Cuban MBAs Courtesy of the Catholic Church

[Bud Struggle]

Seems there is a thaw going on in Cuba both towards Capitalism and the Catholic Church. Hopefully, Raul is learing from China.

From the Financial Times.



In what may well signal a slight political and economic thaw in the communist-run country, Cuba has opened its first MBA programme.
The part-time programme is an educational initiative of the Roman Catholic Church. Small businesses and the church’s educational mission have traditionally been thwarted in the country and the programme, by Cuban standards, is a remarkable event.
The MBA is being run from the 18th-century San Carlos y San Ambrosio Seminary in Havana, home to the Felix Varela Cultural Centre, which sponsors the MBA. Plans for the centre originated at the Pontifical Council for Culture at the Vatican, which wants similar centres to be built in other big cities...



“Private business was not favourably looked upon in Cuba just a year ago. An entrepreneur was even viewed as a criminal, a delinquent,” says Father Yosvani Carvajal, director of the centre. “Today businessmen are viewed as contributing to society and the economy, but with what tools? We are going to provide those tools ... how to start and run a business, marketing and the like.”
Fidel Castro, the former president, took over the country’s retail sector in 1968 in what he called the “Revolutionary Offensive”. Raúl Castro, who replaced his older brother in 2006, recently described that decision as a “mistake that was perhaps unavoidable at the time”, and has repeatedly stressed the need for the state to withdraw from secondary economic activity.




http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/11aac838-e8fa-11e0-ac9c-00144feab49a.html#axzz1ZknDGkna

[RichardAWilson]

Just so long as the Cubans don't follow China in allowing the working classes to be exploited by foreign multinationals.

[Pretty Flaco]

Just so long as the Cubans don't follow China in allowing the working classes to be exploited by foreign multinationals.

But if they're exploited by a non-foreign capitalist class than that's perfectly fine. :rolleyes:

*Not to say that the cuban workers weren't already exploited anyway

[Kamos]

Another step back for socialism. And here I was hoping Cuba might last until the next revolutionary wave.

[RichardAWilson]

But if they're exploited by a non-foreign capitalist class than that's perfectly fine.

As long as small private retailers are subjected to nation's laws governing labor standards: I don't see where limited enterprise would be a bad thing. (Just so the Cubans don't follow China in privatizing and liberalizing the entire economy)

The misconception that small businesses run in opposition to socialism is foolish. You can have one and the other. In time, a truly socialized economy would absorb and eliminate the need for smaller businesses. Cuba isn't a truly socialized nation.

It's still a nation on the transitional road to socialism. Limited enterprise would improve living standards in the short to medium term. In the longer-term, Cuba's state sector should be decentralized, restructured and turned over to the workers to make them more productive and innovative. After which, the socialized sector would be able to use competitive means of absorbing and eliminating smaller private businesses.

[Bud Struggle]

The misconception that small businesses run in opposition to socialism is foolish. You can have one and the other. In time, a truly socialized economy would absorb and eliminate the need for smaller businesses. Cuba isn't a truly socialized nation.

A global mistake.

In time small business becomes big business and it eats Communism at its heart.

[RichardAWilson]

You're learning the wrong lessons from history. The Soviet-Union and China never had socialism. National companies aren't socialized companies.

An efficient and innovative socialized businesses can compete and win. A more efficient and innovative business can offer higher wages, thus attracting skilled labor and leaving smaller private businesses in the cold.

[Bud Struggle]

You're learning the wrong lessons from history. The Soviet-Union and China never had socialism. National companies aren't socialized companies.

An efficient and innovative socialized businesses can compete and win. A more efficient and innovative business can offer higher wages, thus attracting skilled labor and leaving smaller private businesses in the cold.

There is no such thing as Communism. An "innovative socialized businesses" is just a state funded and controlled business.

Communism is a chimera. All there is is more or less state control. When have the "people" ever controled anything but their bowels?

[RichardAWilson]

There are a multitude of successful worker owned cooperatives. Some of them are even growing and franchising. With access to financing, I'm aware of a few cooperatives that could go national here in the United States.

I can also think of a number of successful and innovative socialized state companies (I.e. State Oil Companies that finance universal health care, universities and pensions).

I can also think of successful state telecom companies that should never have been privatized because there was nothing wrong with them.

[Bud Struggle]

There are a multitude of successful worker owned cooperatives. Some of them are even growing and franchising. With access to financing, I'm aware of a few cooperatives that could go national here in the United States.

There is all kinds of funky business stuff. Catholic Monasteries make great beer. Families run really successful businesses. A couple of guys in basements seems the best business plan for the last quarter century.

Good for the co-ops, I wish them well. But lets see them build another Microsoft or Google. DO IT!

Then I will be impressed.

[RichardAWilson]

Linux could become a big business brand... It's just that Linux is free of charge because it's an open source technology.

Costco is almost a socialized business in the sense that most of the firm's profits are turned over to the workers.

Costco has the lowest turnover ratio in the sector, the lowest theft ratio and much higher sales per sq. foot than Wal-Mart.

[tir1944]

Cuba is,sadly,on the revisionist path towards full-blown capitalism...

[Bud Struggle]

Linux could build another Microsoft... It's just that Linux is free of charge because it's an open source technology. On the Small scale. It hasn't make a move on the real market--small to mid sizwed usiness.


Costco is almost a socialized business in the sense that most of the firm's profits are turned over to the workers. And that's EXACTLY why I shop at SAM'S CLUB. :)

[Skooma Addict]

Perhaps Cuba is moving in the right direction. If they keep making improvements I would consider buying a home there if I become wealthy.

[RichardAWilson]

And that's EXACTLY why I shop at SAM'S CLUB.

More Americans shop at Costco, where prices are lower:) Waste your money @ Slave Labor Incorporated.

Costco shows that good working conditions and competitive wages and salaries go hand in hand with good business.

[Bud Struggle]

More Americans shop at Costco, where prices are lower:) Waste your money @ Slave Labor Incorporated.

I'm starting to like you Richard. I applaud you move to being Restricted. All the devishly handsome people around here are. :)

[RichardAWilson]

I'm starting to like you Richard. I applaud you move to being Restricted.

:( Well, I never imagined that I'd be restricted. Since it happened though, it's whatever. Like I've said, a debate going on in another forum can be raised in this forum.

Plus, there are a number of very progressive socialists that have been restricted for not adhering to Leninism.

If the Soviet-Union had been successful, it'd still be around. We know what a socialized economy shouldn't look like.

[Bud Struggle]

We know what a socialized economy shouldn't look like.

Well we also know wha Capitalist societies shouldn't look like.

Maybe we should all work together to make a better Capitalist society. At least we have an actual starting point.

[RichardAWilson]

We've tried making capitalism better and more humane and it doesn't work for long.

[RGacky3]

Good for the co-ops, I wish them well. But lets see them build another Microsoft or Google. DO IT!


Most of sillicon valley is cooperatives ... so a lot of the new innovative software is done by cooperatives.

As far as Cuba, I'm torn on the reforms, origionally it was just cooperatives, and I am all for that, sole propriotorship I"M all for, but when private wage labor comes back you ahv ea problem, problem is wage labor was never gotten rid of, most of hte state industry still worked on the capitalista mode of production, (wage labor and capitalist, or commissar).

[RichardAWilson]

Like I said, Cuba is on the road of transitional socialism. However, if the Cubans aren't on guard, they'll be on the path of restoration. Nobody ever said there wasn't a fine line to walk.

[The Jay]

What does everybody think che would say?

[Geiseric]

Aaaanndd socialism in one country DOES NOT AND WILL NEVER WORK

[Robert]

Well, I never imagined that I'd be restricted.

Richard, did you read any of the posts on the main board or the FAQ section before you started posting on Revleft? This place is a madhouse. A blind man could have seen you'd be restricted in a second. (Which is a compliment.)

But what I really want to say is ...

I'd bet that Fidel Castro asks for a priest on his deathbed. Just for insurance, you know? I mean, what can it hurt?

Of course, if he does, they'll have to kill the priest (with his own entrails) after hearing the confession to make sure he doesn't tell anybody.

[RichardAWilson]

Socialism in one country DOES NOT AND WILL NEVER WORK

I hate Stalin. With that said, if socialism can't work at a national level, it'll never stand a chance at the global level. The working classes need an inspirational beacon. Venezuela looked to Cuba and Bolivia looked to Venezuela.

Lenin hedged his entire Revolution on Germany. Look at where it left him. The world's workingmen and intellectuals were looking to Moscow for inspiration. Instead, the world's workers and intellectuals were disappointed and later, under Stalin, horrified.

Lenin would have been better had he focused on internal affairs and had he been dedicated to democratic-socialism instead of the "Dictatorship of the Vanguard." The Soviet-Model was a good one and could have worked - if it had been truly democratic. Instead of All Power to the Soviets, the Soviet-Model became (thanks to Lenin and later Stalin) All Power to the Politburo.

As Marx would say: "Each nation is at a different stage of industrialization and developmental transition." No where did Marx ever claim that the World Revolution would be simultaneous. However, one nation's successful transition to socialism will pave the way for others to follow.

[ProletarianResurrection]

Cuba is,sadly,on the revisionist path towards full-blown capitalism...

Was Cuba ever on a Communist path? I think not.

However the current bunch want to bring Cuba back to the dark old days before the revolution.

[ProletarianResurrection]

I hate Stalin..

Than you hate the wretched of the earth.

Than I hate you.

[Geiseric]

well richard, capitalism doesn't work on a national level either. That is why we have imperialism. In todays world, nothing will work if its cut off from the outside. "socialism in one country" is a paradox, socialism was never meant to be confined to one country, to one nation. it's true revisionism. If capitalism worked in one country, we wouldn't need to be socialists lol.

[RichardAWilson]

As Marx would say: "Each nation is at a different stage of industrialization and developmental transition." No where did Marx ever claim that the World Revolution would be simultaneous. However, one nation's successful transition to socialism will pave the way for others to follow.

You can't just think that there will be simultaneous revolutions happening all over the world at the same time

It seems to me, Lenin succumbed more to revisionism than Stalin.

[Geiseric]

Revolutions did happen almost simultaneously after the russian one. See the italian revolution, german one, spanish one, hungarian one, chinese, early vietnamese, early indian, and mongolian ones... If the stalinists, who thought socialism in one country weren't menshevik fuckheads the revolutions would have been more successful. It isn't a secret that revolutions spread after one happens... I wouldn't call these revolutions but just look at the political unrest in europe, arabia and north africa. It's gonna spread to mexico and france next. a countries economic development doesn't determine whether or not a revolution will happen, it depends on the class consiousness of the proletariat...

[Geiseric]

Nobody ever said it would happen all at once, but over a short amount of time world capitalism always faces revolutions after one nation has one.

[RichardAWilson]

Most of those Revolutions failed because the activists weren't conscious enough. Lenin based his entire future on Germany, which never happened. Like I said, if you can't build socialism in one country, how can you build it on an international level?

You have to provide inspiration and a path for others to follow.

[Bud Struggle]

Have you guys noticed that the era of Communist Revolutions ended 50 years ago? There still are revolutuons, like Egypt and Lybia, but they are hardly Communist. There are even Populist leaders like Chavez and Allende that spring up mpw and again. But the era of Communism is over.

And Anarchism--it really never got started, did it?

I think things are going to go more Social Democratic--maybe even in the USA, but any sort of Revoltion--that ain't gunna happen in for a loooong time.

[RGacky3]

They don't look like the communist revolutions with the red flags and the such, those are over, the Lenin model is finished, and imo it SHOULD be finished.

These revolutions like in Eygpt and Tunesia, and in Bolivia iwth Evo Morales and Chavez and the such are different, but they are workers uprisings, and they are for the most part anti-capitalist, anti-capitalism in europe is on the rise again, I don't care about the red flags and the sickles and hammers, what I care about is workers uprisings and popular revolts.

Its wrong to label it as social democratic also, social democracy in Europe grew out of the communist parties and the radical unions.

[CommunityBeliever]

Have you guys noticed that the era of Communist Revolutions ended 50 years ago? There still are revolutuons, like Egypt and Lybia, but they are hardly Communist. There are even Populist leaders like Chavez and Allende that spring up mpw and again. But the era of
Communism is over.

Communism's high point certainly occurred around ~50 years ago around the time of the War to resist U.S agression and aid Korea when the PRC and the Soviet Union fought side by side under the leadership of comrade Mao Zedong, comrade Stalin, and comrade Kim Il-sung.

Later the Soviet revisionists destroyed our movement from within, leading to the Sino-Soviet split, and communism has never been at such a high point ever since. However, to say that the fire of communist revolution has let out would be inaccurate, there are still vibrant communist movements in the East, especially south Asia.

Revolution in South Asia (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/)

And now that the West is going through a global economic recession / new dark age, it appears social movements are picking up pace there again and we have a disillusioned generation of Western youth to work with. So don't rule out social progress out yet there comrade Bud.


I think things are going to go more Social Democratic--maybe even in the USA, but any sort of Revoltion--that ain't gunna happen in for a loooong time.

I would sooner die then spend my entire life under capitalism, so ff revolution isn't going to happen, then I will die trying. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.

[RGacky3]

International statement of solidarity with Cuban Anti-Authoritarians. (http://www.iww.org/en/content/international-statement-solidarity-cuban-anti-authoritarians-you-are-not-alone)

I stand with the left resistance within Cuba.

[Bud Struggle]

International statement of solidarity with Cuban Anti-Authoritarians. (http://www.iww.org/en/content/international-statement-solidarity-cuban-anti-authoritarians-you-are-not-alone)

I stand with the left resistance within Cuba.

I stand with the proto-entrepreneaurs.

I bet my side wins. :D

[CommieTroll]

It's unfortunately a sad development in the revolution and a sad day for the Cuban proletariat (yes I know they are exploited to an extent). I thought this type of thing wouldn't have happened until after Raul's resignation or death. All because of that fucking trade embargo. Wasn't Raul a staunch Marxist, even more so that Fidel? He was during the days of the Cuban revolution if I can remember correctly

[tir1944]

Socialism in one country DOES NOT AND WILL NEVER WORK
Cool Marxist Analysis bro...:cool:

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RichardAWilson;2250414]. In time, a truly socialized economy would absorb and eliminate the need for smaller businesses. Cuba isn't a truly socialized nation.

Cuba did "absorb and eliminate the need for smaller business." They are reversing course they are somewhat aware of the error of their ways.


It's still a nation on the transitional road to socialism. Limited enterprise would improve living standards in the short to medium term.

Sounds like shades of Lenin's policy.


In the longer-term, Cuba's state sector should be decentralized, restructured and turned over to the workers to make them more productive and innovative. After which, the socialized sector would be able to use competitive means of absorbing and eliminating smaller private businesses.

Sounds like shades of Lenin's policy.

The problem of Cuba is socialism, not the misapplication of it.

[RGacky3]

The problem of Cuba is socialism, not the misapplication of it.

The problem is lack of democracy which IS the lack of socialism.

[Baseball]

Lenin would have been better had he focused on internal affairs and had he been dedicated to democratic-socialism instead of the "Dictatorship of the Vanguard." The Soviet-Model was a good one and could have worked - if it had been truly democratic. Instead of All Power to the Soviets, the Soviet-Model became (thanks to Lenin and later Stalin) All Power to the Politburo.

As Marx would say: "Each nation is at a different stage of industrialization and developmental transition." No where did Marx ever claim that the World Revolution would be simultaneous. However, one nation's successful transition to socialism will pave the way for others to follow.

But would a "truly" democratic "Soviet-model" have worked? I mean, in this thread alone you have basically been called a "hater" of the poor by another socialist because of your objections to Stalin. How does such a socialist system function when its quite clear that part of the struggle isn't simply in building socialism, but in defining who and what are true socialists and sociaism?

[RGacky3]

This is revleft, not the real world, Democracy has worked, and when its applied it does work.

[RichardAWilson]

But would a "truly" democratic "Soviet-model" have worked?

I believe it would have worked. The Soviet-Model was based on working class control and representation. In a sense, it (the Soviets) resembled the Paris Commune.

As you know, Marx admired the Paris Commune for being a democratic working class institution: complete with the right-to-recall elected officials, universal suffrage and compensation for elected officials that was aligned with the working class's average wage.

(Which was done to ensure that working class representatives didn't become a separate and more privileged class.)


I mean, in this thread alone you have basically been called a hater of the poor by another socialist because of your objections to Stalin.

Sectarianism is the reason that the socialist cause is so far behind in Australia, Britain and the United States.

Stalin is the reason most Americans have come to dislike the term "Communism." After all, the man was a paranoid sociopath that massacred millions of innocent men and women.

As Stalin once said, one death is a tragedy. A million is nothing more than a statistic.


How does such a socialist system function when its quite clear that part of the struggle isn't simply in building socialism, but in defining who and what are true socialists and socialism?

As long as it's a working class struggle and isn't limited to the confines of a Vanguard, the masses will decide how to define and build socialism.

[Baseball]

I believe it would have worked. The Soviet-Model was based on working class control and representation. In a sense, it (the Soviets) resembled the Paris Commune.

As you know, Marx admired the Paris Commune for being a democratic working class institution: complete with the right-to-recall elected officials, universal suffrage and compensation for elected officials that was aligned with the working class's average wage.

(Which was done to ensure that working class representatives didn't become a separate and more privileged class.)



Sectarianism is the reason that the socialist cause is so far behind in Australia, Britain and the United States.

Stalin is the reason most Americans have come to dislike the term "Communism." After all, the man was a paranoid sociopath that massacred millions of innocent men and women.

As Stalin once said, one death is a tragedy. A million is nothing more than a statistic.



As long as it's a working class struggle and isn't limited to the confines of a Vanguard, the masses will decide how to define and build socialism.

But was not the "vanguard" a solution for the sectarianism which seems to always trouble the construction of socialism?

[Revolution starts with U]

yes
Hard = impossible?

[Baseball]

yes
Hard = impossible?


If an end to sectarianism within socialism is considered to be a vital in the construction and operation of a socialist community, how is the vanguard solution not the obvious solution?

What would be the practical difference in a socialist community where only one view of socialism was allowed (or choices seriously limited), where the workers choices on interpretation of socialism were limited, but otherwise had no institution or organization which could be called a vanguard?

[Revolution starts with U]

Why does the end of sectarianism have to be vital?

I loathe to live in a society that proclaims to follow the One True Socialism (Glory be to Marx) and makes me have to follow it.

[Kamos]

As Stalin once said, one death is a tragedy. A million is nothing more than a statistic.

No, he hasn't. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Stalin#The_death_of_one_man_is_a_trage dy.2C_the_death_of_millions_is_a_statistic)[/mythbuster]