Is Cuba a Socialist country?

[capitalism is good]

Different people have different idea of what Socialism is. So I want to ask your opinion on whether Cuba is a Socialist country and why.

[getfiscal]

I would say it is "socialist" in a general sense in that the state plays a dominant role in the economy and that most of the "commanding heights" of the economy are state-owned, which is the sense in which most people mean socialist. In more precise Marxist terms, socialism involves central planning, and the Cuban economy is not centrally planned. I also think there is a sense in which Marxism requires democratic control of the planning and production process, and that does not obtain.

For comparison, I tend to think China is not socialist in any real sense because the leading parts of the economy are in private hands and the state productive sector is more a lumbering debt-ridden burden than a leading part of the economy. Likewise, Venezuela is not socialist. However, if one considers Venezuela socialist, then China surely is too.

[daft punk]

Cuba is not socialist because it is not run by the workers democratically. It is run by a bureaucratic elite. In fact Castro never said he was a socialist until 2 years after the revolution. He wanted Cuba to be like America, but America pushed Cuba away and Castro also had problems with the right wing of his party, so he ended up dealing with the USSR which was pretending to be socialist. So Castro became a pretend socialist. Che was a genuine one, but not too experienced.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

I say that Cuba is a socialist country. Still there is some unemployement but not to such extents as other countries. People there have free medical care, there is small or no criminal and people there fight so that they can be communist.

[Tim Cornelis]

I say that Cuba is a socialist country. Still there is some unemployement but not to such extents as other countries. People there have free medical care, there is small or no criminal and people there fight so that they can be communist.

Defining aspects of socialist society according to KommounistisGR:

1. Not so much unemployment
2. Free medical care
3. little crime
4. and "people" "fight" so they can be "communist."

That is quite an incoherent, incomprehensible, and strange list of defining aspects of socialist society.

Nevermind the perpetuation of wage labour, among other things.

[GoddessCleoLover]

One out of twenty Cuban workers has been recently fired from her or his job and basically required to try to scratch out a living selling food or flowers or otherwise engaging in petty trade. Politically, President-Generalissimo Raul Castro rules as a caudillo/military dictator in the tradition of Pinochet, Franco and that lot of oppressors of humanity. Marx and Engels condemned "barracks" socialism in the strongest terms, and Raul's military dictatorship ought to be condemned as well. The transition toward socialism in Cuba has been reversed. Workers languish under the tyranny of a caudillo and fear that they may be the next to be fired from their jobs. Not socialism, not even close to socialism.

[Nox]

Never was, never will be.

[RGacky3]

heres how you answer.
1. Do workers have democratic control of their workplace, at least to a good extent?
2. Is the economy democratically controlled, at least to a good extent?

if at least one of those is true, you can say, it is somewhat socialist.

I don't think we can have a specific SYSTEM we call socialist, its a vague concept, but those 2 basic principles are the pre-requisites.

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO Raul is reversing the post-revolutionary gains in both category one and two. My personal view is that no post-revolutionary country has ever attained full socialism and for this reason it has been relatively simple for countries ruled by "Communist" parties to adopt policies that have reversed the gains of the working class.

[RevSpetsnaz]

I think it contains many aspects of Socialism.

[Ilyich]

Never was, never will be.

Cuba will never be socialist?

[DinodudeEpic]

It is not a socialist country because the workers do not own the fruits of their labor. (Aka own the economy democratically.)

[Ostrinski]

But we have to take it a step further. Capitalist value relations were never abolished. Capital accumulation still ensues, commodity production still ensues, so no.

[Ostrinski]

It is not a socialist country because the workers do not own the fruits of their labor. (Aka own the economy democratically.)Yes but this arrangement alone is not sufficient for socialist development. It's necessary, but not sufficient. As long as exchange value still characterizes the goods being produced, if there is still a market, the workers would essentially be exploiting themselves.

[Rafiq]

It operates within the constraint of the capitalist MODE of production. And not because worker's don't own factories.

But calling it socialist is fine. Feel free to say socialism is shit, while comparing the world's largest super powers to an isolated, choked, constantly attacked tiny Island nation with no big friends, that operates on the doorstep of the most powerful country in the world, which is constantly sabatoging it.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Cuba has been ruled by two brother for the past fifty years. Socialist dynasties as have arisen in North Korea and Cuba seem antithetical to socialism. The larger question though is where is the evidence that the working class rules Cuba? The "vanguard party" usurped the roles of the working class as it has elsewhere, and now it appears that the "revolutionary armed forces" are become the new vanguard. This all seems antithetical to the writings of Marx in general and frankly IMO cannot be reconciled with Lenin's The State and Revolution. Frankly, it seems to be something of a mockery of the Marxian concept of working class rule.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

First, to the butthead that started this thread, up yours. As for the question, Cuba's is not a capitalist economy. Capitalism was overthrown after Castro took power. Socialism this is not, but neither is this capitalism. It's economy is still largely collectivized. You cannot build socialism in one country. The revolution meant great progress for the Cuban masses and its gains should still be defended. The leadership has always been Stalinist and has lead Cuba into quite a predicament.

[Sinister Intents]

No, Cuba is not socialist, never has been and probably never will be, it never was stateless, classless, or moneyless

[capitalism is good]

heres how you answer.
1. Do workers have democratic control of their workplace, at least to a good extent?
2. Is the economy democratically controlled, at least to a good extent?

if at least one of those is true, you can say, it is somewhat socialist.

I don't think we can have a specific SYSTEM we call socialist, its a vague concept, but those 2 basic principles are the pre-requisites.

How would a democratic economy work in practice. How do workers have a democratic control of the workplace? Suppose we have a car factory. Who owns the factory? ie the equipment, the stock in progress, the land, the buildings, equipment etc?

[manic expression]

Yes, Cuba is a socialist country. Property is held in common, production is devoid of exploitation, human necessity is the first priority of society.


Cuba has been ruled by two brother for the past fifty years.
Correction: Fidel and Raul have been elected to leadership positions by the Cuban people for the past fifty years.

[The Stalinator]

Correction: Fidel and Raul have been elected to leadership positions by the Cuban people for the past fifty years.

I'm all for not immediately dismissing Cuba as a brutal dictatorship without any freedoms at all, but do you honestly believe the same two brothers would just happen to be elected with a vast majority every single time for fifty years straight? Doesn't that seem a little sketchy to you?

[manic expression]

Well, that's a valid concern. I think it's important to remember that Fidel and Raul aren't just two random brothers, both of them were and are incredibly pivotal to the struggle that liberated Cuba. Fidel's contributions are well-known, but Raul was not only a successful guerrilla/military leader but also one of the first outspoken communists among the Cuban revolutionaries...so his ideological credentials are arguably as well established as anyone else on the island IMO.

Also, by electing Raul, Cuba sent a giant "F U" to the imperialists who were warning them not to. It was a crucial time in history when the transition was made...the Special Period wasn't a distant memory by any means, and so the selection by the Cuban people was, at a certain level, a reconfirmation of their commitment to their socialist system.

The last thing we should say is that IIRC with the new adjustments made over the past few weeks, there will be limits on terms of office at this level, so it's not like Raul is becoming addicted to power or whatever else some people like to say about the leaders of our movement.

But to answer your question directly, I really do think Raul was the right person for the job. Juan Almeida Bosque would have been an excellent choice as well, but his health was an issue at that point. We can point to some real gains made by Raul since he first took office, LGBT rights being just one example.

[RGacky3]

How would a democratic economy work in practice. How do workers have a democratic control of the workplace? Suppose we have a car factory. Who owns the factory? ie the equipment, the stock in progress, the land, the buildings, equipment etc?

It depends, read about anarchist catelonia in the 1930s, read about the argentina takeovers, read about cooperatives, its not that complicated.

[DinodudeEpic]

the workers would essentially be exploiting themselves.

That makes absolutely no sense. You can't exploit yourself.


From Capitalism_is_good

How would a democratic economy work in practice. How do workers have a democratic control of the workplace? Suppose we have a car factory. Who owns the factory? ie the equipment, the stock in progress, the land, the buildings, equipment etc?

Every business will either be made up of one man or be a cooperative. (A business equally owned by it's workers democratically.)

This will be guaranteed by an economic constitution.

There will be meetings in which the workers would propose and vote on decisions akin to direct democracy.

The factory would be owned by the cooperative, like how factories today are owned by the corporation. Although, someone can own a factory by himself, it's just that he can't hire anyone to work for him. So that someone would just be owning a bunch of machinery and a building.

As for stocks, there wouldn't be stocks, because stocks are the ownership of business. And, the business must be owned by it's workers, not the highest bidder.

[manic expression]

It depends, read about anarchist catelonia in the 1930s, read about the argentina takeovers, read about cooperatives, its not that complicated.
You're correct in that there are examples from which to learn, but I should think it more complicated than all that. The instances you have cited are either emergency responses to extraordinary situations or marginal structures within larger systems. Can these provide the bases for something more substantive, something altogether greater? Can they weather the storms and navigate the straights unfailingly presented to such endeavors? Perhaps, but I do feel that until it is proven then some skepticism is warranted, even if only to provide a voice of doubt to its proponents.

In all, I would submit that any worthy solution cannot be so simple, if not in concept then in application.


That is quite an incoherent, incomprehensible, and strange list of defining aspects of socialist society.
It seems as though KommounistisGR's first language isn't English, and so demeaning it along the lines you have done is cheap and vapid. You would do well to engage with the wider point instead.

[Atsushi]

It has never been socialistic, because of its revisionism. That is the reason of the latest 'liberal' reforms. During the Cold War it was just a satellite state like Mongolia and others.

[Rafiq]

Utopian jerkfest on behalf of dinodude and gacky.

/thread

[RGacky3]

Utopian jerkfest on behalf of dinodude and gacky.

/thread

How so?


You're correct in that there are examples from which to learn, but I should think it more complicated than all that. The instances you have cited are either emergency responses to extraordinary situations or marginal structures within larger systems. Can these provide the bases for something more substantive, something altogether greater? Can they weather the storms and navigate the straights unfailingly presented to such endeavors? Perhaps, but I do feel that until it is proven then some skepticism is warranted, even if only to provide a voice of doubt to its proponents.

In all, I would submit that any worthy solution cannot be so simple, if not in concept then in application.

I was'nt providing a model, I was just showing that this sort of organization can happen all the time, and these were just examples of when that type of organization was put in place, in different forms, in different situations, and so on.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Defining aspects of socialist society according to KommounistisGR:

1. Not so much unemployment
2. Free medical care
3. little crime
4. and "people" "fight" so they can be "communist."

That is quite an incoherent, incomprehensible, and strange list of defining aspects of socialist society.

Nevermind the perpetuation of wage labour, among other things.
Oh really? So what do you want in a socialist society? Crime and Unemploeyement? Well then the whole world is socialist. Honestly, don't you consider it important that a country has the most reduced extent of crime compared to other countries?

[RGacky3]

Honestly, don't you consider it important that a country has the most reduced extent of crime compared to other countries?

Yes it is important, but thats not what makes it socialist dummy.

If that was the case then Norway and switzerland are both socialist.

YOu can't just define socialist as "good stuff."

Its like saying "of coarse its socialist, it was a high living standard, of coarse its socialist it has low pollution."

[GoddessCleoLover]

Cuba is just another country where a single "vanguard" party takes policy decisions of extraordinary consequence to Cuban workers at party conferences and the occasional Congress and binds the working class to these decisions. I respect the fact that at least one poster on this board who has visited Cuba believes that the consultative process leads to an organic connection between the vanguard and it mass base. Can we really know whether this process is organic rather than dictated from above in the absence of proletarian democratic institutions? My conclusion is that taken as a whole the "vanguard" model fails to foster an organic expression of the will of the working class. In the absence of workers' institutions that have any real power over the "vanguard party", the party loses its organic connection to the working class and comes to rule over the class it purports to lead.

[brigadista]

wrong question

[GoddessCleoLover]

What is the "right" question"?

[brigadista]

can a socialist country exist within global capitalism:)

[GoddessCleoLover]

I have come to the conclusion that full socialism cannot be accomplished within the current global economic system, and as a result the transition to socialism will continue to be perilous and subject to reversals. The Soviet model of the "vanguard party" exacerbates the precarious status of the post-revolutionary state since the "vanguard" model allows a small political organization to usurp the role of the working class as a whole. When the working class has been disempowered by the "vanguard" it is a relatively short step for the leadership to substitute its economic interests for the interests of the working class as a whole, resulting in a privileged strata to emerge at the helm of the state and industrial and commercial enterprises.

[RGacky3]

can a socialist country exist within global capitalismhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-socialist-countryi-t167454/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif


There is nothing self contradictory about a democratic economy existing within global capitalism, there might be some problems, they might suffer from different externalities from the system, but of coarse it COULD exist.

Also socialism is'nt ONE thing.

[Tim Cornelis]

That makes absolutely no sense. You can't exploit yourself.

It is a metaphor rather than an accurate reflection of social relations. It means that workers, compelled by market forces, need to expand their work day, increase larger sums of their rate of profit into capital (thereby lowering their income), all in order to remain competitive.


It seems as though KommounistisGR's first language isn't English, and so demeaning it along the lines you have done is cheap and vapid. You would do well to engage with the wider point instead.

It has absolutely nothing to do with language. Even if he had articulated it perfectly (which I do not expect of anyone, including you and me) he would still name the same four defining aspects of socialist society to be:

1. Low unemployment rate
2. Little crime
3. Free social services
4. In transition to communism

No matter how eloquently one might articulate these four aspects that supposedly define socialist society, they are still incoherent, incomprehensible, and crazy.

Maybe you thought this because of the quotation marks, but these were merely to emphasise "who(m)," "how," and "what":

and "people" (whom is?) "fight" (how are they doing this?) so they can be "communist" (what does that entail?).


Oh really? So what do you want in a socialist society? Crime and Unemploeyement? Well then the whole world is socialist. Honestly, don't you consider it important that a country has the most reduced extent of crime compared to other countries?

It is important, but it's not a defining aspect of socialist society. You cannot judge a mode of production by observing the crime rate, the degree of the availability of social services, or aspirations of the leadership of a country--that is a fundamentally idealist (i.e. non-Marxist) approach. The four defining aspects you named are devoid of any materialist basis.

If you're going to judge whether Cuba is socialist, you need to analyse its mode of production (at least from a Marxist perspective). The role of wage labour, the role of commodity production, the law of value, etc.

[RGacky3]

It is a metaphor rather than an accurate reflection of social relations. It means that workers, compelled by market forces, need to expand their work day, increase larger sums of their rate of profit into capital (thereby lowering their income), all in order to remain competitive.

Its not THAT easy, remember most of the internal contradictions of capitalism comes from the profit motive, cooperatives don't have a profit motive, so there is no rate of profit perse, every thing either goes to re-investment or compensation. So many of the internal contradictiosn don't apply to cooperatives.

Also lacking the profit motive gives cooperatives somewhat of an advantage, however much of that is undone by economies of scale, dictatorship of corporations and investment.

So I think its perfectly possible to have a socialist society with a commodity(marxist sense of the word) market, obviously you cannot have a labor market, and most likely probably not a capital market, although some might argue otherwise (not about the labor market but the capital market).

[Rafiq]

How so?


Well, for one, if you think what went down in catalonia is a model for how the world should be administrated than you're a Utopian fool who's got a lot to learn.

[Tim Cornelis]

Its not THAT easy, remember most of the internal contradictions of capitalism comes from the profit motive, cooperatives don't have a profit motive

If worker cooperatives do not operate within a market economy they do not have a profit motive. If, however, these cooperatives do operate within such a market mechanism they necessarily have a profit motive.

The members of the cooperative derive their compensation from income they make in the market by means of selling. This compensation takes the form of profit sharing, i.e. you equally split the money earned. While technically this is not called 'profits' as there is no capitalist, the outcome is exactly the same, and thence we can speak of a profit motive.

If we look at the dictionary definition:


d. The amount received for a commodity or service in excess of the original cost.

This obviously applies to a 'cooperative market economy', where commodities are sold and the money made (minus the costs) go to the workers.


So many of the internal contradictiosn don't apply to cooperatives.

The only contradictions that don't apply is the class antagonisms, at least as far as I can see.


So I think its perfectly possible to have a socialist society with a commodity market

I'm not sure. As I'm not a Marxist I'm don't feel compelled to unconditionally subscribe to its theories. I tend to think the most defining aspect of a mode of production are the relations of production (slave v. master; serf v. lord; worker v. capitalist) rather than the 'commodity', although admittedly my personal theory on this is underdeveloped. Anyway, in that sense I do think a commodity market and socialism are compatible as there is no wage labour.


Well, for one, if you think what went down in catalonia is a model for how the world should be administrated than you're a Utopian fool who's got a lot to learn.

Which isn't an argument of course. While I think that Catalonia 1936 isn't a desirable model either, I don't see why it's utopian.

[manic expression]

It has absolutely nothing to do with language. Even if he had articulated it perfectly (which I do not expect of anyone, including you and me) he would still name the same four defining aspects of socialist society to be:
I don't think he was naming them as the defining aspects of socialist society. He was saying that those are pieces of evidence to show that Cuba is socialist...which is a very different thing and not at all beholden to the standards that you have foisted upon the already-made point.

For instance, if I say that the Paris Commune was progressive because it included democratic organs...someone could jump on me and say that that's not the basic requirement of a progressive entity...but they'd be missing the point.


1. Low unemployment rate
2. Little crime
3. Free social services
4. In transition to communism

No matter how eloquently one might articulate these four aspects that supposedly define socialist society, they are still incoherent, incomprehensible, and crazy.
Well, taken by themselves, you can't call that "crazy". 3 and 4 are two extremely important points of any socialist society; 4 is at the heart of socialism itself.

So while you may disagree with the evaluation given, I don't think calling it "crazy" does us any good, and only pushes the conversation into an ultimately fruitless direction.


and "people" (whom is?) "fight" (how are they doing this?) so they can be "communist" (what does that entail?).
That's kind of what I meant originally. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seemed to me as though he was saying that people are able to struggle in ways that benefit their own class both within Cuba and worldwide. That's what a being a communist means, really. And if you would like examples of this, then we need only look to Cuban foreign policy for the last decades...at great expense to itself, the socialist government has sent doctors to impoverished communities around the world without asking so much as a penny in return. Cuba also sent soldiers to defend the rights and dignity of peoples in Angola and Ethiopia and elsewhere, and again asked for nothing in return.

[RGacky3]

Well, for one, if you think what went down in catalonia is a model for how the world should be administrated than you're a Utopian fool who's got a lot to learn.

I did'nt say it is a model for how the world should be administrated. I said its an EXAMPLE of a democratic economy, i.e. a socialist society. Read what I post.


If, however, these cooperatives do operate within such a market mechanism they necessarily have a profit motive.

Profit=return on investment, i.e. i.e. revenues-cost=profit. In economics wages are part of cost.


The members of the cooperative derive their compensation from income they make in the market by means of selling. This compensation takes the form of profit sharing, i.e. you equally split the money earned. While technically this is not called 'profits' as there is no capitalist, the outcome is exactly the same, and thence we can speak of a profit motive.

The outcome is not the same because there is no necessity to maximise profits, or income, and it would'nt include things like wage cutting or layoffs.

When you have an increase in productivity, the cooperative, unlike the for profit corporation, DOES NOT need to lay off workers, also if you have a non-profit economy with a commodities market you don't even need to increase production with productivity increases.


This obviously applies to a 'cooperative market economy', where commodities are sold and the money made (minus the costs) go to the workers.

Which assumes what the workers recieve is not part of the cost, which it is in economics, your just redefining terms here.

Also keep in mind, workers are not capitalists, this is THEIR work, not an investment.


The only contradictions that don't apply is the class antagonisms, at least as far as I can see.

The tendancy for the rate of profit to fall would'nt apply in a cooperative and non profit economy with commodities markets, neither would the tendancy towards excess capacity, neither would the demand gap apply.

Almost all of Marx's internal contradictions come from class antagonisms and the profit motive (meaning maximal return on investment, NOT labor compensation).

[QUOTE]I'm not sure. As I'm not a Marxist I'm don't feel compelled to unconditionally subscribe to its theories. I tend to think the most defining aspect of a mode of production are the relations of production (slave v. master; serf v. lord; worker v. capitalist) rather than the 'commodity', although admittedly my personal theory on this is underdeveloped. Anyway, in that sense I do think a commodity market and socialism are compatible as there is no wage labour.[QUOTE]

I don't consider myself a marxist either, even though I value his theories and insights (along with other schools of economics).

[RGacky3]

I don't think he was naming them as the defining aspects of socialist society. He was saying that those are pieces of evidence to show that Cuba is socialist...which is a very different thing and not at all beholden to the standards that you have foisted upon the already-made point.

For instance, if I say that the Paris Commune was progressive because it included democratic organs...someone could jump on me and say that that's not the basic requirement of a progressive entity...but they'd be missing the point.

Except its not evidence at all UNLESS its a defining aspect of it.

Democratic organs are not an outcome, they are a systemic thing, and "progressive" and "socialist" are 2 totally different types of terms.

Its like a capitalist arguing "Of COARSE poor parts of africa are not capitalist becuase they don't have major investment, or of coarse such and such country is capitalist becaust its wealthy."

[manic expression]

Except its not evidence at all UNLESS its a defining aspect of it.
Well as we continue to split hairs, non-defining aspects can evidently be accepted as valid evidence of something, and even then some of the aspects presented are inherently socialist.

[eyeheartlenin]

Didn't Lenin define socialism as a situation in which the working class runs society, in State and Revolution? And when Fidel became incapacitated, weren't decisions for the entire Cuban population made by a small group at the top, like the decision that Raúl would be the maximum leader, for an indefinite period? How does that equal rule by the workers? Of course it's not socialist; you can't have socialism on one island.