Cuba's Communist Party holds national conference

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

http://peoplesworld.org/cuba-s-communist-party-holds-national-conference/

So, whilst I have been openly critical of the increasingly capitalistic nature of economic reforms in Cuba over the past year or two, some of the political measures ratified in this conference seem to be arguably positive, in particular:

limiting high level officials to two 5-year terms
an improvement in attracting female, black and young members to the party
cracking down on corruption (in the wake of the Carlos Lage Savila saga)
promotion of Socialist democracy, ahead of 'representative democracy'
a continued devotion to unity, in order to defeat the enemy

Of course, there are problems:

Will the term limits simply invite a Putin-Medvedev type situation?
Why is there no mention of attracting more members of the LGBTX community to the higher echelons of the party, or at least those who are representative of their interests, in the wake of Cuba's shameful history in the regard?
Is the corruption crackdown lip-service? And, how will it be implemented with a burgeoning private sector, which will obviously divide peoples' attention between community and profit?
How can Raul Castro really talk of real democracy, when it is at the national level - the level he has worked at politically since the revolution - that Cuba's democratic deficit is most steep?
Unity to defeat a common enemy is all good and well but - with Cuba embracing capitalistic economic reforms - who is the enemy? The US should be the enemy because it is bourgeois and imperialist, not simply because of residual nationalist/xenophobic sentiment.

[getfiscal]

Cuba is essentially a resort and sugar colony, which it was under Batista too. They trained a lot of doctors though so it wasn't a complete waste of time.

[RedSonRising]

Cuba is essentially a resort and sugar colony, which it was under Batista too. They trained a lot of doctors though so it wasn't a complete waste of time.

That is a very broad generalization there. There's a lot more going on in Cuba than production for the pleasure of the global bourgeoisie.

[getfiscal]

That is a very broad generalization there. There's a lot more going on in Cuba than production for the pleasure of the global bourgeoisie.The government estimated that 1 in 5 workers in the state sector were redundant. It has small niches it fills but not much else going for it. It would probably benefit if it introduced liberal-democratic reforms, marketized the economy, accepted foreign investment in more areas.

[RevSpetsnaz]

The government estimated that 1 in 5 workers in the state sector were redundant. It has small niches it fills but not much else going for it. It would probably benefit if it introduced liberal-democratic reforms, marketized the economy, accepted foreign investment in more areas.

So that foreign "investment" can do what the United Fruit Company did in Guatemala?

[getfiscal]

So that foreign "investment" can do what the United Fruit Company did in Guatemala?
The countries that have achieved rapid and sustained economic growth have tended to be ones that combined markets with state leadership and guidance in the economy. That's what I'd suggest. Plus democratization, of course.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

http://peoplesworld.org/cuba-s-communist-party-holds-national-conference/

So, whilst I have been openly critical of the increasingly capitalistic nature of economic reforms in Cuba over the past year or two, some of the political measures ratified in this conference seem to be arguably positive, in particular:

limiting high level officials to two 5-year terms
an improvement in attracting female, black and young members to the party
cracking down on corruption (in the wake of the Carlos Lage Savila saga)
promotion of Socialist democracy, ahead of 'representative democracy'
a continued devotion to unity, in order to defeat the enemy

Of course, there are problems:

Will the term limits simply invite a Putin-Medvedev type situation?
Why is there no mention of attracting more members of the LGBTX community to the higher echelons of the party, or at least those who are representative of their interests, in the wake of Cuba's shameful history in the regard?
Is the corruption crackdown lip-service? And, how will it be implemented with a burgeoning private sector, which will obviously divide peoples' attention between community and profit?
How can Raul Castro really talk of real democracy, when it is at the national level - the level he has worked at politically since the revolution - that Cuba's democratic deficit is most steep?
Unity to defeat a common enemy is all good and well but - with Cuba embracing capitalistic economic reforms - who is the enemy? The US should be the enemy because it is bourgeois and imperialist, not simply because of residual nationalist/xenophobic sentiment.


Aw come on. All of the measures listed above can be clearly seen to be potentially beneficial in passing capitalistic reforms. I'm guessing they serve a duel purpose to raul; help him hinder opposition to his programme (whatever it is) while stalling further protests as they hold a seemingly lefty bent.

limiting high level officials to two 5-year terms - So basically, get rid of the old guard or put their positions under threat.

an improvement in attracting female, black and young members to the party - Introduce more new people, possibly inexperienced/unfamilar with cuban politics and beholden to raul.

cracking down on corruption (in the wake of the Carlos Lage Savila saga) - I'm assuming there is a significant amount of corruption in the cuban economy. No doubt those investigated won't be best buds with raul.

a continued devotion to unity, in order to defeat the enemy - Cool. So basically, don't protest these measures as we need to be unified, and if you do, your counter revolutionary nature can be further justified as you are opposing measures like "introduce more black candidates."

All these measures are small time compared to the economic reforms/direction raul seems to want to implement. Its just politics, man.

[DaringMehring]

Why hasn't the troll with the made-up quote and the "fiscal" name who proposes "democracy and foreign capital investment" been banned yet?

Mods?

As for Cuba, can there really be any solution, under the choke of the US blockade? We've locked them into crushing poverty, and you can't make socialism in those conditions.

[getfiscal]

Why hasn't the troll with the made-up quote and the "fiscal" name who proposes "democracy and foreign capital investment" been banned yet?

Mods?

As for Cuba, can there really be any solution, under the choke of the US blockade? We've locked them into crushing poverty, and you can't make socialism in those conditions.Just to be clear, when you say that Cuba can't build socialism, it's somehow revolutionary, but when I say it, I'm a troll? Also, if Cuba has "crushing poverty" despite having extensive trade relations with many other countries, is that really all the US's fault? I guess socialism didn't work out all that well then?

[RevSpetsnaz]

Just to be clear, when you say that Cuba can't build socialism, it's somehow revolutionary, but when I say it, I'm a troll? Also, if Cuba has "crushing poverty" despite having extensive trade relations with many other countries, is that really all the US's fault? I guess socialism didn't work out all that well then?

Socialism and Communism can work when it doesnt have outside forces hell bent on its demise.

[getfiscal]

Socialism and Communism can work when it doesnt have outside forces hell bent on its demise.
I agree. Also, if we didn't need food we could get rid of the agricultural industry.

[DaringMehring]

Just to be clear, when you say that Cuba can't build socialism, it's somehow revolutionary, but when I say it, I'm a troll? Also, if Cuba has "crushing poverty" despite having extensive trade relations with many other countries, is that really all the US's fault? I guess socialism didn't work out all that well then?

Cuba is small. It was underdeveloped at the time of the revolution; just another US agro-tourist outpost dictatorship. Blockade by the US -- the world superpower ninety miles away, that explicitly considers the western hemisphere its -- combined with constant state aggression -- has been devastating.

Socialism in One Country couldn't work in the USSR half way around the world from the US, with 1/6th the world's territory. Now it's going to work in Cuba under ten times worse circumstances? Add to it, the fact that Casto was no Lenin and the Cuban Party did not ascend much beyond a nationalist revolution.

You are a troll for many reasons. Certainly in this thread, by disregarding all the achievements of the Cuban revolution, calling for its negation by neoliberal expansion, and not acknowledging the main problem of Cuba is the superpower next door that seeks to fuck it at every turn. Yes right now socialism in Cuba is impossible -- the solution ain't it turning into a neoliberal US puppet. It is fighting to lift the US blockade, and fighting for the victory of revolutions in other countries, to de-isolate the Cubans.

I'm still waiting for a Mod response on getfiscal. The guy himself will take all the chance he can to troll, just look at this thread for evidence. It is kind of fun to respond to someone who is clearly opposing ideology, but as I understand it, that is not how this board is structured. So what's up mods?

[getfiscal]

1. Cuba is small. It was underdeveloped at the time of the revolution

2. disregarding all the achievements of the Cuban revolution,

3. calling for its negation by neoliberal expansion

4. and not acknowledging the main problem of Cuba is the superpower next door that seeks to fuck it at every turn.1. Actually in the 1950s it had a fairly high level of development for the region. Soviet purchases of sugar contributed to a lack of economic diversity. People like Che recognized this but their economic alternatives failed because they were based on fantasies about "moral incentives".

2. Actually I said that they train a lot of doctors and that this is a good thing. There were also gains in literacy and such.

3. I oppose neoliberalism. Where have I supported neoliberalism?

4. Maybe playing ball with the US then might be a good idea?

Edit: How do I have an opposing ideology? I am a Marxist.

[DaringMehring]

3. I oppose neoliberalism. Where have I supported neoliberalism?




It would probably benefit if it introduced liberal-democratic reforms, marketized the economy, accepted foreign investment in more areas.




Edit: How do I have an opposing ideology? I am a Marxist.



It would probably benefit if it introduced liberal-democratic reforms, marketized the economy, accepted foreign investment in more areas.




4. Maybe playing ball with the US then might be a good idea?




is that really all the US's fault? I guess socialism didn't work out all that well then?


Mods are not very good at figuring this stuff out? I mean, they let tir1944 the Neo-Nazi continue for like a month because he claimed he was a Stalinist. Now this Randroid claiming to be a Marxist... how long will he last?

[getfiscal]

Introducing liberal-democratic reforms, marketizing the economy, and accepting foreign investment in more areas is not inherently neoliberal. Neoliberalism includes, say, eviscerating social safety nets, introducing anti-union laws, privatizing almost everything and so on. I'm suggesting a fairly left Keynesian or dirigiste model, as a transitional mixed economy, in hopes of rebuilding socialism in the future. I think the social safety net should be strengthened in Cuba. I oppose wholesale privatization. I think independent labour unions should be encouraged. I am a revolutionary socialist and Marxist.

I'm surprised people around here aren't used to arguing with people. It is a debate forum, I thought.

[DaringMehring]

Introducing liberal-democratic reforms, marketizing the economy, and accepting foreign investment in more areas is not inherently neoliberal. Neoliberalism includes, say, eviscerating social safety nets, introducing anti-union laws, privatizing almost everything and so on. I'm suggesting a fairly left Keynesian or dirigiste model, as a transitional mixed economy, in hopes of rebuilding socialism in the future. I think the social safety net should be strengthened in Cuba. I oppose wholesale privatization. I think independent labour unions should be encouraged. I am a revolutionary socialist and Marxist.

I'm surprised people around here aren't used to arguing with people. It is a debate forum, I thought.

You claim to be a "revolutionary socialist and Marxist" yet you say you support a "left Keynsian model."

"Left Keynsianism" is incompatible with socialism and certainly has nothing do with revolution.

Meanwhile what you talk about -- "liberal-democratic reforms" "increased foreign investment" "opening up to the USA" "developing a market economy" and all the rest, the hallmarks of a straight capitalist. Not to mention, in other thread, you go on about the need for democratic rights for non-socialists or anti-socialists in a so-called socialist society.

Your vision makes no sense from a socialist perspective. It is BS that you are any kind of socialist. If you were, there'd at least be some consistency in what you say or logic behind it.

The threads you have started are trolljob subjects.

In them, you prescribe that wonderful drug capitalism, and then protest you're a socialist.

Still waiting on any comment from a mod. I'd like to see their reasons for not coming down on this guy. He could be any type of capitalist but I'm calling Randroid.

[getfiscal]

"Left Keynsianism" is incompatible with socialism and certainly has nothing do with revolution.I agree with Lenin that we must be "as radical as reality itself." The 20th Century shows that comprehensive planning doesn't work well. That's too bad, because I support a planned economy, eventually. That's why we need to work on building planning now. But old-style comprehensive planning doesn't work, we know that, so we need to work within a mixed model where there are markets but a lot of state leadership.

We should continue to build a majority for radical socialism but you can't simply yell at people to be socialists, you have to work with them where they are, and most people don't seem to want socialism (as evidenced by the thousands of free elections around the world where almost no revolutionary socialists win).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Introducing liberal-democratic reforms, marketizing the economy, and accepting foreign investment in more areas is not inherently neoliberal. Neoliberalism includes, say, eviscerating social safety nets, introducing anti-union laws, privatizing almost everything and so on. I'm suggesting a fairly left Keynesian or dirigiste model, as a transitional mixed economy, in hopes of rebuilding socialism in the future. I think the social safety net should be strengthened in Cuba. I oppose wholesale privatization. I think independent labour unions should be encouraged. I am a revolutionary socialist and Marxist.

I'm surprised people around here aren't used to arguing with people. It is a debate forum, I thought.

What is the difference between 'marketising the economy' and 'privatising almost everything'? Don't be so fucking naive. If you oppose Cuba on the grounds that it should revert to Capitalism, you are saying you oppose Cuba on the grounds that it should revert to Capitalism. Stop trying to dress up a pig.

This is a revolutionary Socialist forum. Instead of whining about wanting to be a banker and wanting Cuba to become in tow to the US and Capitalism, why don't you come up with a Socialist alternative?

Neo-liberalism, by the way, is an ideology within Capitalism just as, say, Trotskyism is an ideology within Socialism. That you are not explicitly neo-liberal doesn't mean you are not advocating Capitalism, just as I can oppose Trotskyism in the strong possible way, whilst advocating Socialism.

[manic expression]

1. Actually in the 1950s it had a fairly high level of development for the region.
Which, in reality, translates to a few extraordinarily rich families living on the backs of a deeply impoverished majority.

But, at least we can do away with the myth that revolutions only happen in relatively undeveloped countries.


2. Actually I said that they train a lot of doctors and that this is a good thing. There were also gains in literacy and such.
Massive gains in literacy, as well as in housing, political representation, women's rights, employment, LGBT rights and so on.


3. I oppose neoliberalism. Where have I supported neoliberalism?
Right here might be a start:


4. Maybe playing ball with the US then might be a good idea?
Except Cuba has always shown a willingness to come to the negotiating table with the US, while the US has consistently rejected that in favor of its usual cavalier stance. That you would try to shift responsibility for this onto Cuba instead of onto the US suggests there's a lot more for you to learn on this issue.

[KurtFF8]

So that foreign "investment" can do what the United Fruit Company did in Guatemala?

United Fruit was in Cuba too, and that company was expropriated on the island. It's different having investment in a country like Cuba versus a fully bourgeois country.

That's not to say that those investments can't be used as a political tool to undermine the socialist government (or whatever kind of government is the "proper label" for Cuba) of course.

Cuba takes its independence quite seriously, and the very existence of the current "regime" is evidence of and a consequence that consciousness.

Edit:

Interestingly I looked at the Wiki article on United Fruit after I made this post, and the history of its involvement in Central America ends with:

Company holdings in Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba), which included sugar mills in the Oriente (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriente_Province) region of the island, were expropriated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation) by the 1959 revolutionary government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_revolution) led by Fidel Castro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro). By April 1960 Castro was accusing the company of aiding Cuban exiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_exile) and supporters of former leader Fulgencio Batista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista) in initiating a seaborn invasion of Cuba directed from the United States.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Castro warned the U.S. that "Cuba is not another Guatemala" in one of many combative diplomatic exchanges before the failed Bay of Pigs invasion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_invasion) of 1961.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Comrades, this is a socialist forum, we believe in democracy, this means that our comrade 'getfiscal' shouldn't have to be careful of what he says for fear of being branded a 'counterrevolutionary. Lets be a bit more tolerant. Anyway....Peace! :)

[getfiscal]

I'm not anti-Cuba. They seem to have some smart reformers coming into power that are starting to open things up a bit. If I could afford it, I would move there and learn more about things. Maybe the Communist Party can dissolve into a Socialist Democracy Party or something.

[DaringMehring]

I agree with Lenin that we must be "as radical as reality itself." The 20th Century shows that comprehensive planning doesn't work well. That's too bad, because I support a planned economy, eventually. That's why we need to work on building planning now. But old-style comprehensive planning doesn't work, we know that, so we need to work within a mixed model where there are markets but a lot of state leadership.

We should continue to build a majority for radical socialism but you can't simply yell at people to be socialists, you have to work with them where they are, and most people don't seem to want socialism (as evidenced by the thousands of free elections around the world where almost no revolutionary socialists win).

Too rich. You cite Lenin for your views. You must understand about zero percent of Lenin's thought or what he was about.

And one more anti-socialist cherry on top -- the idea of the "free elections" of bourgeois democracy as an indicator that revolutionary socialism is not wanted or impossible. News flash: the money-bought elections of capitalist democracy only indicate what the capitalists want.

Second news flash, building "a majority for radical socialism" is not relevant. There are these little things called classes, and these events called revolutions. More liberal-democratic dreck.

The only so-called socialist organization that is even remotely close to this marketeer's views is the CPUSA. But they became capitalist reformists a long time ago, and I think even they would run from this guy.

[DaringMehring]

Comrades, this is a socialist forum, we believe in democracy, this means that our comrade 'getfiscal' shouldn't have to be careful of what he says for fear of being branded a 'counterrevolutionary. Lets be a bit more tolerant. Anyway....Peace! :)

This guy is your comrade?

He ain't no comrade of mine.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

This guy is your comrade?

He ain't no comrade of mine.

He is, all of us sometimes have views that seem incorrect, even Lenin advocated working with the social-decomratic parties such as the UK Labour party.

[getfiscal]

building "a majority for radical socialism" is not relevantYou oppose building a majority for radical socialism? Why are you on a radical left forum, then?

[DaringMehring]

You oppose building a majority for radical socialism? Why are you on a radical left forum, then?

What you call socialism is neither socialism nor radical.

Building a majority is not relevant because what is important building within the working class and allied classes.

Majority is further not relevant because socialism won't come from the ballot box.

If you look at the Russian Revolution, there were about 2,000-5,000 Bolsheviks in February 1917, and 100,000 in October 1917. Out of a country of 150 million.

But I don't expect you to understand these things or to engage in anything other than spouting capitalist ideology.
Only give a one sentence troll response.

[getfiscal]

If you look at the Russian Revolution, there were about 2,000-5,000 Bolsheviks in February 1917, and 100,000 in October 1917. Out of a country of 150 million.The Bolsheviks won majorities (with their allies) in the major cities in Russia in the workers' councils, and considered this their democratic mandate to seize power. Had it simply been a tiny percentage of the population pushing for socialism, they would have had no right or even possibility of seizing power.

[DaringMehring]

He is, all of us sometimes have views that seem incorrect, even Lenin advocated working with the social-decomratic parties such as the UK Labour party.

You might want to carefully re-read that chapter of "Left-Wing Communism."

[DaringMehring]

The Bolsheviks won majorities (with their allies) in the major cities in Russia in the workers' councils, and considered this their democratic mandate to seize power. Had it simply been a tiny percentage of the population pushing for socialism, they would have had no right or even possibility of seizing power.

So when pressed, you revert to the language of "workers" (who in Russia were approximately 3-5 million of the population) rather than simply "majority." Just in case you missed it: majority of the big city working class organized in Soviets in Russia 1917 was no where near a majority of the population.

And of course you further gyrate that even in the Soviets it wasn't a "majority" -- only something to be "considered" as a "democratic mandate."

So you mouth some vaguely conceived things from 1917 that have nothing to do with what you're talking about -- marketization, democratic reforms, foreign capital, "majority" for socialism, openness to the US, "free" capitalist elections -- to support your capitalist position.

Gymnastics of a troll trying to stay alive.

Mods, again, evidence:
1) Politics are not revolutionary, nor left.
2) Starts flamebait threads
3) Posts filled with evasions, shifts, and one-liners
4) Name is "getfiscal"
5) Made up flamebait quote as signature

How is there not any action?

[getfiscal]

to support your capitalist position.I'm not a capitalist, I support socialism, I am a member of an anticapitalist organization and you seem overly invested in trying to purge someone just for disagreeing with you on something. Good luck trying to win people to socialism with that attitude.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Five percent of the entire Cuban work force is in the process of being fired from their jobs. They have been told told engage in petty trade, selling flowers on the streets, setting up makeshift eateries in their homes, basically scratching out a living by selling their labor under conditions as backward as anywhere else in the world. Meanwhile, Presidente-Generalissimo Raul uses the so-called Communist party as a smokescreen to divert honest partisans of the working class from the brutal reality his his neo-liberal economic "reforms". In yet another country the post-revolutionary transition toward socialism has been reversed and replaced with policies that are either "barracks socialism" or frankly capitalistic in nature.

[DaringMehring]

Good luck trying to win people to socialism with that attitude.

Yes and earlier you describe someone who is actually anti-capitalist and works to break the power of the bourgeoisie as "yelling about socialism." So I guess, anything that does not involve cozying to liberal prejudices, is "yelling" that cannot work.

Never mind the entire history of socialist revolution indicates exactly the opposite. All the revolutions have been rather rude toward liberal prejudices, a lot of "yelling," while the capitalism-reforming "polite" socialists have been... well...



I'm not a capitalist, I support socialism, I am a member of an anticapitalist organization


I would like to hear more about what this supposed organization is. The Democratic Party?

[GoddessCleoLover]

The bogus quote about killing Lenin IMO proves that were are being trolled.

[DaringMehring]

The bogus quote about killing Lenin IMO proves that were are being trolled.

Ding ding ding!

Thank you.

[getfiscal]

Yes and earlier you describe someone who is actually anti-capitalist and works to break the power of the bourgeoisie as "yelling about socialism." So I guess, anything that does not involve cozying to liberal prejudices, is "yelling" that cannot work.

Never mind the entire history of socialist revolution indicates exactly the opposite. All the revolutions have been rather rude toward liberal prejudices, a lot of "yelling," while the capitalism-reforming "polite" socialists have been... well...



I would like to hear more about what this supposed organization is. The Democratic Party?I do not wish to reveal personal details to someone who seems severely mentally unbalanced.

[getfiscal]

The bogus quote about killing Lenin IMO proves that were are being trolled.
My signature is a joke.

[GoddessCleoLover]

It seems that part of the trolling game is to toss out clues of ones trolldom.

[DaringMehring]

I do not wish to reveal personal details to someone who seems severely mentally unbalanced.

Oh of course.

Cause revealing an organization name, with no branch, city, or other identifying information, would be such a "personal detail."

[GoddessCleoLover]

If it is a joke, what is the nature of your parody? There doesn't seem to be any point to the "joke" since its premise is entirely implausible to anyone with more than a minimal amount of knowledge of the subject matter.

[getfiscal]

Oh of course.

Cause revealing an organization name, with no branch, city, or other identifying information, would be such a "personal detail."
Please stop asking pig questions. Also you seem mentally disturbed and aggressive. Please talk to a health professional or someone you trust about this.

[getfiscal]

If it is a joke, what is the nature of your parody? There doesn't seem to be any point to the "joke" since its premise is entirely implausible to anyone with more than a minimal amount of knowledge of the subject matter.
Implausibility is sometimes ironic and funny, to me at least.

[DaringMehring]

And now switching to personal attacks. Ha.

Let's quote this so-called socialist's gem from another thread, on the USSR:


The main problem was that economic planning has so many theoretical and practical problems that no credible economist or official supported the traditional planning model almost as soon as they experienced it, and started trying to reform things as soon as the first weird dictator died in their country. All reforms centered on total state ownership failed and this contributed to the near-universal agreement on legalizing private capital. Accordingly we remaining socialists are teenagers and freaks who haven't read enough about the ample evidence of the failure of actually existing socialism, pinning our hopes on bizarre ideas like "anti-revisionism" or "democratic planning".


Yes, those "weird dictators" like Lenin, "bizarre ideas" like "democratic planning," and the absolute necessity of "legalizing private capital."

The guy is straight up Randroid.

[GoddessCleoLover]

More likely that you find it funny to needle people in this forum. I just read your post in the commune thread about joining a kibbutz. IMO you are trying to give this forum's posters a poke in the ole ribs and want to see how long you can away with it.

[getfiscal]

Yes, those "weird dictators" like Lenin, "bizarre ideas" like "democratic planning," and the absolute necessity of "legalizing private capital."- I consider Stalin, Mao and Hoxha, for example, to be weird people who engaged in economic policies (in good faith) that were largely disastrous. When they died almost no one in the bureaucratic governments they led still supported the old models.

- It is bizarre to think that somehow just having elected officials would fix the massive problems associated with planning. Much more work will need to be done before planning becomes fully efficient.

- I said there was a "near-universal agreement on legalizing private capital". I didn't say it was absolutely necessary. It is possible to hobble along with a dysfunctional planning system. Ideally we would all spontaneously become communists and live "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." But we don't have the technical or moral capacity for moving directly to that right now, as has been proven definitively by historical experience. This does not disprove Marxism unless you are somehow paralyzed by internal fears.

[getfiscal]

More likely that you find it funny to needle people in this forum. I just read your post in the commune thread about joining a kibbutz. IMO you are trying to give this forum's posters a poke in the ole ribs and want to see how long you can away with it.
To be honest, I do find it funny how many people here have terribly underdeveloped worldviews but then bluster in arrogant rage about everything. Sometimes I point this out. But I am sincere in what I say and I am a Marxist.

[RedSonRising]

Five percent of the entire Cuban work force is in the process of being fired from their jobs. They have been told told engage in petty trade, selling flowers on the streets, setting up makeshift eateries in their homes, basically scratching out a living by selling their labor under conditions as backward as anywhere else in the world. Meanwhile, Presidente-Generalissimo Raul uses the so-called Communist party as a smokescreen to divert honest partisans of the working class from the brutal reality his his neo-liberal economic "reforms". In yet another country the post-revolutionary transition toward socialism has been reversed and replaced with policies that are either "barracks socialism" or frankly capitalistic in nature.

You're grossly oversimplifying the situation just so that you can categorize the reforms as "neo-liberal" without providing a shred of evidence that productive property is being transferred to private hands.

If you want real on the ground information about what the people think, what the state says, and what the process entails, watch this instead of making things up:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/video-al-jazeera-t167294/index.html?p=2347244#post2347244

[GoddessCleoLover]

I am making nothing up with respect to the Cuban economic situation. Cuban workers are not going to say what they really think in public, where agents of the security apparatus will report the expression of anti-Raul sentiments and therefore in these videos they will tailor their answers so as to avoid being seen as dissenters. In fact, the number of workers made redundant as a result of Raul's policies is now in the hundreds of thousands, and the reality is that their options are limited to extremely small-scale and marginal retail operations. It is sad that anyone who ascribes to a worldview that identifies with oppressed workers would choose to accept propaganda from a military dictatorship thereby overlooking the plight of the workers of that country.

[RedSonRising]

I am making nothing up with respect to the Cuban economic situation. Cuban workers are not going to say what they really think in public, where agents of the security apparatus will report the expression of anti-Raul sentiments and therefore in these videos they will tailor their answers so as to avoid being seen as dissenters. In fact, the number of workers made redundant as a result of Raul's policies is now in the hundreds of thousands, and the reality is that their options are limited to extremely small-scale and marginal retail operations. It is sad that anyone who ascribes to a worldview that identifies with oppressed workers would choose to accept propaganda from a military dictatorship thereby overlooking the plight of the workers of that country.

I've talked to the people of Cuba myself, and a majority of them like Raul's reforms. There's nothing reactionary about small-scale self-employment and family run businesses in place of bureaucratically inefficient policies. And I fail to see how Cuba is a Military Dictatorship, which somehow out of the hierarchical benevolence if its own heart, with no accountability to consider, creates such high housing, literacy, and health rates.

[Prometeo liberado]

When I was there I stayed with a family and they were discussing these changes already and how they would be sharing the discussion at a street meeting. This was 3 years ago. This is not a surprise by any means. No one was or is shoving choices down their throat. This is organic. Sad, but organic.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

There's nothing reactionary about small-scale self-employment and family run businesses in place of bureaucratically inefficient policies.

Well, the step isn't very far from the latter type of capitalism to the first; from state-capitalism to deregulation allowing smaller private firms, and before you know it, we have another China.


And I fail to see how Cuba is a Military Dictatorship, which somehow out of the hierarchical benevolence if its own heart, with no accountability to consider, creates such high housing, literacy, and health rates

There was a lot of housing construction in Nationalist Spain. There was education investments in Pinchets Chile. Military dictatorships have sometimes had universal healthcare. It is conducive to a health, well-educated and content reserve of labourers. Oh, and regardless, the housing situation in Cuba is quite bad...

[RedSonRising]

Well, the step isn't very far from the latter type of capitalism to the first; from state-capitalism to deregulation allowing smaller private firms, and before you know it, we have another China.



There was a lot of housing construction in Nationalist Spain. There was education investments in Pinchets Chile. Military dictatorships have sometimes had universal healthcare. It is conducive to a health, well-educated and content reserve of labourers. Oh, and regardless, the housing situation in Cuba is quite bad...

That step is as of now a huge leap away. Allowing women to sell flowers in the street and families to run local cafes are not about to destroy the gains in the Cuban Revolution. Many people are almost happy to cheer on what they see as the inevitable deterioration of Cuban socialism.

Cuba does what it can in terms of housing; I bet their homelessness rate is less than that of the US and their Latin American contemporaries. I don't think I saw a single person sleeping out in the streets at night. Nationalist Spain built houses in half the country while ruthlessly bombing the other half. Pinochet privatized education and had foreign and domestic investors contribute to a small privileged sector of the population. Those metaphors don't apply. The only military dictatorships I can think of with universal healthcare are oil-rich countries who can afford to make material concessions to the working class while still receiving a disproportionately large portion of wealth and control. Cuba has no such world-market income boost; for control of agricultural and industrial production to be intertwined with democratic organs on so many levels, the State must either be somewhat accountable to its people, or inexplicably benevolent.