Cuba

[Mythbuster]

What are your opinions on Cuba? I heard some horrific things about Cuba and good things about it. I'm not really sure who to trust and get good information from.

CON CUBA

For example, a minister friend of mine stated that cubans make less than $10/month and their prisons are worse than Mexico's.

PRO CUA

Just look under the socialist action article.

I'd love your opinions.

[Broletariat]

As a Communist, I'm interested in whether or not they have Capitalism or Communism, oh hey, it's Capitalism ;_;

[Mythbuster]

^And that is my issue with Cuba, they're not 100% socialist. I'm a libertarian communist supporting a direct democracy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, it's not that simple.

Cuba is certainly a progressive society, and historically has both lifted its people out of oppression, educated them, kept them healthy and performed, in these 3 areas, comparably well to any first world country (Consider that it is a small, third world country in a less than desirable geographic area!). It has also managed, despite not being the heart of industrialisation, to export its expertise and to create and manage probably THE best biotech industry in the world.

However, it does have its problems. It relied a lot on subsidies (cash and trade) from the USSR because of the USA trade embargo. It's difficult to over-estimate the damage the USA trade embargo has done to Cuba's economy over the years. Who knows what it might have achieved, democratically, if it wasn't in a perpetual state of economic defensive warfare.

Whilst the embargo is the source of many problems, one cannot hide behind this in totality. Cuba is not a Socialist society, because at the national level, there is a severe deficit in democracy. It is also currently undergoing a slow transition towards Capitalism. It has a dual currency problem which has created haves/have-nots, exclusive tourist resorts and it has recently re-instated the ability to own up to one private property, and several small business ventures (very small, but business ventures nonetheless).

Oh and, for the record, Cubans tend to earn around 12-20 dollars per month in salaries. Obviously those who rent their houses out to tourists and receive foreign currency receive more, though it is punitively taxed.

Hope this helps.

[Broletariat]

None of the above has any relevance to what a Communist would be concerned with.

Socialism isn't a matter of "democracy," it's the abolition of Value.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Socialism isn't a matter of democracy? :confused::confused::confused:

It's only a matter of democracy.

The economic arguments for Socialism are what we think are best for the working class, and what we assume the working class, in a Socialist democracy, would implement, and what we would educate them.

As the USSR showed, you can quite conceivably abolish private property and the market without an iota of workers' democracy. No democracy = no Socialism.

[Broletariat]

Socialism isn't a matter of democracy? :confused::confused::confused:

It's only a matter of democracy.

The economic arguments for Socialism are what we think are best for the working class, and what we assume the working class, in a Socialist democracy, would implement, and what we would educate them.

As the USSR showed, you can quite conceivably abolish private property and the market without an iota of workers' democracy. No democracy = no Socialism.

Value also still existed in the USSR. Private property was replaced with State property, hence State Capitalism.

I like to make the comparison between the early USA Mining towns where the corporations owned the entire town. The USSR was just an upscaling of that.

Democracy is not the defining characteristic of Socialism, it is the abolition of Value.

What's there to be democratic ABOUT anyway? Should we or should we not make working places safer, uhm duh yes. Perhaps I have a poor imagination, but I just can't think of much that would really need to be voted on.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What's there to be democratic ABOUT anyway? Should we or should we not make working places safer, uhm duh yes. Perhaps I have a poor imagination, but I just can't think of much that would really need to be voted on.

If you're willing to be so blase about that decision, then no doubt you'll extend that to more important decisions.

I repeat, extreme, direct (as opposed to representative), recallable workers' democracy is the hallmark of Socialism.

What exactly do you mean by the abolition of value?

[Broletariat]

If you're willing to be so blase about that decision, then no doubt you'll extend that to more important decisions.

Like WHAT? I just want one example, what is some important decision that would need to be democratically decided? They're few and far between under Socialism I guarantee you.


I repeat, extreme, direct (as opposed to representative), recallable workers' democracy is the hallmark of Socialism.

We can repeat ourselves all day long :P


What exactly do you mean by the abolition of value?

Out of curiosity, have you ever read Das Kapital?

I like to demonstrate the differences between Communism and Capitalism in terms of Value with a diagram.

Under Capitalism you have a division of labour, and each sphere of production is isolated from one another and produce for private interest. Since they are isolated, there must be a mechanism with which to distribute social labour, this relationship between each sphere is Value.

http://i.imgur.com/kbFNB.png


I contrast this with Communism, where, there's still a division of labour, but they are not isolated from one another. Instead of having various individual units of collective labour, society as a whole is considered as a whole collective labour. You will also note that, within the capitalist factory this sort of organisation is also present, and this is why we think Communism can work. It works every day inside the factory. The Sweatshop is the model for Socialism. Obviously the fact that society will be run by the worker's versus the factory run by the Capitalist means there's a shit load of differences but you know.
http://i.imgur.com/61SD5.png

[Zanthorus]

The economic arguments for Socialism are what we think are best for the working class, and what we assume the working class, in a Socialist democracy, would implement, and what we would educate them.

The conception of socialism as being about 'workers' power' has historically been considered as a cover for worker-managed capitalism by proponents of the thesis that socialism involves the abolition of the proletarian condition. This is incidentally a good example of where dialectical thinking comes in handy. The conception of socialism as working class power relies on concieving the proletariat and bourgeoisie as discrete entities which enter into a purely external relationship with one another, rather than being entities which only exist as they do by virtue of their relationship with one another, which is to say that the proletariat exists as proletariat by virtue of it's relationship with the bourgeoisie and vice versa. The existence of wage-labour and hence the working-class presupposes the existence of capital, and so any situation in which workers remain workers, regardless of whether individual firms are organised 'democratically' or retain more traditional managerial structures, is a situation in which capitalism exists.

To put it another way, we don't want what's best for the working-class at all, because it is not any external relationship which the working-class has with other social groups which we find problematic, but the very situation in which a working-class exists. Being a member of the working-class is inherently sucky, hence the point is to no longer be members of the working-class, not to perpetuate and even glorify the situation of being working-class with added democratic flavouring.


What exactly do you mean by the abolition of value?

I would think that it would be fairly self-evident that Broletariat is referring to the abolition of the conditions in which the social character of labour is asserted indirectly through the act of exchange, and human subjective activity becomes objectified as an alien power in the form of money. In plain english, it means we abolish capitalism.


Like WHAT? I just want one example, what is some important decision that would need to be democratically decided? They're few and far between under Socialism I guarantee you.

For the record, the communist critique of democracy is not intended to be a critique of democratic decision making as such, but rather the conception by which the democratic form of organisation is made into the all-encompassing content of socialism, whereas in reality communism is not a question of form but rather content, and hence the critique of democracy does not negate democracy for another equally flawed method of organisation, but rather surpasses the question of organisation altogether. "... we do not propose to substitute for the democratic schema which we have been criticizing any other schema of a state apparatus which in itself will be exempt from defects and errors." (Bordiga, The Democratic Principle)

[Broletariat]

For the record, the communist critique of democracy is not intended to be a critique of democratic decision making as such, but rather the conception by which the democratic form of organisation is made into the all-encompassing content of socialism, whereas in reality communism is not a question of form but rather content, and hence the critique of democracy does not negate democracy for another equally flawed method of organisation, but rather surpasses the question of organisation altogether.


That seems to line up with what I was saying. I tend to imagine that it will be less democracy more science though. I mean we might need some democratic decisions for like, shit I don't know, but there's a few things I'm sure.

[Zanthorus]

That seems to line up with what I was saying.

Partly, I was just pointing out that not everyone who holds to a critique of democracy believes in replacing it with systems which appear to be based on questionable views of the nature of science.

[Broletariat]

Partly, I was just pointing out that not everyone who holds to a critique of democracy believes in replacing it with systems which appear to be based on questionable views of the nature of science.

Science probably isn't the best word to be used, but I can't think of a proper substitute, unless you could offer one?

[Q]

I don't see where the supposed contradiction between democracy and the abolition of value comes from? Surely to abolish capitalism, the working class must constitute itself as a class for its own (something that transcends the mere interdependency relationship in regards to capital that Zanth was talking about, that is: to transcend its existance as a mere slave class), form itself into a potential ruling class and then take over political power by abolishing the capitalist political power (that is, its state) and putting its own political hegemony (its own "state") in place.

Democracy plays a key part in this process as the struggle for democracy forms the class, is the engine for its self-emancipation as a collective and therefore of every individual.

After the political seizure of power indeed the main task is to overcome and abolish the law of value we inherited from the old economy. And while the main capitalists will have ceased to exist as a class, as the main means of production have been socialised, there will still be other classes: petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata which hold certain monopolies on skills and knowledge. These layers can only be assimilated into the working class part by part. Socialism, being the transition from the old society ruled by value to the new society ruled by planning of the free association of producers (that is, communism), is therefore still a class society, be it one that is dieing and where the class struggle is having a different character.

Democracy here too plays an integral part, for as long as class society exists, so too will the workers "state" and so too will democracy as a form of governing. Only when all classes have been absorbed into the working class and the working class therefore has negated itself, is there no longer any class hegemony and distinct political rule. All functions of the state have then collapsed within society itself and democracy has come to an end.

But I agree with Stammer that the battle for democracy in the here and now is indeed absolutely vital for the reasons I already mentioned.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I've only read the beginning of Das Kapital, a couple of years ago, it was too dense for me at the time and i've not gotten back into it as of yet.

The abolition of value cannot be achieved in an un-democratic environment. In all situations but proletarian democracy, classes or strata will exist and continue to exist, with different socio-economic interests. No group but the one-day educated working class will be able to 'abolish value', for this reasons.

For the record, Zanthorus, Capitalism can be abolished whilst value still exists. It is currency that needs to be abolished, I think you must mean to say.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't see where the supposed contradiction between democracy and the abolition of value comes from? Surely to abolish capitalism, the working class must constitute itself as a class for its own (something that transcends the mere interdependency relationship in regards to capital that Zanth was talking about, that is: to transcend its existance as a mere slave class), form itself into a potential ruling class and then take over political power by abolishing the capitalist political power (that is, its state) and putting its own political hegemony (its own "state") in place.

Democracy plays a key part in this process as the struggle for democracy forms the class, is the engine for its self-emancipation as a collective and therefore of every individual.

After the political seizure of power indeed the main task is to overcome and abolish the law of value we inherited from the old economy. And while the main capitalists will have ceased to exist as a class, as the main means of production have been socialised, there will still be other classes: petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata which hold certain monopolies on skills and knowledge. These layers can only be assimilated into the working class part by part. Socialism, being the transition from the old society ruled by value to the new society ruled by planning of the free association of producers (that is, communism), is therefore still a class society, be it one that is dieing and where the class struggle is having a different character.

Democracy here too plays an integral part, for as long as class society exists, so too will the workers "state" and so too will democracy as a form of governing. Only when all classes have been absorbed into the working class and the working class therefore has negated itself, is there no longer any class hegemony and distinct political rule. All functions of the state have then collapsed within society itself and democracy has come to an end.

But I agree with Stammer that the battle for democracy in the here and now is indeed absolutely vital for the reasons I already mentioned.

It wouldn't let me thank this post for some reason, so i'll comment on it anyway.

When talking about democracy, I was talking about the 'here and now', and the post-Capitalist, but not yet communist stage, where currency, value and exchange still exist. It is imperative that during this period, Socialist democracy is an absolute hallmark of any society aspiring to communism, otherwise we end up as the USSR did.

[Broletariat]

I don't see where the supposed contradiction between democracy and the abolition of value comes from?

We weren't implying there is one, just that Socialism (which is the same thing as Communism by the way) is the abolition of Value.


Surely to abolish capitalism, the working class must constitute itself as a class for its own (something that transcends the mere interdependency relationship in regards to capital that Zanth was talking about, that is: to transcend its existance as a mere slave class), form itself into a potential ruling class and then take over political power by abolishing the capitalist political power (that is, its state) and putting its own political hegemony (its own "state") in place.

Certainly, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat


Democracy plays a key part in this process as the struggle for democracy forms the class, is the engine for its self-emancipation as a collective and therefore of every individual.

Within the working class sure, and during the transition definitely, but I was speaking more into established Communism.


After the political seizure of power indeed the main task is to overcome and abolish the law of value we inherited from the old economy. And while the main capitalists will have ceased to exist as a class, as the main means of production have been socialised, there will still be other classes: petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata which hold certain monopolies on skills and knowledge. These layers can only be assimilated into the working class part by part. Socialism, being the transition from the old society ruled by value to the new society ruled by planning of the free association of producers (that is, communism), is therefore still a class society, be it one that is dieing and where the class struggle is having a different character.

I think this is putting the cart before the horse. The DotP is the political expression of the economic struggles. The economic struggles will be coming first.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The DotP, a genuine one, will be the most extreme expression of democracy that the world has seen hitherto.

In addition, you cannot put the economic struggle before the political struggle or vice versa. Both are key and, in a dialectic sense, feed off each other and come into existence out of each others' midst. Rosa Luxemburg was quite strong on this in her analysis of the early Russian Revolution of 1905.

In any case, it is immaterial since economic struggles will be first defensive (economism), as they are currently, and then offensive, as the class struggle heats up. But you cannot abolish value without political power - i.e. without a successful culmination of the political struggle, so really your 'cart before the horse' comment is an irrelevance to the democracy & abolition of value debate.

[Broletariat]

I've only read the beginning of Das Kapital, a couple of years ago, it was too dense for me at the time and i've not gotten back into it as of yet.

I would highly recommend it, check out my notes here.

http://redmarx.freeforums.org/help-me-with-my-read-through-of-capital-t17.html


The abolition of value cannot be achieved in an un-democratic environment. In all situations but proletarian democracy, classes or strata will exist and continue to exist, with different socio-economic interests. No group but the one-day educated working class will be able to 'abolish value', for this reasons.

So under proletarian democracy, there is no classes, yet we call it the proletarian democracy? I'm a little confused.


For the record, Zanthorus, Capitalism can be abolished whilst value still exists. It is currency that needs to be abolished, I think you must mean to say.

This is highly indicative that you should re-read my post explaining Value.

[Broletariat]

It wouldn't let me thank this post for some reason, so i'll comment on it anyway.

When talking about democracy, I was talking about the 'here and now', and the post-Capitalist, but not yet communist stage, where currency, value and exchange still exist. It is imperative that during this period, Socialist democracy is an absolute hallmark of any society aspiring to communism, otherwise we end up as the USSR did.

So what the hell is between Capitalism and Communism? What makes it not Capitalism and not Communism?

[Broletariat]

The DotP, a genuine one, will be the most extreme expression of democracy that the world has seen hitherto.

So like... you're saying we should let the bourgeois participate in the uhm... Dictatorship of the Proletariat? Are you sure you're not a Maoist?


In addition, you cannot put the economic struggle before the political struggle or vice versa. Both are key and, in a dialectic sense, feed off each other and come into existence out of each others' midst. Rosa Luxemburg was quite strong on this in her analysis of the early Russian Revolution of 1905.

You very well can actually, you can have a purely economic struggle, or a purely political one. But an effective movement is one that starts as an economic struggle and later expresses itself political.


In any case, it is immaterial since economic struggles will be first defensive (economism), as they are currently, and then offensive, as the class struggle heats up. But you cannot abolish value without political power - i.e. without a successful culmination of the political struggle, so really your 'cart before the horse' comment is an irrelevance to the democracy & abolition of value debate.

I agree with all of this and fail to see how it makes my comment irrelevant.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So like... you're saying we should let the bourgeois participate in the uhm... Dictatorship of the Proletariat? Are you sure you're not a Maoist?



You very well can actually, you can have a purely economic struggle, or a purely political one. But an effective movement is one that starts as an economic struggle and later expresses itself political.



Sorry i'm still shit at this multi-quote thing so i'll number my points.

1. Sorry, perhaps if I said 'proletarian democracy', would that clarify things? I should have been clearer on that. I see no reason to cast off willing members of the petty-bourgeoise and even some enlightened members of the bourgeoisie (you know, those who were born to members of the bourgeoisie) from participating in shaping a new society for two (and a half) reasons:

a) They will be in an absolute minority (because of the nature of the Capitalist society that they helped to sustain) and so cannot advance their class interests, and that minority will surely become even smaller as I accept that a great many members of the bourgeoisie will turn to counter-revolution and will not be able to participate alongside us in revolutionary struggle.

b) As classes begin to disappear, we will have no working class, no petty bourgeoise and no bourgeoisie. What we do not want to create is a society, post-revolution, whereupon there are no classes yet some people have come from a culture of proletarian participation and some, despite not being counter-revolutionaries or belonging to any class anymore, have become accustomed to a culture of non-participation. That would not be healthy going forward.

Also, the last reason that leftists might want to think about is that a great many Socialists, famous ones at that, have been/are not from the working class. To say that they should be allowed participation in a new society and deny others of a same class origin participation is to actually forgo a class analysis of society.

2. I realise the above is enough to continue its own discussion, but to address your point about economic and political struggles:

As i've already said, you cannot simply settle, even in the beginning, for the economic struggle, unless you are talking explicitly of falling back on economistic minimum demands in a time where class struggle is quiet. Economic and political struggles MUST be intertwined at times of peak class struggle, otherwise we risk simply burning out and, despite being on the offensive, degenerating the revolution into a form of social democratic economism. The economic struggle will arise out of the political struggle, just as much as the political will unfold from the economic. That really is a key point of revolutionary theory, as Luxemburg identified over a century ago.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So what the hell is between Capitalism and Communism? What makes it not Capitalism and not Communism?

Workers' control of the MoP = Socialism, whereas communism (small 'c' because communism is a state of society, rather than Communism which tends to hark back to Bolshevik ideology being put into practice) is achieved upon the cessation of classes to exist in society.

[Broletariat]

Sorry i'm still shit at this multi-quote thing so i'll number my points.

It's all good.


1. Sorry, perhaps if I said 'proletarian democracy', would that clarify things?

Yes


I should have been clearer on that. I see no reason to cast off willing members of the petty-bourgeoise and even some enlightened members of the bourgeoisie (you know, those who were born to members of the bourgeoisie) from participating in shaping a new society for two (and a half) reasons:

Now you definitely sound Maoist, but lets proceed.


a) They will be in an absolute minority (because of the nature of the Capitalist society that they helped to sustain) and so cannot advance their class interests, and that minority will surely become even smaller as I accept that a great many members of the bourgeoisie will turn to counter-revolution and will not be able to participate alongside us in revolutionary struggle.

They're in an absolute minority now too. I'm just highly worried about an informal hierarchy arising due to their participation. It could easily arise that they could throw their economic weight around. Marx himself refused any leadership position in the IWMA because he wasn't a worker.


b) As classes begin to disappear, we will have no working class, no petty bourgeoise and no bourgeoisie. What we do not want to create is a society, post-revolution, whereupon there are no classes yet some people have come from a culture of proletarian participation and some, despite not being counter-revolutionaries or belonging to any class anymore, have become accustomed to a culture of non-participation. That would not be healthy going forward.

As you said, those non-participants would be a very small minority.


Also, the last reason that leftists might want to think about is that a great many Socialists, famous ones at that, have been/are not from the working class. To say that they should be allowed participation in a new society and deny others of a same class origin participation is to actually forgo a class analysis of society.

As I said, Marx denied being a leader precisely because of his class background.




As i've already said, you cannot simply settle, even in the beginning, for the economic struggle, unless you are talking explicitly of falling back on economistic minimum demands in a time where class struggle is quiet.

I'm talking about the fact that, the international proletariat is first going to go on strike, fall back on their unions etc. Before they start making real political demands. There will be economic actions and such before any political action, that's exactly what we're seeing these days too.


Economic and political struggles MUST be intertwined at times of peak class struggle, otherwise we risk simply burning out and, despite being on the offensive, degenerating the revolution into a form of social democratic economism. The economic struggle will arise out of the political struggle, just as much as the political will unfold from the economic. That really is a key point of revolutionary theory, as Luxemburg identified over a century ago.


At times of peak struggle I totally agree, the economic struggle must express itself politically.

[Broletariat]

Workers' control of the MoP = Socialism,

If there's still Value relations, it's actually Capitalism as Marx defined it.

[RedMarxist]

shouldn't we be talking about Cuba here?

[HEAD ICE]

Workers' control of the MoP = Socialism

to be a stickler here, marx never actually defines this as such (others have though, like Proudhon etc). marx doesn't focus so much on who "owns" the MoP, but peoples relations towards the MoP. For instance, reading Capital almost never do you see Marx say something along the lines of "capitalists exploit proletarians." He says, "capital exploits workers." Capital is what truly has power, the capitalist is it's personification.

Hence, workers can control the MoP but then "democratically and horizontally" initiate lay offs, wage decreases, work intensification, ignore safety standards... Not because the capitalists or the workers who 'own' the business are greedy, but because capital is greedy.

[Broletariat]

shouldn't we be talking about Cuba here?

Instead the discussion became productive, talking about Capitalist nations is usually boring.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If there's still Value relations, it's actually Capitalism as Marx defined it.

It's a process, though. The instant that the working class seizes ownership of the bulk of the economy and of the state's political and security apparatus, there will be a huge element of Capitalist economic relations. Over an un-defined period of time, though, the working class - conscious and educated - will surely expropriate the bourgeoisie thoroughly and work towards eliminating the state and eliminating currency and thus the value relationships that you quite helpfully describe on the previous page with the example involving porn!

There isn't going to be one identifiable moment whereby society stops being objectively 'Capitalist' and becomes objectively thus 'Socialist'. However, workers' direct control of the MoP is certainly Socialistic and if such direct democratic control becomes entrenched and does not succumb to counter-revolution or bureaucratic degeneration/deformation, then it will inevitably lead to Socialism 'real', if that makes sense.

As for your previous post (to the one i'm replying to), I don't disagree with anything, actually. I merely wanted to point out (and feel that you've taken it on board) that the economic struggle cannot become revolutionary without being married to, and without arising from, the political struggle. Isolated economic struggles are defensive, happen all the time and do not (necessarily) signal an increase in class consciousness or revolutionary tension.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

to be a stickler here, marx never actually defines this as such (others have though, like Proudhon etc). marx doesn't focus so much on who "owns" the MoP, but peoples relations towards the MoP. For instance, reading Capital almost never do you see Marx say something along the lines of "capitalists exploit proletarians." He says, "capital exploits workers." Capital is what truly has power, the capitalist is it's personification.

Hence, workers can control the MoP but then "democratically and horizontally" initiate lay offs, wage decreases, work intensification, ignore safety standards... Not because the capitalists or the workers who 'own' the business are greedy, but because capital is greedy.

Theoretically, such a situation as described in your second paragraph could technically exist.

However, as Marxists, we believe (know) that workers' control of the MoP can only come about by a revolutionary process, which itself happens only when workers become class and politically conscious, through a Socialist education. A politicised and conscious working class is unlikely to put their lives on the line to defeat Capitalism, only to re-introduce it when they have waved in a new ultra-democratic society.

[Q]

Workers' control of the MoP = Socialism

Just my stab at it, as everyone else did already anyway, "control" is a vague and slippery word here. It is, for example, very much possible to have workers control under capitalism, which in effect would mean institutionalising class collaboration as a state instrument; the state institutionally submitting the workers movement to the interests and needs of capital under the guise of "control", having a say in it.

I know that's not what you mean, but putting an equal sign here is troublesome.

It also is economistic in that it denies the central objective of the battle for democracy, that is the self-emancipation of the working class, fighting for political power over their own lives.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yeah I know my language there was lazy, but i've expanded on that ambiguous phrase several times in the thread.

In another thread I think I elucidated the several steps that need to be taken before the abolishment of money can take place, with the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of direct, democratic workers' control of the MoP being just the first step.

So yeah, i'm not saying that my little equation is the end-game, it's the lowest phase of the process, but for me it marks the place at which Capitalism ends and Socialism begins to be constructed.