stop insinuating that and trying to play the ultra-left card.

Secondly, whilst I agree that the proletariat (With the CDRs) have more say in the running of the state than in other 'Socialist' nations, the fact is that Cuba is still run by a hierarchical party that controls the state. You can bet that if there were a general strike tomorrow and the Cuban workers demanded a stateless Cuba, the Communists who control the state would oppose it.

You don't need to roll out the stats. Like i've said about a dozen times in this thread, I appreciate that Cuba is a progressive society and in fields like Medicine, Education and Biomedical Science it has achieved unparalleled things.

However, that does not change the fact that in 2011, the Communists, quite apart from ordinary Cubans, have instilled top-down economic reforms that will do nothing but increase the already growing layer of bourgeois elements and inequality in Cuban society.

Defend Cuba's historic achievements all you want, but at least have the wherewithall to admit that these reforms are the last thing that Cuba needs.

[manic expression]

Are you really hailing these moves as a step towards Socialism?
It's a step to make socialism more efficient and flexible in light of the present economic circumstances.


No, Cuba has always been a commodity producing society, characterized by the domination of the law of value (that is, where the producers necessarily confront production as a force alien and antagonistic to them), and necessarily, capital. But I have no desire to help you practice your recitations and devotions in pursuit of demonstrating your fealty to PSL.
Obviously you don't want to deal with the issues you first brought up...which means you still don't understand the reforms of Cuban socialism because of your anti-socialist ideological blinders.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's a step to make socialism more efficient and flexible in light of the present economic circumstances.



Is it a step towards Socialism?

As in, does it, in any way, move power from the bureaucrats and state apparatus to ordinary working people? Does it do anything to stem the flow of growing inequality amongst the Cuban population?

[manic expression]

Is it a step towards Socialism?

As in, does it, in any way, move power from the bureaucrats and state apparatus to ordinary working people? Does it do anything to stem the flow of growing inequality amongst the Cuban population?
As I already said, I feel it is aimed to make socialism more flexible and efficient. Therefore, I object to the premise of your first question. As to your second set of questions, power is already in the hands of the Cuban workers, the bureaucracy is the product of the worker state which is driven fully (http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/44131) by working-class democracy (http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html). Growing inequality is something we should definitely watch with caution, but we can't be rid of it entirely in socialism.

[Weezer]

I've not once labelled Cuba State Capitalist, so stop insinuating that and trying to play the ultra-left card.

I was actually referring to RED DAVE's accusations, my mistake.


Secondly, whilst I agree that the proletariat (With the CDRs) have more say in the running of the state than in other 'Socialist' nations, the fact is that Cuba is still run by a hierarchical party that controls the state. You can bet that if there were a general strike tomorrow and the Cuban workers demanded a stateless Cuba, the Communists who control the state would oppose it.

Okay. Cubans have every right to strike, if they feel the need to strike, I'm sure they would. And if the PCC didn't support a communist movement of workers, I would withdraw my support of the PCC and the Cuban government.



Defend Cuba's historic achievements all you want, but at least have the wherewithall to admit that these reforms are the last thing that Cuba needs.

Okay, for the last time:

These reforms are not what I want. It's regrettable. They are free market reforms. But there's only so much the Cuban government can do. No one is trying to help them establish socialism, they are the only country with any genuine interests with the empowering the working class.

Hopefully, the younger generation when they take control of the government will choose a route to socialism and eventually the abolition of the class system.

I'm very worried about Cuba. But we cannot give up hope and say "Oh the end[of worker's democracy] is near!" As I've said before, there is room and time for Cuba to return to more collectivist means and reforms.