Will there be a Revolution in Cuba?

[bugsbunny]

What do you guys think? Will the People revolt against the Cuban government?

[CommunityBeliever]

A revolution to establish crapitalism? I wouldn't count on it.

[Drosophila]

A revolution to establish crapitalism? I wouldn't count on it.

They legalized private property not too long ago....

[Bostana]

The Cuban Government is fine the way it is. And the only reason why it's poor at all is because of the U.S. Blockade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

The U.S. people are hypocrites sometimes when it comes to Cuba.

[gorillafuck]

there's nothing right now to indicate that that will be happening in the near future

[Ostrinski]

I mean eventually yeah. It's a pretty vague question tbh.

[Caj]

A revolution to establish crapitalism? I wouldn't count on it.

A revolution isn't necessary to establish private capitalism in Cuba; Raul is already doing that.

[Rafiq]

What is "the people" and how can you be sure they share a common interest.

[CommunityBeliever]

They legalized private property not too long ago.... It is sensible to use heavily regulated market socialism to develop productive forces and to adapt to the global capitalist system. Cuba is still socialist and the freest country there is, they are the last place to have a revolution. I think South Asia is the most important revolutionary location and the Nepalese revolution will continue.

[Susurrus]

The Cuban Government is fine the way it is. And the only reason why it's poor at all is because of the U.S. Blockade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

The U.S. people are hypocrites sometimes when it comes to Cuba.

The blockade is more or less holding up the last pretense of socialism in Cuba. If the US were to take it down, it would basically become a touristy version of China. In the meantime, US companies are ignoring the embargo and selling indirectly to Cuba, and the Cuban government is doing its best to bring business to power.

As for revolution, we can always hope so, but it is doubtful.

[Ostrinski]

It is sensible to use heavily regulated market socialism to develop productive forces and to adapt to the global capitalist system. Cuba is still socialist and the freest country there is, they are the last place to have a revolution. I think in the immediate future South Asia will remain the most important revolutionary location, the Nepalese revolution is not over.You could use that argument to advocate participation in the bourgeois parliamentary system.

[CommunityBeliever]

You could use that argument to advocate participation in the bourgeois parliamentary system. Use the argument for whatever you want. As long as Cuba continues to provides socialist health care, universal education, full employment, etc and as long as only of Cuba's markets and property remain heavily regulated so that capitalism cannot really exist in the country then I won't decry them as capitalist or call for another revolution to happen there. Besides the fact is Cuba is a small country so a revolution, however progressive, will inevitably make the American empire step in and take control of the island. The imperialists would absolutely love to get control of Cuba back.

[Susurrus]

Use the argument for whatever you want. As long as Cuba continues to provides socialist health care, universal education, full employment, etc and as long as only of Cuba's markets and property remain heavily regulated so that capitalism cannot really exist in the country then I won't decry them as capitalist or call for another revolution to happen there. Besides the fact is Cuba is a small country so a revolution, however progressive, will inevitably make the American empire step in and take control of the island. The imperialists would absolutely love to get control of Cuba back.

Your definition of socialism appears to be the exact same as that of the American Republicans. As for invasion, they tried that, remember?

http://www.faqs.org/espionage/images/eeis_01_img0095.jpg

[Lei Feng]

A revolution isn't necessary to establish private capitalism in Cuba; Raul is already doing that.

I'd like to point out that this is only semi-true. Raul is allowing for privatization, that is no secret. However, that does not mean that he is allowing these private business owners to hire/exploit other workers. It is merely a way to try to jumpstart the economy. as long as it doesn't become too out of hand and begins to overtake the state controlled sector, things seem like they will generally be okay. I see this being similar to Lenin's NEP back in the USSR in the 20s. But, like hte NEP, the cuban privatization should have a point where it needs to be ended and return all of the means of production to the state and worker control.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

If there was a counterrevolution (big difference from revolution, because revolution indicates progress) in Cuba, I would be the first one to go find any way in the world to join the Cuban army to attack those parasites. I hate counterrevolutionaries! They are the reactionaries who sell their proud nations to imperialists! I do not care if Trotkyists come to me and complain about some deformed or degenerated workers state BS or if anarchists come to me and preach about dictatorships. I have been to Cuba, the Dominican Republic and El Salvador. In each nation, I stayed with poor family members because I myself am poor. Out of all the nations, Cuba is hands-down the best of them all. People get all they need from the government rewarding their contributions to society, almost everyone works, and people have real friendships instead of the capitalist desire to step all over people in order to accumulate capital. Cuba is a wonderful nation with a wonderful Communist Party, government and people. I do not need to show you Wikipedia articles or shit like that because I lived through it; I saw it with my own two eyes. I will show you pictures once I get my computer fixed. Remind me, please! Counterrevolutionaries, that will most likely be employed by the imperialist US, should be crushed by the fist of the working class of Cuba; which is also the fist of the Cuban government and the Communist vanguard.

Viva la revolución!
Muerte a la contrarevolución!
Socialismo o muerte!
VIVA CUBA LIBRE!

Epicness of Marxism-Leninism: got so fired up, almost had a stroke :thumbup1:

[Susurrus]

I'd like to point out that this is only semi-true. Raul is allowing for privatization, that is no secret. However, that does not mean that he is allowing these private business owners to hire/exploit other workers. It is merely a way to try to jumpstart the economy. as long as it doesn't become too out of hand and begins to overtake the state controlled sector, things seem like they will generally be okay. I see this being similar to Lenin's NEP back in the USSR in the 20s. But, like hte NEP, the cuban privatization should have a point where it needs to be ended and return all of the means of production to the state and worker control.

When they open an MBA program, I think that gives a good pointer to the future of Cuba.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/11aac838-e8fa-11e0-ac9c-00144feab49a.html#axzz1n4o1Ued4

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Oh, and fuck Raul. I forgot to add that in. I do not really need to get into details cuz I'm tired, but you all know what he is doing to Cuba. I just do not want Cuba to be the next China, or even worst, an economic slave of the US.

[Susurrus]

If there was a counterrevolution (big difference from revolution, because revolution indicates progress) in Cuba, I would be the first one to go find any way in the world to join the Cuban army to attack those parasites. I hate counterrevolutionaries! They are the reactionaries who sell their proud nations to imperialists! I do not care if Trotkyists come to me and complain about some deformed or degenerated workers state BS or if anarchists come to me and preach about dictatorships. I have been to Cuba, the Dominican Republic and El Salvador. In each nation, I stayed with poor family members because I myself am poor. Out of all the nations, Cuba is hands-down the best of them all. People get all they need from the government rewarding their contributions to society, almost everyone works, and people have real friendships instead of the capitalist desire to step all over people in order to accumulate capital. Cuba is a wonderful nation with a wonderful Communist Party, government and people. I do not need to show you Wikipedia articles or shit like that because I lived through it; I saw it with my own two eyes. I will show you pictures once I get my computer fixed. Remind me, please! Counterrevolutionaries, that will most likely be employed by the imperialist US, should be crushed by the fist of the working class of Cuba; which is also the fist of the Cuban government and the Communist vanguard.

Viva la revolución!
Muerte a la contrarevolución!
Socialismo o muerte!
VIVA CUBA LIBRE!

Epicness of Marxism-Leninism: got so fired up, almost had a stroke :thumbup1:

Yeah, I've been there too. Just because it's better than other places does not mean it's socialism, and less and different forms of exploitation is/are still exploitation.

[CommunityBeliever]

When they open an MBA program, I think that gives a good pointer to the future of Cuba. Indeed. In the future Cuba will continue to provide advanced education programs to ensure that its entire population has a world class education :thumbup1:

[Susurrus]

Indeed. In the future Cuba will continue to provide advanced education programs to ensure that its entire population has a world class education :thumbup1:
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/175/315/PicardDoubleFacepalm-1.jpg?1316330080

[Lei Feng]

Oh, and fuck Raul. I forgot to add that in. I do not really need to get into details cuz I'm tired, but you all know what he is doing to Cuba. I just do not want Cuba to be the next China, or even worst, an economic slave of the US.

I second that notion. We already have bastards like Khurschev and Deng who ruined great socialist nations like the USSR and China. It would be a real shame if Raul, the brother of the greatest Cuban Revolutionary second only to Che, turned into a Cuban Khuschevite. :(

[Ostrinski]

Oh, and fuck Raul. I forgot to add that in. I do not really need to get into details cuz I'm tired, but you all know what he is doing to Cuba. I just do not want Cuba to be the next China, or even worst, an economic slave of the US.I hate to be that guy, but Raul isn't doing anything to Cuba, at least not on his own accord. It's not like he just woke up one day and decided he wanted to open the doors for privatization.

[Deicide]

great socialist nations like the USSR and China

:lol:

I want to post a funny picture but I don't have enough posts.

[returnal]

meant to vote no, oops.

the chance of a revolution is pretty nil; the universal protections given by the government are enough to keep the people happy despite cuba's human rights abuses. if there are even major changes, it would almost certainly not be a capitalistic (even though it already is pretty much capitalistic) one but one to make the country somewhat freer/actually socialist.

[hatzel]

If there was a counterrevolution (big difference from revolution, because revolution indicates progress) in Cuba, I would be the first one to go find any way in the world to join the Cuban army to attack those parasites. [...] Counterrevolutionaries, that will most likely be employed by the imperialist US, should be crushed by the fist of the working class of Cuba; which is also the fist of the Cuban government and the Communist vanguard.


Oh, and fuck Raul. I forgot to add that in. I do not really need to get into details cuz I'm tired, but you all know what he is doing to Cuba.

Hating on Cuban leadership...waxing lyrical about fighting for the Cuban leadership...

Seems legit...

Oh and also:


revolution indicates progressWhat is this 'progress' you speak of?

[Tim Cornelis]

It is sensible to use heavily regulated market socialism to develop productive forces and to adapt to the global capitalist system. Cuba is still socialist and the freest country there is, they are the last place to have a revolution. I think South Asia is the most important revolutionary location and the Nepalese revolution will continue.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf8vs8XBYd1qafrh6.jpg

Yeah, the great Nepalese revolution. The problem with so many MLs is that they believe in rhetoric rather than content. Those Nepalese "Maoists" are in practice republican social-capitalists like all those great social-democratic parties in Europe.


Use the argument for whatever you want. As long as Cuba continues to provides socialist health care, universal education, full employment, etc and as long as only of Cuba's markets and property remain heavily regulated so that capitalism cannot really exist in the country then I won't decry them as capitalist or call for another revolution to happen there. Besides the fact is Cuba is a small country so a revolution, however progressive, will inevitably make the American empire step in and take control of the island. The imperialists would absolutely love to get control of Cuba back.

...what could possibly distinguish "socialist healthcare" from "capitalist healthcare"? That it's universal? Sweden is a socialist workers' state too then you know.

Yep, let's shed ourselves of materialist analysis of a mode of production and instead use the idealist approach where socialism is defined as "free healthcare, free education, low unemployment, and much regulation".

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I enjoy how cuba isn't even in my history book

[CommunityBeliever]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/175/315/PicardDoubleFacepalm-1.jpg?1316330080

Even by capitalist sources, Cuba has basically the highest literacy rate in the world (at least 99.9% literacy). Furthermore, a large percentage of the Cuban population is either a scientist and or has a college education. However, because supporting an anti-imperialist and socialist country (the only one in the world for that matter) is apparently taboo I suppose you would prefer if I said screw Cuba, let them become an American colony.


Yeah, the great Nepalese revolution.

The Nepalese revolution is the only socialist revolution that has happened in the 21th century. Would you care to tell me about all the other great revolutions? The Nepalese revolution is not "great" precisely because of the traitorious group of reactionary leadership including Prachanda and Battarai. However, You probably find it really hard to believe this but I actually have faith that the working class will overcome this :ohmy:


Sweden is a socialist workers' state too then you know.Sweden is a major contributor to imperialism by hosting corporations that export weapons to America and other NATO countries. Scandinavian countries such as Sweden are able to maintain a prosperous population but that doesn't occur without the super-exploitation of third world countries.

Cuba is a small third world island separated from any assistance from the capitalist world by an Embargo, and nonetheless it has been an enormous economic success and it has living standards better then even Sweden. Are you seriously arguing that the successes of Cuban society are possible with capitalism?!!


Yep, let's shed ourselves of materialist analysis of a mode of production and instead use the idealist approach where socialism is defined as "free healthcare, free education, low unemployment, and much regulation".http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_h18ihfyOBX4/RjVrNStPJfI/AAAAAAAAAAM/1ap6YvqVrXY/s320/straw-man.jpg

[Caj]

because supporting a socialist and anti-imperialist country is apparently taboo I suppose you would prefer if I said screw Cuba, let them become an American colony.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_h18ihfyOBX4/RjVrNStPJfI/AAAAAAAAAAM/1ap6YvqVrXY/s320/straw-man.jpg


Cuba is a small third world island separated from any assistance from the capitalist world by an Embargo, and nonetheless it has been an enormous economic success and it has living standards better then even Sweden. Are you seriously arguing that the successes of Cuban society are possible with capitalism?!!

Better living standards than Sweden?! C'mon. :rolleyes:

Cuba is doubtless successful. I don't think anyone is denying that. But does its success mean that it is socialist? No, the workers do not control the means of production in Cuba. Therefore, to argue that Cuba is in some way socialist is, as Goti123 said, to abandon material analysis in favor of idealism.

[daft punk]

A revolution to establish crapitalism? I wouldn't count on it.

no, to establish socialism


Cuba is still socialist and the freest country there is, they are the last place to have a revolution.
except that is isnt socialist, is going semi-capitalist, and is very un-free.

How many people do you think are on the ballot paper in the national elections?

1?
2?
3?
unlimited?


I hate counterrevolutionaries!
what? All the revolutions sabotaged by Stalinism? Spain, China, Eastern Europe?

[daft punk]

I second that notion. We already have bastards like Khurschev and Deng who ruined great socialist nations like the USSR and China. It would be a real shame if Raul, the brother of the greatest Cuban Revolutionary second only to Che, turned into a Cuban Khuschevite. :(

File under Fiction. I really dunno where you get this stuff from. Castro wasn't even a socialist. And the USSR was never socialist. What did Khrushchev do, apart from spill some of the beans on Stalin?

[CommunityBeliever]

Cuba is doubtless successful. I don't think anyone is denying that. But does its success mean that it is socialist? No, the workers do not control the means of production in Cuba. Therefore, to argue that Cuba is in some way socialist is, as Goti123 said, to abandon material analysis in favor of idealism. Cuba is socialist and the means of production are controlled by the workers state, there are some capitalist mechanims as mentioned before but that is not unlike Lenin's NEP that occured from 1921-1928 in the USSR. I suppose you would propose that the USSR during NEP was somehow capitalist?

[Caj]

Cuba is socialist and the means of production are controlled by the workers state

Hmmm. . . . One would think a workers' state would be -- you know -- controlled by the workers.


there are some capitalist mechanims as mentioned before but that is not unlike Lenin's NEP that occured from 1921-1928 in the USSR. I suppose you would propose that the USSR during NEP was somehow capitalist?

Yes, the NEP was a state capitalist policy. Lenin admitted this.

[CommunityBeliever]

Yes, the NEP was a state capitalist policy. Lenin admitted this. Its a state capitalist policy in a country that is fundamentally socialist and which has mostly socialist policies, like Cuba.

[Caj]

Its a state capitalist policy in a country that is fundamentally socialist and which has mostly socialist policies, like Cuba.

What does it mean to be "fundamentally socialist"? There never was workers' control in Cuba. In Russia, workers' control had disintegrated by the spring of 1918.

[CommunityBeliever]

In Russia, workers' control had disintegrated by the spring of 1918. The Russian constitution of 1918 clearly establishes that the working class is in control of the Soviet state, united in urban and rural soviets.

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/article2.htm

The Russian Republic is a free socialist society of all the working people of Russia. The entire power, within the boundaries of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, belongs to all the working people of Russia, united in urban and rural soviets.


There never was workers' control in Cuba.I disagree with that point.

[Per Levy]

Cuba is socialist and the means of production are controlled by the workers state,

i find it funny that you say workers state instead of workers, maybe you do know that state bureaucrats arnt the same as workers. and the party bureaucrats are the rulers of cubas "worker state" afterall.


there are some capitalist mechanims as mentioned before but that is not unlike Lenin's NEP that occured from 1921-1928 in the USSR.

actually its a lot different then soviet russias nep. the nep was introduced after the civil war and the failure of war communism, in order to rebuild the country and all. thats a quite different situation then cubas right now, isnt it?


I suppose you would propose that the USSR during NEP was somehow capitalist?

as was said, yes russia during the nep was (state-)capitalist.

[quote]However, if Cuba really is capitalist then makes me honestly question why I should even be an anti-capitalist.

well if you want to be a cappie no one is stopping you, you can become a reformist like you allready are and parot for a welfare state, like a true social democrat wouldnt that be fun.

[Per Levy]

The Russian constitution of 1918 clearly establishes that the working class is in control of the Soviet state, united in urban and rural soviets.

yes, if a piece of paper states that the workers controll everything then this must be the truth, of course.

[hatzel]

Cuba is socialist [...] if Cuba really is capitalist then makes me honestly question why I should even be an anti-capitalist.


Its a state capitalist policy

...interesting...

[CommunityBeliever]

...interesting...

Cuba is a consistently anti-imperialist state and it deserves our support for that.

[Blake's Baby]

It's not free.

Socialism isn't state control of the economy. It's freedom. It's the destruction of the state and capitalism.

If you've realised that Stalinism is social democracy with bayonets, and it might be better without the bayonets, then congratulations, you've become a social democrat.

I thicked 'yes' because I believe that humanity is screwed without the world revolution, in which all states will be destroyed. China Cuba Free Zapatistaland North Korea Palestine Scotland and WhereverAmericaisInvadingNextastan included.

Not that I think it's inevitable but the honest answer is 'don't know' because we don't. However, if humanity is not to be totally screwed (and obviously I hope it isn't to be totally screwed forever) then a revolution in Cuba as everywhere else is necessary.

And a 'revolution' doesn't mean 'progress' it means a change. A counter-revolution is a change back to the status quo - ie, stability, revolution, counter-revolution, not revolution, stability, counter-revolution. Thats just 'revolution, stability, (different) revolution'.

[Blake's Baby]

Indeed, since I am not anti-Cuba and these anarchists are telling me that Cuba is capitalist, how then can I pro-Cuba and anti-capitalist? That would be awfully inconsistent.

Indeed, which is why we (not all of us anarchists) think you're pro-capitalist and pro-state.

[Per Levy]

Do you have any reason I shouldn't be? If we could have a capitalist world that is entirely modeled after Cuba what would be the objection to that?

the lack of worker controll: cause the rule of the party over the means of production doesnt mean that workers controll it, the exploitation of workers is still going on just not as gruesome as in places like china + there are other things that arnt very nice.


I have always upheld the accomplishments of the socialist states that have existed so far, but you anarchists are telling me now I have been a capitalist all a long (I don't agree with your definition of capitalist), perhaps that is true, then the next question is what is wrong is with that?

you do know that the welfare state is a invention of capitalist states, right? welfare reform were passed in order to weaken socialist support, the socialists of the 19th century were quite oposed to the welfare state.

also as you can see in my tendency im not a anarchist.

[hatzel]

Indeed, since I am not anti-Cuba and these anarchists are telling me that Cuba is capitalist, how then can I pro-Cuba and anti-capitalist? That would be awfully inconsistent. So if I am really capitalist as these anarchists are suggesting, then feel free to tell me what is wrong with that.

That's not the issue. The issue is that you say it's socialist and then you say it's state capitalist. It's not 'these anarchists' telling you it's capitalist - you are yourself stating that Cuba is state capitalist, and you yourself claim to support this. Despite its not being socialism. Don't see a problem here? Hint: make your mind up. Is Cuba socialist or state capitalist? Do you support socialism or state capitalism? Do you support Cuba or call for change?

[CommunityBeliever]

the lack of worker controll: cause the rule of the party over the means of production doesnt mean that workers controll it, the exploitation of workers is still going on just not as gruesome as in places like china + there are other things that arnt very nice.There is worker's control in Cuba as I mentioned before. I will go to this in more detail in a later post.


It's not 'these anarchists' telling you it's capitalist - you are yourself stating that Cuba is state capitalist, and you yourself claim to support this.I do not support state capitalism over socialism.


Hint: make your mind up. Is Cuba socialism or state capitalism? Do you support socialism or state capitalism?I support Cuba; what you choose to call it is irrelevant.

[Caj]

The Russian constitution of 1918 clearly establishes that the working class is in control of the Soviet state, united in urban and rural soviets.

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/article2.htm

The Russian Republic is a free socialist society of all the working people of Russia. The entire power, within the boundaries of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, belongs to all the working people of Russia, united in urban and rural soviets.

So just because a constitution adopts socialist rhetoric, it means that socialism actually exists? Interesting. . . .

Are you willing to argue that the US government is a government of the masses because its constitution begins with "We the people"?

In Russia, workers' control manifested itself in the form of the Soviet workers' councils. All of these councils had been forcibly dissolved by the Bolsheviks by the spring of 1918, being replaced with a state capitalist bureaucracy. The faction of the Bolsheviks that disagreed with these measures, the "workers' opposition", was denounced as "petty bourgeois" and "anarchist" -- much like you are referring to everybody who disagrees with you as an anarchist.


I obviously disagree with that point, but if it is true then what is the urgency what you refer to as "worker's control"? Capitalists with assistance from the state will continue to develop technologies such as driverless cars, touchscreen devices, etc until eventually there is a technological singularity and we can have the entire world emulate "capitalist Cuba" in order to ensure that everybody is prosperous.

There are two problems with this: Firstly, capitalism, both state and private, relies ultimately on the exploitation of the majority by a minority ruling class. Secondly, state capitalism is incapable of resolving the inner contradictions inherent to the capitalist mode of production. Surely any Marxist can understand these things.


Indeed, since I am not anti-Cuba and these anarchists are telling me that Cuba is capitalist, how then can I pro-Cuba and anti-capitalist? That would be awfully inconsistent. So if I am really capitalist as these anarchists are suggesting, then feel free to tell me what is wrong with that.

Just because one doesn't believe Cuba is some glorious socialist paradise doesn't mean one is anti-Cuba.

[Tim Cornelis]

Even by capitalist sources, Cuba has basically the highest literacy rate in the world (at least 99.9% literacy). Furthermore, a large percentage of the Cuban population is either a scientist and or has a college education. However, because supporting an anti-imperialist and socialist country (the only one in the world for that matter) is apparently taboo I suppose you would prefer if I said screw Cuba, let them become an American colony.

So now we are measuring the degree of socialism to the degree of literacy? I don't get what you're trying to say.


The Nepalese revolution is the only socialist revolution that has happened in the 21th century. Would you care to tell me about all the other great revolutions? The Nepalese revolution is not "great" precisely because of the traitorious group of reactionary leadership including Prachanda and Battarai. However, You probably find it really hard to believe this but I actually have faith that the working class will overcome this :ohmy:

How is it a socialist revolution then? If a revolution is lead by a "reactionary leadership" (who determine the content of the revolution) how can the revolution be "socialist"?

It was a bourgeois republican revolution.


Sweden is a major contributor to imperialism by hosting corporations that export weapons to America and other NATO countries. Scandinavian countries such as Sweden are able to maintain a prosperous population but that doesn't occur without the super-exploitation of third world countries.

Cuba is a small third world island separated from any assistance from the capitalist world by an Embargo, and nonetheless it has been an enormous economic success and it has living standards better then even Sweden. Are you seriously arguing that the successes of Cuban society are possible with capitalism?!!

Yeah sure, Cuba has better living standards :rolleyes:

And it's not a strawman, you argue Cuba is socialist and continue to list "free education, free healthcare", etc. logically implying that Cuba is socialist because of this. If Cuba is a workers' state, then so is Sweden.

If we use a materialist analysis of the mode of production (something that seems to be completely absent in your analysis) we see that the relations of production are the defining characteristic of the mode of production.

Master-slave relation; serf-lord relation; capitalist-worker relation. Socialism is the negation of wage labour in favour of associated labour. There is no associated labour in Cuba, only wage labour, and thence it is not socialist.


The Russian constitution of 1918 clearly establishes that the working class is in control of the Soviet state, united in urban and rural soviets.

Yep, this is exactly what I meant when I say MLs are unable to distinguish between content and rhetoric.

[Ocean Seal]

Your definition of socialism appears to be the exact same as that of the American Republicans. As for invasion, they tried that, remember?

http://www.faqs.org/espionage/images/eeis_01_img0095.jpg
America didn't need an invasion to establish capitalism in Cuba.

If anyone honestly thinks that there is a socialist revolution brewing in Cuba to crush private property they are quite misguided being that whatever gains that revolution made would within less than a decade be reduced to rubble just like the US can do to any revolutionary country composed of only 11 million people.

[Rooster]

Cuba is socialist and the means of production are controlled by the workers state, there are some capitalist mechanims as mentioned before but that is not unlike Lenin's NEP that occured from 1921-1928 in the USSR. I suppose you would propose that the USSR during NEP was somehow capitalist? However, if Cuba really is capitalist then makes me honestly question why I should even be an anti-capitalist.

You seem to lack a general understanding of what constitutes capitalism :confused:
There have been several books written about it, you know. You could maybe read some. How do we understand what the mode of production is in any given context? We have to look at how surplus value is extracted from the direct producers. In this case, it is through wage labour (which means obviously that the means of production are not held in common). This means that there is commodity production, you know, labour power being a commodity in exchange for money, etc. It's not about how surplus value is distributed as that does not tell us anything at all. That's pretty much what you are doing and as a result, you are able to support capitalist policies.

[Rafiq]

Socialism isn't state control of the economy. It's freedom. It's the destruction of the state and capitalism.

Freedom is not the core demand of the worker's movement, historically. It has been emancipation.

And none the less, a state dictatorship is of absolute necessity.

[Caj]

Freedom is not the core demand of the worker's movement, historically. It has been emancipation.

Yes, emancipation, i.e., the freeing of the proletariat from bourgeois tyranny.


And none the less, a state dictatorship is of absolute necessity.

Why?

[CommunityBeliever]

Dear revleft forums members,

As a result of the rampant ultraleftism in this forum I think I will stop posting here for a while. Nonetheless, before then I will provide a reasoned defence against the ultraleftist attacks levelled against me. The previous posts I made in this thread were not based upon an accurate Marxist-Leninist analysis of global conditions, so I recommend that you ignore them.

The U.S has worked very hard to prevent socialism from coming to Latin America, with the bay of pigs, the Cuban missile crisis, embargo against Cuba, multiple assassination attempts against Castro, the 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez, the assassination of Jaime Roldos and Omar Torrijos, the coups against Salvador Allende, Jacobo Arbenz, and Joao Goulart, the 2009 Honduran coup, and so on.

On January 1, 1959 the revolutionary Cuban people liberated themselves from the tryanny of the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. For over 50 years since then the Cuban people resisted all attempts by the American empire to take back the island and to destroy its economy. Despite living in the jaws of the imperialist crocodile, Cuban socialism has been an enormous economic success. Cuba has managed to provide free education, health care, housing, and lifetime employment to practically its entire population. Furthermore, Cuba now has a HDI of over 0.8, an illiteracy rate of less then 0.1%, a life expectancy of over 75, an ecological index of less then 1.8 hectares per capita, and an HPI of 65.67. Furthermore, in February 2009, Cuba innovated in the area of information technology by introducing its own open source Nova operating system. In the future, Cuban socialism will continue to strive despite all the efforts of hostile forces, thereby providing a solid example for the rest of world to emulate.


So just because a constitution adopts socialist rhetoric, it means that socialism actually exists?The constitution utilised by the RSFSR from July 10, 1918 to January 31, 1924 characterised the operations of the Soviet worker's state. Article 1, chapter 2 describes the common ownership of the land, forests, treasures of the Earth, waters of general public utility, model farms and agriculture enterprises, factories, mills, mines, railways, and other means of production and transportation. Article 3, chapter 6 describes the mechanisms of workers power through the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which is composed of representatives of the urban soviets (one delegate per 25,000 voters) and representatives of the provincial (gubernia) congress of soviets (one delegate per 125,000 voters). Furthermore, article 1, chapter 2, section 3.e describes that all workers should armed to protect Soviet socialism. This describes the operation of Soviet socialism during the duration of this constitutions use and the evidence indicates that this constitution was effectively applied in Soviet society.


All of these councils had been forcibly dissolved by the Bolsheviks by the spring of 1918, being replaced with a state capitalist bureaucracy.From anecdotal accounts from comrades who used to live in the USSR and from the evidence that I have hitherto procured the USSR didn't become state capitalist until the Brezhnev era. Leonid Brezhnev's chief economic official, Alexei Kosygin, introduced capitalist methods from 1965 to 1971 based upon the ideas of Evsei Liberman of the Kharkiv National University of economics. Using the new economic mechanisms, the Brezhnevian nomenklatura played the role of a new bourgeoisie which exploited the Soviet proletariat.

As a Maoist I blame Nikita Khrushchev for abandoning Marxism-Leninism which started the process of degeneration that culminated in the destruction of Soviet socialism, and I have some criticisms of Joseph Stalin for not utilising an accurate materialist analysis to prevent revisionist class enemies from sabotaging socialist construction. Now If you want to demonstrate that the USSR was state capitalist during the spring of 1918, then describe how the mechanisms I described previously existed in the USSR at this time and accurately distinguish between the circumstances of the USSR in 1918 and the conditions that evolved from that point on.


There are two problems with this: Firstly, capitalism, both state and private, relies ultimately on the exploitation of the majority by a minority ruling class. Secondly, state capitalism is incapable of resolving the inner contradictions inherent to the capitalist mode of production.The conditions of the global capitalist epoch [1991...] can be characterized in terms of the antagonistic contradiction between the imperialists, which are primarily in Europe and North America, and the exploited nations of the world, which are predominantly located in Africa, South America, and Asia. As comrade Per Levy mentioned, the bourgeoisie in the imperialist nations introduced welfare reforms in order to placate internal social class contradictions. This effort has been relatively successful. The reality of these conditions should lead any scientific socialist to an anti-imperialist orientation. On the other hand, the lack of such an anti-imperialist orientation in the analysis of ultralefts is a source of contention between us.


Just because one doesn't believe Cuba is some glorious socialist paradise doesn't mean one is anti-Cuba. In 1972, the anti-Marxist militarist Juche ideology replaced Marxism-Leninism in the DPRK constitution. Following the degeneration Mao's health in the 1970s, the revionist faction led by Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping successfully reversed Chinese socialism. At the sixith congress of CPV in 1986, reformers such as Ngyugyen Van Linh abandoned socialism for Đổi Mới ("renovation"). Similarily, in 1986, the government of Laos announced its "new economic mechanism" (NEM) which was designed to abandon socialism for private sector activity. From the evidence I have procured, all of these Eastern countries are now state capitalist.

Cuba, separated by the global capitalist world by the Caribbean sea, has resisted the influx of corrupt capitalist elements better then any country in the world, and Cuba is the most progressive nation there is today. Any consistent Marxist-Leninist should be able to see that Cuba is an exceptional case in the world today. We MLs are not utopians like some ultralefts so we don't see socialism as a "glorious paradise." In order to demonstrate that Cuba has abandoned socialism you must first establish that Cuba's recent economic policies are akin to Dengist reforms rather then the Soviet NEP and that there is a new bourgeoisie in Cuba which exploits the proletariat.


So now we are measuring the degree of socialism to the degree of literacy? I don't get what you're trying to say.

The degree in which Cuban society has been to produce education and literacy is a testament to the productive power of socialism. In the article eye-witness to socialism: school education in Cuba (http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=251), the CPGB-ML describes an account of socialist education in Cuba. Comrade Francisco Fereira Báez, the Cuban First Deputy Education Minister, provides the following chart to demonstrate the revolutionary success of socialist construction in Cuba:



1958 2006
Number of teachers (000's) 22.8 310.5
Percentage of 6-11 year old attending school 55.1 100
Percentage of illiterate adults (aged over 15) 23.6 0.2
Education budget per pupil (pesos) 79.4 4,998.8Comrade Fereira goes on to describe some of the specifics of Cuba's socialist education system: “We also have a programme of computerisation, and IT is taught throughout the educational system.We have been developing computer software of our own for use in supporting learning, with content reflecting different levels of education."

One tragic result of the embargo on Cuba is that its access to internet has been reduced, in response to this, Cuba has developed its own intranet system so that everyone has access to the necessary materials. Comrade Fereira: "We also strongly encourage the internet as a means to learning. We do not, however, promote indiscriminate use of the internet, but instead have developed an intranet system which makes available to pupils all educational material that may be of interest to them in their pursuit of knowledge and understanding. "

One reliable source of authentication for the socialist nature of Cuba's education system is that it is fundamentally international. There are 25,000 Cuban teachers abroad engaging in spreading Cuba's literacy program. The policies of Cuban society are universally socialist and international.


How is it a socialist revolution then? If a revolution is lead by a "reactionary leadership" (who determine the content of the revolution) how can the revolution be "socialist"?The Nepalese revolution constituted of a people's war engaged by the UCPN (M) from 1996 until 2006 to overthrow the monarch Gyanendra Shah. Throughout the revolutionary period culminating in the overthrow of the monarchy, the Nepalese revolutionary force projected in an image of a socialist revolutionary force. After the signing of the comprehensive peace accord of 2006, that image faded away and the true nature of the UCPN (M) came to light. The party begin abandoning every aspect of Maoism and even proposed removing the Maoist label and merging with the mainstream parties of Nepal. The reactionary leader Puspa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, has consistently made it clear to the imperialists that his party is not any threat.

The Nepalese working class has so far come up against many roadblocks to socialist construction. The Nepalese people must combat fuedalism, capitalism, imperialism, and their own parties revisionism, so the struggle they have ahead of themselves is going to be long and hard. The Nepalese working class will continue to revolt against capitalism contemporaneously with other South Asian revolutionary workers. CCOMPOSA coordinates several of South Asian parties such as the Ceylon Communist Party (Maoist) and the CPI(M) Naxalbari. You can read more about this at the blog Revolution in South Asia (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/).


Yeah sure, Cuba has better living standardsThe high living standards in Cuba and the many other achievements of Cuban society are a product of socialism. There is no other logical explanation, if the achievements of socialism, which we have seen in Cuba, are possible in capitalism as several ultralefts here have claimed then why should we even be anti-capitalists? If Cuba is "capitalist" then that is a sort of capitalism I can get behind, but alas it is not. Cuba is socialist. In Cuba special: 50 years of socialism (http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=456), the CPGB-ML describes the successes of Cuban socialist construction over the course of half a century:

"The Cuban people enjoy a standard of living incomparable in the western world. Incomparable not because of the material goods they have, as these are undoubtedly limited, but because of the freedoms that they benefit from: the freedom that ensures every Cuban lives under shelter, has the right to universal free education and access to a healthcare system that is not dependant on income. In short, the freedom to live a full life no matter who you are or which family you are born into."


There is no associated labour in Cuba, only wage labour, and thence it is not socialist.Do you have any reliable sources that corroborate this asseveration? The evidence that I have procured so far indicates that the thoroughly socialist and international nature of Cuban society allows the workers to be directly involved in on the job production decisions together with other workers in a democratic freely associated public sphere. This constitutes freely associated labor, to the highest extent you can expect at the current stage of socialist construction in Cuba.


also as you can see in my tendency im not a anarchist.

Thank you for pointing out that distinction, comrade. Could you further elaborate on your opinion of anarchism? I personally identify with anarchism philosophically because I share the anarchist opposition to central authority because distributed and cooperating individuals are more efficient then central authorities are in large-scale operations due to the physical limitations of communication. When I previously referenced anarchism, I meant to identify anti-socialist utopianism, common to many anarchists, which is something I take issue with.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

The current situation in Cuba is very complicated. There is a hughe lack of resourcess, yeah pretty much anything, which i think is slowly nagging off the foundation of socialism in the country. Although the state is really providing the people with as much benefits as they can (and a little bit to much of police harassments if you ask me). Like Comrad Commistar wrote, i also want to point out that Cuba is far better then most parts of Latin America for the working class. And i want to add that the crime rate is extremly low! You could walk in the middle of the night wherever in Havana without fearing for something. Drugs seemed not to be a problem, people knew where to get a small amount of weed, time to time, but no heavy stuff, and no body knew anyone who had drug problems. Basicly there was no drug related social problems. Girls and women hitchhiked alone without any worries. I asked one girl that was trying to get a ride if she wasnt affraid of.... "what?!"- she said and smiled. Never met so strong women as in Cuba, but in the same time as turism has grown, prostitution is followed. Disgusting.

Im also very suspicious towards Raul, i dont think is to accurate to compare him with Deng who in the middle of the developing of the PRC turned it down. Wile Cuba is having a really hard economical time and is desperate to find a solution. The knew privatizations is very strict and controlled and i agree with the others who have compared it to NEP. A temporary solution (we hope) to boost the economy by creating acumulation.

[Caj]

The constitution utilised by the RSFSR from July 10, 1918 to January 31, 1924 characterised the operations of the Soviet worker's state. Article 1, chapter 2 describes the common ownership of the land, forests, treasures of the Earth, waters of general public utility, model farms and agriculture enterprises, factories, mills, mines, railways, and other means of production and transportation. Article 3, chapter 6 describes the mechanisms of workers power through the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which is composed of representatives of the urban soviets (one delegate per 25,000 voters) and representatives of the provincial (gubernia) congress of soviets (one delegate per 125,000 voters). Furthermore, article 1, chapter 2, section 3.e describes that all workers should armed to protect Soviet socialism. This describes the operation of Soviet socialism during the duration of this constitutions use and the evidence indicates that this constitution was effectively applied in Soviet society.

Quote soviet constitutions all you want, it doesn't change the fact that workers' control, the essence of socialism, was liquidated in the spring of 1918. The US constitution begins with "We the people". The Libyan constitution under Gaddafi promised direct democracy. Are you incapable of understanding that constitutions don't always give an accurate description of material reality? In fact, constitutions are always documents drafted by a society's ruling class (in this case the Bolsheviks); it is inevitable that populist rhetoric is going to be utilized for propaganda purposes.


From anecdotal accounts from comrades who used to live in the USSR and from the evidence that I have hitherto procured the USSR didn't become state capitalist until the Brezhnev era. Leonid Brezhnev's chief economic official, Alexei Kosygin, introduced capitalist methods from 1965 to 1971 based upon the ideas of Evsei Liberman of the Kharkiv National University of economics. Using the new economic mechanisms, the Brezhnevian nomenklatura played the role of a new bourgeoisie which exploited the Soviet proletariat.

"Capitalist methods" were introduced in 1965? What are "capitalist methods"? If they include such things as surplus value extraction, wage labor, control of the means of production by a ruling elite, extreme division of labor, strikebreaking, etc., etc., then Russia had adopted "capitalist methods" with the liquidation of the soviets and the implementation of "war communism" around the spring or summer of 1918.


We MLs are not utopians like some ultralefts so we don't see socialism as a "glorious paradise."

Wtf?! :confused: You were the one going on and on about how great Cuba is with its high literacy rates, free healthcare, education, housing, etc., etc.

The only utopian here is you. You hail Cuba as a testament to socialism because of its wonderful welfare services, health services, and education system. In the process, you completely abandon Marxian analysis. To the Marxist, economic systems and their societal superstructures need to be understood fundamentally by the various classes' relations to the means of production. The Marxian conception of socialism is this and only this: that the workers control and democratically manage the means of production, free from bourgeois exploitation. In Cuba, this is clearly not the case. The means of production, far from being held by the workers, is held by a bureaucracy of elites. These elites constitute the bourgeoisie in Cuban society, as they live off of the surplus value from commodities that they didn't create. From a Marxist perspective, therefore, Cuba is capitalist.


In order to demonstrate that Cuba has abandoned socialism you must first establish that Cuba's recent economic policies are akin to Dengist reforms rather then the Soviet NEP and that there is a new bourgeoisie in Cuba which exploits the proletariat.

Cuba hasn't abandoned socialism. It simply never existed. I don't have to compare it to Dengist reforms. Even accepting that Dengist reforms are what led to the degeneration of Russian socialism (a claim that is false, as I believe I've already demonstrated), Cuba and Russia have/had different material conditions that wouldn't render the degeneration of socialism in both regions identical. All that needs to be shown to demonstrate that Cuba is not socialist, but state capitalist, is that the means of production is controlled by, not the workers, but a ruling elite that exploits the former through classic capitalist surplus value extraction. That this situation exists in Cuba is a well known fact.


One reliable source of authentication for the socialist nature of Cuba's education system is that it is fundamentally international. There are 25,000 Cuban teachers abroad engaging in spreading Cuba's literacy program. The policies of Cuban society are universally socialist and international.

Cuba's education system is socialist because there are Cuban teachers abroad? Yeah, whatever. :rolleyes:


The high living standards in Cuba and the many other achievements of Cuban society are a product of socialism. There is no other logical explanation, if the achievements of socialism, which we have seen in Cuba, are possible in capitalism as several ultralefts here have claimed then why should we even be anti-capitalists? If Cuba is "capitalist" then that is a sort of capitalism I can get behind, but alas it is not. Cuba is socialist.

The achievments of Cuba in the last several decades are attributable to (state) capitalism. This doesn't mean that we should support state capitalism over actual socialism (although Leninist state capitalism, such as in Cuba, should be supported against the advances of neoliberalism and imperialism). State capitalism relies on the exploitation of the majority by a ruling minority and cannot resolve the contradictions inherent to the capitalist mode of production. It's not even a question of whether or not Cuban-style state capitalism is "good enough." Its downfall is inevitable.


The evidence that I have procured so far indicates that the thoroughly socialist and international nature of Cuban society allows the workers to be directly involved in on the job production decisions together with other workers in a democratic freely associated public sphere. This constitutes freely associated labor, to the highest extent you can expect at the current stage of socialist construction in Cuba.

Provide this evidence please.

[bugsbunny]

Thanks for all your replies. I have learnt a lot from them. From your replies, I can see that the majority here think there won't be a revolution in Cuba. Those who voted 'no' outnumbered those who vote 'yes' by a ratio of 3:1.

Some of you think that Cuba is a Socialist paradise or at least as close to it as is possible. They thus do not believe that Cubans will rise up against such a wonderful government that gave them high education standards, health care and other benefits. Some have even declared their intention to fight for the Cuban government if there is a counter-revolution.

Others define Socialism as workers' control over the assets of production and say that Cuba is not real Socialism but 'state capitalism'. Some of the people here who holds this view believe that the people will rise up against their government and implement real Socialism.

Some of you approve of Raul's baby steps towards free markets while others denounce it.

The reason why I started this thread is because I wanted to set a test for everybody including myself. I came here to seek the truth and enjoyed debates/discussions with many leftists.

But I find I am in a parallel universe. We could not agree on anything. Everthing I learnt from school and believed to be true is rejected as false. We could not even agree on simple things like definations of words like what is a 'capitalist' or 'socialist'.

I see from this thread that even leftists have disagreement. Some here think that Cuba is a Socialist state while others say it is not. So the only way to settle all this is to try and predict the future.

If our underlying beliefs are correct, then we should be able to predict the future. For example, if some of us believe that the sun rises from the East while other believe the sun rises from the West, then the best way to see who is right is to wait for sunrise.

In the case of Cuba, I believe that the Castro regime did try to establish Socialism and what they did is as close to it as you can get. But I also believe that Socialism does not work and will eventually collapse based on its internal contradictions.

I know this is the opposite of what Socialists believe. They say that Capitalism does not work and will eventually collapse.

In the case of Cuba, its heading for collapse and that is why Raul is taking a few steps towards capitalism. Otherwise, the Cuban government will go the way of Honecker, Caesescu, Jaruzelski, Gorbachev etc. Besides Cuba and N Korea, the only other Communist Party that remained in power is the Chinese Communist Party. That's because Deng put the country onto the capitalist road.

I don't think Raul has the courage and political support to take this road sufficiently to save his regime. It was also difficult for Deng. For his efforts to put China on the Capitalist road, he was purged twice by Mao for being a 'capitalist roader'.

Raul would have to overcome the 'hardliners' and take an enormous risk to his own position. Remember that Deng nearly lost. So I believe that there will probably be a revolution that will bring an end to the regime. But I am not 100% sure. Raul may surprise me and be able to do a Deng - putting Cuba onto the Capitalist road and thus saving the Cuban regime. The longer Fidel lives, the harder for Raul to take the capitalist road and thus the more likely there will be revolution.

[Prometeo liberado]

I think you may have forgotten one important factor, and that is the voice of street committees. They were an important part of starting this debate of new economic policies and zones. Their caveat was that the social safety net be left intact or expanded. Those on the bottom of the Cuban economic structure are also the loudest. No move or position change from above can be enacted without, at least tacit, approval of the street committees. Keep the safety net and you keep the backing from the street committees. Lose or don/t follow thru on agreements on these issues already made and you will see round-the-clock-flights from miami to Cuba. A mess.

[JeVousAimeGuillotine]

This poll is slightly skewed by the fact that half of us don't know to which revolution you are referring. From what I have seen here, a great deal of the readers believed you were referring to a counterrevolution, (a.k.a. The revolution of people against the state capitalist policies of the Cuban government). If that is the case, a great deal of the no votes came from the misunderstanding of your question. Many of the other readers believed you were referring to the proletarian revolution against the state capitalists to organize the means of production in the hands of the workers.

For that reason, I would highly ignore the results of this poll, because the question was innately misleading and vague.

For the record, I believe that Cuba is in a dire position right now. Yes--it is a state capitalist country with insanely high living standards. There are a few questions that need to be asked in the mean time.

1. Is state capitalism better than regular capitalism?
According to Lenin, yes. In my opinion, it is a flawed system that must be replaced by socialism in a workers revolution. In the mean time, Cuba is a model representation of what other state capitalist countries should be like. Do they exploit their workers through the surplus value extraction and put into the hands of a few wealthy statesmen? Absolutely! However, the overall morale of the people is extremely high, in addition to various other statistics regarding the general welfare of the Cuban people? Does this mean that I support Cuba's state capitalist economy? Of course not. I certainly think it is an improvement upon most capitalist countries though. Considering the isolation put on Cuba, I'd say Castroist state capitalism is working remarkably well for them.

2. Why is state capitalism working so well for Cuba and not for the USSR?
I honestly am not entirely sure how to answer this question. I am relatively new to Marxian analysis and I am admittedly fresh to the comrade ranks. I'm still learning, and so forgive me if my analysis isn't very astute. I don't believe Cuba's system is sustainable. The standard of living may be high--but let's face it. Crises within the capitalist system tend to move around geographically, as David Harvey wrote and said. Using this line of reasoning, it might be logical to suggest that since Cuba has very little trade connections in the capitalist market: it has not received a huge bubble that will inevitably burst due to the accumulation of wealth, and the eventual creation of a hierarchical system within their state capitalist society. The way I see it, when their trade markets open up, the lines will be drawn between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and the revolution will be inevitable.

Please feel free to criticize me, as I would like to know where the flaws, if any, are in my line of reasoning.

[Blake's Baby]

Thanks for all your replies. I have learnt a lot from them. From your replies, I can see that the majority here think there won't be a revolution in Cuba. Those who voted 'no' outnumbered those who vote 'yes' by a ratio of 3:1...

The question is meaningless, because I'm fairly certain that none of us, neither the people who believe that Cuba has been striving to acheive socialism, nor the people who believe that Cuba is another Stalinist state capitalist economy, think that revolution is 'inevitable'. The only true answer to the question is 'don't know'.

So I guess we were all trying to work out some combination of 'does the OP mean is a revolution likely or does he mean is a revolution desirable?' - because obviously they're massively different things.

That's even without the problem of 'does revolution mean CIA-backed coup against actually existing socialism, or workers' revolution against state capitalist dictatorship?' that JeVousAimeGuillotine refers to.

'Do you think Cuba is, or has been working towards, socialism?' would be a better question I think. Those that answer 'no' have to think that there should be a revolution; those that answer 'yes' have to think there shouldn't be a (counter-)revolution. Much less ambiguous data, I'd suggest.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

@ BugsBunny

Well i dont like to speculate so much about thi sort of things, i mean no one fo us really knows if a revolution will come. But i will tell you that people are really craving for a change, especially thoose who are to young to have wittnes the revolution, or even the time when the USSR still stod up (because then they got pretty much anything they wanted, and i even met a hardcore pro-west anti-socialist cuban who said that the time when The soviets helped them was wonderful) and dont really recognize the slogans and the propaganda, which still speaks like if the revolutionary ember is flamming. Its not. They see all this tourists comming with nice cell phones, cameras, brand clothes and wonderes why they cant live like that. The intrance of tourism has also brought in new street buisness, and imo this is the real glasnost/prestroika for Cuba.


Oh and as the little smart ass im. I just want to poitn out that its not just China, Cuba and NK that are the last onces to be ruled by, so called, communist parties. Also Vietnam, Laos and Seychelles are.

[bugsbunny]

Thanks Mike. I forgot about Vietnam and Laos. I did not know Seychelles has a Communist Party running the place.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Thanks Mike. I forgot about Vietnam and Laos. I did not know Seychelles has a Communist Party running the place.

Youre welcome. Yeah not to many know that. The reds took the power in the 70s and was a one party state until the 90s (i think) when, all of a sudden, the communists oppened up for multi-party parlamentarism. Kind of unusual.

[Zav]

Of course they will. People will always rebel against their government. The questions to be asked are when and why they will do so.

[bugsbunny]

When? I think the revolution will come when Castro kicks the bucket. It should be within the next two years. After Castro is gone, there could be a power struggle, weakening the regime. I am hoping it would be sooner so Castro can see the end of his revolution.

Why? Someone pointed out all those rich tourists coming into Cuba and the Cubans will be thinking, "Why can't we live like that?". Then there are those with relatives in Florida thinking, "Why can't we live like that?"

People are never satisfied and the grass is always greener over the other (capitalist) side of the fence. So people will be thinking, "Maybe capitalism is better."

[Caj]

When? I think the revolution will come when Castro kicks the bucket. It should be within the next two years. After Castro is gone, there could be a power struggle, weakening the regime. I am hoping it would be sooner so Castro can see the end of his revolution.

Why? Someone pointed out all those rich tourists coming into Cuba and the Cubans will be thinking, "Why can't we live like that?". Then there are those with relatives in Florida thinking, "Why can't we live like that?"

People are never satisfied and the grass is always greener over the other (capitalist) side of the fence. So people will be thinking, "Maybe capitalism is better."

You do realize that a far larger proportion of the Cuban population supports the regime than opposes it, right? State capitalism is far from a perfect system, -- something the Cuban population knows all too well -- but many Cubans still remember the glories of private capitalism in their country: monopoly, brutal right-wing dictatorship, low wages, terrible living standards, poor education, gross social and economic inequality, etc., etc. To suggest that the Cubans will rise up anytime soon is to express ignorance of how the Cuban people perceive the regime. Besides, as I said earlier, a revolution is becoming increasingly unecessary to re-establish private capitalism in Cuba; Raul is already making strides in that directon.

[bugsbunny]

You do realize that a far larger proportion of the Cuban population supports the regime than opposes it, right? State capitalism is far from a perfect system, -- something the Cuban population knows all too well -- but many Cubans still remember the glories of private capitalism in their country: monopoly, brutal right-wing dictatorship, low wages, terrible living standards, poor education, gross social and economic inequality, etc., etc. To suggest that the Cubans will rise up anytime soon is to express ignorance of how the Cuban people perceive the regime. Besides, as I said earlier, a revolution is becoming increasingly unecessary to re-establish private capitalism in Cuba; Raul is already making strides in that directon.

Nobody knows what % of the pop. still supports the Cuban regime. Your guess is as good as mine. My guess is that most want a change. The batista regime was about 50 years ago. Not many would remember it.

The Cubans only know that the tourists look rich and their relatives in the USA are richer than them. Why do you think so many Cubans risk their lives to get to the capitalist heaven in America? Do you see any Cuban-Americans risk their lives to flee to socialist heaven of Cuba?

That's why I said this thread is a test for everybody including myself. Let's see whose perception of reality is correct. We will know when Castro passes away. That won't be much longer - two years at the most.

[Rafiq]

Majority of Cubans support their state. That doesn't mean anything, though. Majority of Americans probably support their status quo as well.

[Rafiq]

Nobody knows what % of the pop. still supports the Cuban regime. Your guess is as good as mine. My guess is that most want a change. The batista regime was about 50 years ago. Not many would remember it.

The Cubans only know that the tourists look rich and their relatives in the USA are richer than them. Why do you think so many Cubans risk their lives to get to the capitalist heaven in America? Do you see any Cuban-Americans risk their lives to flee to socialist heaven of Cuba?

That's why I said this thread is a test for everybody including myself. Let's see whose perception of reality is correct. We will know when Castro passes away. That won't be much longer - two years at the most.

Cubans on average have harder lives getting off the boat to the U.S.

They probably would make money off min wage in the U.S. and go back to Cuba with it as kings, as products there are extremely cheap (you can get buy with 14 bucks a month) I believe a meal is no more than 5 cents

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Well (once again im just talking frome personal anecdotes) most ppl do not see a full embracement of capitalism, like the one in the U.S. as a solution. Evrybody seems to be skeptical about the lack of wellfare, the corporate elite and the organized crime. Many are worried that to quick adaptation to neoliberalism will put the countrie in the same position as the rest of Latin America and Carribean.

Yes many do build rafts in order to cross the sea to Florida, but that does not necessary mean that they fully reject one system and embrace the other with theire full heart. Its just that life in Cuba is ok, but still poor and kind of static. Not much of opportunities and change. I mean they cant even leave theire own country and theire internet access is very limited, so info frome the outside world is kind of poor, which tend to make some lies... plausible.


Edit: Oh and there are maaany people which oppenly and truelly supports Castro.


2 Million people on Labour day in Havana



FDmSzDtkZYw

[CommieTroll]

Oh, and fuck Raul. I forgot to add that in. I do not really need to get into details cuz I'm tired, but you all know what he is doing to Cuba. I just do not want Cuba to be the next China, or even worst, an economic slave of the US.

You are aware that Raul was a Marxist before the 26th of July Movement formed, unlike Fidel. The Capitalistic reforms are a move of desperation and nothing more

[Ravachol]

It is sensible to use heavily regulated market socialism to develop productive forces and to adapt to the global capitalist system.

This is always the excuse, 'develop the productive forces', blablabla. If you honestly believe private property and the market are better suited at 'developing the productive forces' (whatever that may mean) than 'socialism' let alone Communism (though I don't think Cuba falls under either category), then I think calling yourself a liberal would be a good start...

[bugsbunny]

Thanks Mike for your comments. Castro does has some support. But so did Saddam just before he was toppled:


(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqKTMIgE4Hc)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqKTMIgE4Hc
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqKTMIgE4Hc)

You can't tell because its repressive regime. Nobody dares to criticize such regimes. If they did they would have gone to jail or worse. Its the same as in Cuba. Now look what happened after Saddam fell:


(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkr22f_MTOM)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkr22f_MTOM
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkr22f_MTOM)

Joy amongst the Iraqis.

How do you do the youtube stuff?

[Rafiq]

bugsbunny, you realize that the celebration of the statue falling was staged by the Americans and no more than like 100 people were present, right?

[Valdemar]

I hope NOt. It would be another victory of Imperialism over working people.
Yes, I like many leftist believe that Cuba is Socialist country.

@BugsBuny Yes, what Rafiq said, do you realize that was staged by Americans, i even watched somewhere, how it was organized. And it was organized by Psy Specialist to make huge impact on World, so world can see USA as liberators...It seems the trick worked on you. No offense..

[Imposter Marxist]

i cant wait for the proletariat who is enslaved to the state capitalist tyrant fidel castro to rise up and overthrow their capitalist rulers. then the rest of the world can have its revolution and we won't have to have state capitalism

[Caj]

Majority of Cubans support their state. That doesn't mean anything, though. Majority of Americans probably support their status quo as well.

Yes, that's why we can be sure that there won't be a revolution in the US any time soon. Same applies to Cuba.

[bugsbunny]

I hope NOt. It would be another victory of Imperialism over working people.
Yes, I like many leftist believe that Cuba is Socialist country.

@BugsBuny Yes, what Rafiq said, do you realize that was staged by Americans, i even watched somewhere, how it was organized. And it was organized by Psy Specialist to make huge impact on World, so world can see USA as liberators...It seems the trick worked on you. No offense..

No, I did not know to be honest.

But I do think that the Iraqis are happy with his departure.

A poll in 2009 revealed that Iraqis (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/iraqis_happier_more_optimistic/) were happier and more optimistic about the future.

[Rafiq]

No, I did not know to be honest.

But I do think that the Iraqis are happy with his departure.

Iraqis obviously aren't fond of his reign, though many admit life was much better than now.

[bugsbunny]

Iraqis obviously aren't fond of his reign, though many admit life was much better than now.

But according to the link I gave above, most Iraqis in 2009 said they are happier and more optimistic about the future.

[Blake's Baby]

Iraq was subject to UN sanctions backed by British, French and American bombers and navies from 1991-2003. Nearly 3/4 million people died. This affected the entire population negatively.

Now the country is trying to get back to 'normal' and the worst that happens is car-bombs kill 50 people in markets. This only affects part of the population negatively.

Now they're happier.

Funny, isn't it, that more people are happier when bad things are less likely to happen to them, than when bad things are more likely to happen to them? The bad things don't even have to be the same, or for the same reason.

However, having said that, I'd agree that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein wasn't all that popular (though it may be argued that he was popular, but people did a calculation and realised he had to be sacrificed to make their lives better).

The evidence I'd pooint to is the reluctance of the army and the population in general to mount any serious resistance to the Coalition in 2003. I'm glad the Iraqi military and people didn't fight and die and kill for a brutal and corrupt regime, I just wish the American and British military hadn't been so keen to fight and die and kill for brutal and corrupt regimes either.

[bugsbunny]

I'm glad the Iraqi military and people didn't fight and die and kill for a brutal and corrupt regime, I just wish the American and British military hadn't been so keen to fight and die and kill for brutal and corrupt regimes either.

I think the Americans and British, whatever their motives, ended up liberating the Iraq people and they are now better off.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the Iraqi people 'liberated' themselves (as much as there has been any liberation) by not fighting and dying for Saddam Hussein.

It is not logical to assume that people can be bombed into either freedom or happiness.

Otherwise watch out if your friends come to to 'cheer you up' for any reason.

[brigadista]

iraqis are much worse off ...
dont believe the news

http://johnpilger.com/articles/why-are-wars-not-being-reported-honestly

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Hmm... i think we have gone a little bit oftopic now. Anyway, Bugsbunny i dont think its to fair to compare Cuba with Iraq during Saddams rule. Although I see that youre intention, with the comparing, was to show that public supports doesnt always mean anything, which is true.

About Iraq, the swedish town of Södertälje has, since the start of the last Gulf war, taken more iraqi refugees then the whole of U.S. and Canada. With that said i have met many iraqis who have commed both pre and post the U.S. intervention, and frome what ppl have told me i cant see that they really haven been liberated now compared to before.
I see it more that they now suffer frome a other form of opression, an invisible one of structure less and chaos, rather then the more obvous of a dictator with a mustache.

[Rafiq]

I think the Americans and British, whatever their motives, ended up liberating the Iraq people and they are now better off.

Met many Iraqis, have we?

Some Shia Iraqis, the (next to kurds) biggest victims of saddams rule, tell me they were better off back then

[CommunityBeliever]

Quote soviet constitutions all you want, it doesn't change the fact that workers' control, the essence of socialism, was liquidated in the spring of 1918.


All that needs to be shown to demonstrate that Cuba is not socialist, but state capitalist, is that the means of production is controlled by, not the workers, but a ruling elite that exploits the former through classic capitalist surplus value extraction. That this situation exists in Cuba is a well known fact.

You continually state that the state capitalist nature of Cuba and the early USSR is a "well known fact" with no evidence to support that claim. Clearly these things are not well known facts, otherwise there would be essentially no Marxist-Leninists. I can do the same thing as you, I can assert that no matter how much you claim that Cuban and Soviet socialism is not "true socialism" that doesn't change the fact that it is. However, I am open to any evidence that refutes the constitutions of these countries and the statistics, reports, and accounts that I have provided so far.


Are you incapable of understanding that constitutions don't always give an accurate description of material reality?

I am capable of understanding that constitutions don't always effect material reality and I am open to any evidence you may provide which establishes that and which refutes the statistics, accounts, reports, and other evidence I have already provided.


"Capitalist methods" were introduced in 1965? What are "capitalist methods"? If they include such things as surplus value extraction, wage labor, control of the means of production by a ruling elite, extreme division of labor, strikebreaking, etc., etc., then Russia had adopted "capitalist methods" with the liquidation of the soviets and the implementation of "war communism" around the spring or summer of 1918.

The roots of Soviet revisionism were put forth during WW2 when the USSR needed to massively militarise itself in order to defend against Nazi Germany and afterwards the American empire, which hired former Nazis such as Reinhard Gehlen to continue their anti-Soviet practices where the Nazis left off. Unfortunately, well Joseph Stalin wanted to continue along the revolutionary road, much of the CPSU wanted to compete with the American imperialists economically and militarily using capitalist means.

Three years after comrade Stalin's death, during the year 1956, this revisionist faction of the CPSU won out in the Soviet power struggle. At this point, the revisionists replaced the proletarian cadres of the CC of the CPSU with administrators, managers, and bureaucrats. The revisionists established a new ruling class in the USSR. However, it was only in 1965 with the Kosygin reforms that state capitalism was officially solidified in the USSR.

Before the counter-revolution, production in the USSR was directed towards social need, but with the Kosygin reforms profit officially replaced social need as the main criterion for economic production. As a result of the new orientation for profiteering, in a few years there were millions of multi-millionaires in the USSR, just as there are several billionaires in 'communist' China today.


Cuba's education system is socialist because there are Cuban teachers abroad? Yeah, whatever. :rolleyes:

The fact that Cuba has teachers, doctors, and other professionals assisting proletarians abroad demonstrates the international nature of Cuban socialism. Proletarian internationalism is an age old communist practice described by Marx and Engels in the communist manifesto: "The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."


Wtf?! :confused: You were the one going on and on about how great Cuba is with its high literacy rates, free healthcare, education, housing, etc., etc.

Cuba is a testament to the achievements of proletarian internationalism which is demonstrated by evidence from the Cuban constitution, statistics, eye witness accounts, documentaries, reports, and a variety of other sources. The Cuban health care system, which is thoroughly socialist and international in nature is an excellent example for the rest of the world to emulate, so the praise which I have hitherto provided it is well deserved. The things that the Cuban proletariat has managed to achieve in spite of American imperialism are truly glorious, however, as a result of imperialism Cuba is still far from a workers paradise.


I think the Americans and British, whatever their motives, ended up liberating the Iraq people and they are now better off. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was launched by the American empire in order to conquer Iraq's oil resources for Western purposes. It had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people.

[Caj]

Clearly these things are not well known facts, otherwise there would be essentially no Marxist-Leninists.

No, it's just that Marxist-Leninists don't know what socialism is. Ironic that they so often denounce every other tendency as "revisionist" when their very conception of socialism is a distortion of what socialism actually means.


I am open to any evidence that refutes the constitutions of these countries and the statistics, reports, and accounts that I have provided so far.

You have provided no evidence that workers' control ever existed in Cuba or in Russia after the first half of 1918.

You can keep going on about how great Cuba's healthcare, education system, and social programs are, but that doesn't mean anything apart from that Cuba is a functioning welfare state.


I am capable of understanding that constitutions don't always effect material reality and I am open to any evidence you may provide which establishes that and which refutes the statistics, accounts, reports, and other evidence I have already provided.

Once again, you have yet to provide any evidence that workers' control has ever existed in Cuba or in Russia after the first half of 1918.


The revisionists established a new ruling class in the USSR. However, it was only in 1965 with the Kosygin reforms that state capitalism was officially solidified in the USSR.

A ruling class, if one is a Marxist, has two defining characteristics. Firsty, the ruling class holds, either directly or indirectly, state power, and secondly, the ruling class has a different relation to society's means of production than the majority of the population. The Russian bureaucracy held both of these characteristics far before 1956. Probably around June 1918 with the implementation of war communism was when the Bolshevik bureaucracy took on these two characteristics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism -- Look at the policies section.) War communism was replaced with the NEP in 1921. The NEP, too, had a lack of workers' control. As I said earlier, Lenin himself referred to it as "state capitalism." In 1928, the NEP was replaced with the first of Stalin's Five Year Plans. Must I go on?


The fact that Cuba has teachers, doctors, and other professionals assisting proletarians abroad demonstrates the international nature of Cuban socialism. Proletarian internationalism is an age old communist practice described by Marx and Engels in the communist manifesto: "The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

Now you're just presupposing that socialism exists in Cuba. You are affirming the consequent:

A socialist society would be characterized by internationalism.
Cuba is internationalist.
Therefore, Cuba is socialist.

This is fallacious reasoning.


Cuba is a testament to the achievements of proletarian internationalism which is demonstrated by evidence from the Cuban constitution, statistics, eye witness accounts, documentaries, reports, and a variety of other sources.

Provide me with one piece of evidence that workers' control currently exists or has ever existed in Cuba.


The Cuban health care system, which is thoroughly socialist and international in nature is an excellent example for the rest of the world to emulate, so the praise which I have hitherto provided it is well deserved.

Is the Cuban healthcare system managed democratically by the workers? No. It's managed from the top-down by the bureaucracy. That's not socialism.


The things that the Cuban proletariat has managed to achieve in spite of American imperialism are truly glorious, however, as a result of imperialism Cuba is still far from a workers paradise.

So wait, are you admitting that Cuba isn't socialist now? :confused:

[GoddessCleoLover]

Socialism is a process and Generalissimo Raul is reversing that process in his bid to follow the "Chinese model". The Chinese model leads to the economic reintegration of the country in question back into the international capitalist system. Beginning in the 90s Cubans once again began to rent their bodies to foreign tourists, and I expect that if Raul's reforms are fully implemented cheap Cuban labor will be exploited in factories as well as hotel rooms.

[Caj]

Socialism is a process and Generalissimo Raul is reversing that process

There never was a process of socialism in Cuba. Raul's reforms aren't "reversing" socialism, but simply spearheading the transition from state to private capitalism.

[bugsbunny]

Hmm... i think we have gone a little bit oftopic now. Anyway, Bugsbunny i dont think its to fair to compare Cuba with Iraq during Saddams rule. Although I see that youre intention, with the comparing, was to show that public supports doesnt always mean anything, which is true.

About Iraq, the swedish town of Södertälje has, since the start of the last Gulf war, taken more iraqi refugees then the whole of U.S. and Canada. With that said i have met many iraqis who have commed both pre and post the U.S. intervention, and frome what ppl have told me i cant see that they really haven been liberated now compared to before.
I see it more that they now suffer frome a other form of opression, an invisible one of structure less and chaos, rather then the more obvous of a dictator with a mustache.

Well, at least now they get a chance to vote and choose their leaders.

[Rafiq]

Well, at least now they get a chance to vote and choose their leaders.

As long as they choose the RIGHT leaders :rolleyes:

[bugsbunny]

You continually state that the state capitalist nature of Cuba and the early USSR is a "well known fact" with no evidence to support that claim. Clearly these things are not well known facts, otherwise there would be essentially no Marxist-Leninists. I can do the same thing as you, I can assert that no matter how much you claim that Cuban and Soviet socialism is not "true socialism" that doesn't change the fact that it is. However, I am open to any evidence that refutes the constitutions of these countries and the statistics, reports, and accounts that I have provided so far.



We are always back at this. Is Cuba (or the USSR or Maoist China or whatever) a true Socialist state? Purists with an impossibly high standard will say "no". The more realistically minded here will say "yes". How about a compromise?

Let's say that Cuba is a good attempt at achieving Socialism.

Its the same for capitalism. There is no purely capitalist or socialist state - never has been and never will be. All are hybrids. Its a question of how far left or right you go.

[bugsbunny]

As long as they choose the RIGHT leaders :rolleyes:

That's true. Often the people will choose bad leaders.

[Bostana]

We are always back at this. Is Cuba (or the USSR or Maoist China or whatever) a true Socialist state? Purists with an impossibly high standard will say "no". The more realistically minded here will say "yes". How about a compromise?

Let's say that Cuba is a good attempt at achieving Socialism.

Its the same for capitalism. There is no purely capitalist or socialist state - never has been and never will be. All are hybrids. Its a question of how far left or right you go.

No, there was a pure Capitalist State it was called the Roman Empire. Rome practiced the free enterprise system which caused it to rise in power, move up, expand their borders.

But there was one problem. Money corrupts. It corrupted Rome and it Corrupted the USA.

Slowly, steadily, like Rome, the U.S. will fall. Maybe in it's debt, maybe in it's own Imperialism, who knows? But I assure you this like the Great Roman Empire, the U.S. will fall because of the free enterprise system.

[Ostrinski]

No there was a pure Capitalist State it was called the Roman Empire. Rome practiced the free enterprise system which caused it to rise in power, move up, expand their borders.The Roman Empire predated capitalist development by many many centuries.

[Rafiq]

Indeed. Capitalism does not equal markets

[bugsbunny]

Here is an alternative view (http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm)of Cuba:



One of the greatest fallacies about the so called 'Cuban Revolution' has to do with healthcare.
Foreigners who visit Cuba, are fed the official line from Castro's propaganda machine: "All Cubans are now able to receive excellent healthcare, which is also free." But the truth is very different. Castro has built excellent health facilities for the use of foreigners, who pay with hard currency for those services.
Argentinean soccer star Maradona, for example, has traveled several times to Cuba to receive treatment to combat his drug addiction. But Cubans are not even allowed to visit those facilities. Cubans who require medical attention must go to other hospitals, that lack the most minimum requirements needed to take care of their patients.
In addition, most of these facilities are filthy and patients have to bring their own towels, bed sheets, pillows, or they would have to lay down on dirty bare mattresses stained with blood and other body fluids.


I know you guys believe that Cuba's health care is amongst the best in the world. So you won't believe this website. That's why I started this thread.

If the things you believe are true, there won't be a revolution. If they are all false, there will be one after Castro kicks the bucket. Its like two aliens arguing on where the sun will rise tomorrow on planet earth.

One points to the East and one to the West. Only one can be correct. They will know when the sun rises.

[Caj]

We are always back at this. Is Cuba (or the USSR or Maoist China or whatever) a true Socialist state? Purists with an impossibly high standard will say "no". The more realistically minded here will say "yes".

Those who understand what the term socialism means will say "no." Those who have been susceptible to bourgeois propaganda will say "yes."


How about a compromise?

There is no such thing as a compromise in this context. Either the workers control the means of production, or they don't. They can't "kinda" control the means of production. It's either yes or no. In Cuba, the workers do not control the means of production, and Cuba is, therefore, not socialist. This is the authentic Marxist position.


Let's say that Cuba is a good attempt at achieving Socialism.

Let's say it's a good attempt at Marxist-Leninist state capitalism.


Its the same for capitalism. There is no purely capitalist or socialist state - never has been and never will be. All are hybrids. Its a question of how far left or right you go.

Once again, socialism isn't something that exists in degrees. There are no "hybrids." Either the workers control the means of production, or they don't.

[bugsbunny]

No, there was a pure Capitalist State it was called the Roman Empire. Rome practiced the free enterprise system which caused it to rise in power, move up, expand their borders.

But there was one problem. Money corrupts. It corrupted Rome and it Corrupted the USA.

Slowly, steadily, like Rome, the U.S. will fall. Maybe in it's debt, maybe in it's own Imperialism, who knows? But I assure you this like the Great Roman Empire, the U.S. will fall because of the free enterprise system.

Actually, Rome had a welfare state that predated Bismarck's welfare state by thousands of years. Have you not heard of the phrase, "bread and circuses"?

That's what Roman leaders gave the people to stop them from rioting.

My own view is that Socialism will collapse because of its internal contradictions. If I am right, the Cuban regime will collapse. Their only hope is for Raul to do a Deng ie become more capitalist. If you can't beat them, join them. Otherwise, they will go the way of Honecker, Jaruzelski, Gorbachev and Caesescu.

[Bostana]

Actually, Rome had a welfare state that predated Bismarck's welfare state by thousands of years. Have you not heard of the phrase, "bread and circuses"?

That's what Roman leaders gave the people to stop them from rioting.

My own view is that Socialism will collapse because of its internal contradictions.

Yah I heard the term screw the people over but distract them by making them happy.

Then you need a better view of Socialism

[bugsbunny]

Those who understand what the term socialism means will say "no." Those who have been susceptible to bourgeois propaganda will say "yes."



There is no such thing as a compromise in this context. Either the workers control the means of production, or they don't. They can't "kinda" control the means of production. It's either yes or no. In Cuba, the workers do not control the means of production, and Cuba is, therefore, not socialist. This is the authentic Marxist position.



Let's say it's a good attempt at Marxist-Leninist state capitalism.



Once again, socialism isn't something that exists in degrees. There are no "hybrids." Either the workers control the means of production, or they don't.

You are one of those purists. By your defination, no Socialist state has ever existed. Nor will there ever be one.

[bugsbunny]

Yah I heard the term screw the people over but distract them by making them happy.

Then you need a better view of Socialism

Yep. There is nothing new under the sun. The Romans thought about it long before Bismarck and kept them from revolting.

My view on Socialism is based on empirical observation. I saw revolutions in Eastern Europe and wonder if they same will happen to Cuba. I think its likely.

[Caj]

You are one of those purists. By your defination, no Socialist state has ever existed. Nor will there ever be one.

Workers' control has existed many times throughout history. I don't see what your basis is for saying a legitimate socialist state will never exist again.


My own view is that Socialism will collapse because of its internal contradictions. If I am right, the Cuban regime will collapse.

The Cuban regime will eventually collapse because of the internal contradictions of capitalism, not socialism.

[bugsbunny]

Workers' control has existed many times throughout history. I don't see what your basis is for saying a legitimate socialist state will never exist again.



The Cuban regime will eventually collapse because of the internal contradictions of capitalism, not socialism.

But Cuba is not capitalist.

There will likely be a capitalist revolution to undo the work of Castro. The revolution can either come from the bottom or from the top - Raul doing a Deng.

[Caj]

But Cuba is not capitalist.

God damn it. For the love of Marx, must I keep repeating myself? :glare:

Hell, I can see how some might have objected to referring to Cuba as capitalist ten years ago (as some believe private property is an inseperable aspect of capitalism), but there's even private property rights in Cuba now (courtesy of Raul). Nobody should be claiming that Cuba isn't capitalist today.


There will likely be a capitalist revolution to undo the work of Castro. The revolution can either come from the bottom or from the top - Raul doing a Deng.

To bring about private capitalism, the latter seems more likely, although I wouldn't refer to that scenario as a "revolution."

[Blake's Baby]

You are one of those purists. By your defination, no Socialist state has ever existed...

That's right, because socialism is a worldwide classless communal society. Show us where and when one of those existed ever, and we're likely to change our opinions.

One cannot assume that the actions of a party called 'Socialist' or 'Communist' constute what 'socialism' or 'communism' are, or the word 'Democratic' means, for instance, 'whatever Barak Obama does' and conversely, the Republicans in America would be out burning churches and hanging out with Anarcho-Syndicalists, like the Republicans in Spain in the 1930s, because 'Republicanism' means 'hanging out with Anarcho-Syndicalists and burning churches'.

The fact that you don't know what the term 'socialism' means is your problem not ours.



...
Nor will there ever be one.

You're right there will never be a 'socialist state' because there can only be a 'socialist world' after all the states (competing territorial units) have disappeared. So the idea of a 'socialist state' is oxymoronic. That doesn't mean we're purists, it means we know what socialism is, and some other people don't.

By the same token, people who can speak Japanese aren't 'purists', as opposed to people who shout 'ning nong ning' while pulling their eyes to make them squinty. These are are not two equally valid views of how to speak Japanese. One is Japanese, one isn't Japanese. There's no question of one being 'purist' Japanese and one being 'pragmatic' Japanese.

[RGacky3]

There will likely be a capitalist revolution to undo the work of Castro. The revolution can either come from the bottom or from the top - Raul doing a Deng.


There never has and never will be a capitalist revolution, there have been democratic revolutions that have led to capitalism, but never a revolution FOR capitalism.

[bugsbunny]

God damn it. For the love of Marx, must I keep repeating myself? :glare:

Hell, I can see how some might have objected to referring to Cuba as capitalist ten years ago (as some believe private property is an inseperable aspect of capitalism), but there's even private property rights in Cuba now (courtesy of Raul). Nobody should be claiming that Cuba isn't capitalist today.




Its still not good enough to call Cuba capitalist. The truth is that all countries are hybrids - partly capitalist and partly socialist. I think Cuba is still mostly Socialist.

[bugsbunny]

That's right, because socialism is a worldwide classless communal society. Show us where and when one of those existed ever, and we're likely to change our opinions.

One cannot assume that the actions of a party called 'Socialist' or 'Communist' constute what 'socialism' or 'communism' are, or the word 'Democratic' means, for instance, 'whatever Barak Obama does' and conversely, the Republicans in America would be out burning churches and hanging out with Anarcho-Syndicalists, like the Republicans in Spain in the 1930s, because 'Republicanism' means 'hanging out with Anarcho-Syndicalists and burning churches'.

The fact that you don't know what the term 'socialism' means is your problem not ours.



You're right there will never be a 'socialist state' because there can only be a 'socialist world' after all the states (competing territorial units) have disappeared. So the idea of a 'socialist state' is oxymoronic. That doesn't mean we're purists, it means we know what socialism is, and some other people don't.



Well, you have another defination for true Socialism. It must be international. There are so many different definations of Socialism here in this thread. Some here say that Cuba is Socialist. Others not because it does not have worker control. Someone here even argue that Cuba is capitalist because it recently allowed private property. Now you say true Socialism must be international after all nation states are abolished.

Seems to me that leftists cannot agree amongst themselves. Everyone thinks that their defination of Socialism is the correct one.

I think my position is the most correct one. No country is fully capitalist or socialist. All are hybrids. Its all a matter of whether you are more to the left or to the right. Those who are more to the left can, for conveniece, call themselvse Socialist. Those who are more to the right can for convenience be regarded as capitalist.

[bugsbunny]

There never has and never will be a capitalist revolution, there have been democratic revolutions that have led to capitalism, but never a revolution FOR capitalism.

The revolutions in East Europe restored democracy and capitalism. People were fed up with Socialism. There is nothing stopping a democracy from practicing Socialism. But the people in places like Poland chose free market capitalism.

Greece is pretty much Socialist in my book. Yes, I know they have private property and they don't have what you call worker control and democratic economy. But they do have heavy government intervention to create a more equal society. So I consider it Socialist.

[RGacky3]

The revolutions in East Europe restored democracy and capitalism. People were fed up with Socialism. There is nothing stopping a democracy from practicing Socialism. But the people in places like Poland chose free market capitalism.


No they did'nt, look at what they were fighting for, free unions, more demoracy and so on.

No where were they calling for privitizations, capitalization and so on.

When the State fell, capitalism came and filled the void, many times through mafia style tactics.


Greece is pretty much Socialist in my book. Yes, I know they have private property and they don't have what you call worker control and democratic economy. But they do have heavy government intervention to create a more equal society. So I consider it Socialist.

They actually don't, most of the industry is private, taxes are almost non existant, the financial system was significantly de-regulated.

btw, if government intervention is what is considered socialist, then the US is one of the most socialist countires around (military-industrial complex).

[bugsbunny]

Well, as I said, all countries are hybrids. The US also has Socialist elements - social security, unemployment benefits.

Military industrial complex? No. The US armaments industry is in private hands.

[RGacky3]

Military industrial complex? No. The US armaments industry is in private hands.

And compleately dependant on government money.

BTW, in greece, most of the industry is still in private hands, infact most compared to other european countries.

[bugsbunny]

No they did'nt, look at what they were fighting for, free unions, more demoracy and so on.

No where were they calling for privitizations, capitalization and so on.

When the State fell, capitalism came and filled the void, many times through mafia style tactics.).

They could have voted for Socialist parties that promise to nationalize industries or rather to keep them nationalized.

Clement Atlee of the British Labor party nationalized all major industries after WW II. He was democratically elected. Its up to the people. I read somewhere that Poland, Czech republic and others have very free market economies.

[RGacky3]

They could have voted for Socialist parties that promise to nationalize industries or rather to keep them nationalized.


Not really, considering the entire state aparatus was tore down, and that you essencially had all of them sold off mafia style.


Clement Atlee of the British Labor party nationalized all major industries after WW II. He was democratically elected.

That was a very very unique case, post WW2 you essnecially had a decimated europe, no strong bourgeois and a ruling class that was desperately afraid of the left. Which is a big reason why social-democracy had a chance to grow in europe.

"free market" economies is so subjective its almost meaningless.

[bugsbunny]

I suggest you read this book

The capitalist revolution in Latin America (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/pages/books/the-capitalist-revolution-in-latin-america/)

It talks about the economic reforms taking place to make the Latin Am more capitalist. Its a matter of time before it comes to Cuba.

[bugsbunny]

"free market" economies is so subjective its almost meaningless.

That's what I have been trying to say. In practice all economies are hybrids. Its more to the left or to the right.

No such thing as completely free market economies or socialist economies.

[RGacky3]

I suggest you read this book

The capitalist revolution in Latin America (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/pages/books/the-capitalist-revolution-in-latin-america/)

It talks about the economic reforms taking place to make the Latin Am more capitalist. Its a matter of time before it comes to Cuba.

Latin America is a really complicated issue, but over the last 10 or so years many of the places ahve been going left.

But for most of history, latin America needed American bombs and death squads to keep it under capitalist control.

BTW, I agree about Cuba, I think its gonna go the way of China, (not nearly free market thought).


That's what I have been trying to say. In practice all economies are hybrids. Its more to the left or to the right.

No such thing as completely free market economies or socialist economies.

Thats only if you define socialist as "government intervention" which is a definition no socialist uses.

[Rafiq]

There never has and never will be a capitalist revolution, there have been democratic revolutions that have led to capitalism, but never a revolution FOR capitalism.

:laugh:

[RGacky3]

Am I wrong?

Or was there a revolution that was specifically FOR capitalism?

[Caj]

There are so many different definations of Socialism here in this thread. Some here say that Cuba is Socialist. Others not because it does not have worker control. Someone here even argue that Cuba is capitalist because it recently allowed private property. Now you say true Socialism must be international after all nation states are abolished.

Seems to me that leftists cannot agree amongst themselves. Everyone thinks that their defination of Socialism is the correct one.

It's not that there is a major disagreement regarding the definition of socialism among revolutionary leftists; rather it's that Marxist-Leninists have adopted bourgeois definitions devoid of materialist analysis.


I think my position is the most correct one. No country is fully capitalist or socialist. All are hybrids. Its all a matter of whether you are more to the left or to the right. Those who are more to the left can, for conveniece, call themselvse Socialist. Those who are more to the right can for convenience be regarded as capitalist.

The left-right spectrum is subjective and meaningless if there is no objective way to differentiate between the two. Instead of arbitrarily determinng how much government control constitutes "socialism," we should understand left and right objectively, i.e., from the perspective of class relations to the means of production. From that perspective, there is no ambiguity on the meanings of left and right; the left supports control of the means of production by the workers, while the right by the capitalists.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Here is an alternative view (http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm)of Cuba:



I know you guys believe that Cuba's health care is amongst the best in the world. So you won't believe this website. That's why I started this thread.

If the things you believe are true, there won't be a revolution. If they are all false, there will be one after Castro kicks the bucket. Its like two aliens arguing on where the sun will rise tomorrow on planet earth.

One points to the East and one to the West. Only one can be correct. They will know when the sun rises.


Well its not so much of a naive belive, but more of a conclusion based on empiric evidence. Its true that i (and i belive most people here) wont belive whats written on that site, but not because of some princip that its talking against what i 'belive' but of pure critizism. Thta page seems to be from one of the HC anti Cuba organisations that does exist and spreads propaganda of all kinds (i once came across things such as, that Castro is a pedophile and that the 26 de julio-movement survived its guerilla war, in Sierra Maestra, by eating villagers kids. I mean seriously?).

Im dont know what happened to the people in thoose photos. Its terrible. But i can say two things. First, they do not repressent the cuban health care as a whole. Second, thees phohots where hand picked for this purpose, which requieres high level of suspicousy. All people i met in Cuba where very proud of two things and that was theire education system and theire helath care. Even the most complaining and regime-hating people had just good things to say about the health care. But its true that there are clinics that are just for foreigners, actually all of society is divided in whats for turists and whats for cubans. Where the things for turists has a higher standard, but thats how it is in most parts where turism is a strong income bringer (not trying to defend it, just saying). But ofcourse, also the healthcare is struggling with the shortage of resources that the embargo brings.

So, if anyone wants to learn more about the cuban healthcare i recomend more neutral sources such as the WHO. And also, if you look at the HIV/AIDS statisitcs of the carribean and compare them, Cuba is in the bottom thanks to its program to combat it.


http://www.who.int/countries/cub/en/

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/5/08-030508/en/index.html

[Seth]

therealcuba is a shoddy propaganda site. Half of their photos are probably from some other country.

Cuba isn't Soviet Estonia. The government has a nationalistic legitimacy that the Warsaw Pact countries couldn't. Plus, everyone expects reform, and greater investment from China, Brazil, and others, and an eventual lifting of the embargo for whatever reasons.

[Partizanac]

First of all Bugsbunny and I hope that you answer.
Why aren't you at the protests and baricades (I know you aren't!) demonstrating against the Cuban embargo which every nation from monarchy to liberal democracy to socialist state has voted against except for USA, Israel and various puppet-micro-nations of the US like Fiji.

Why is it an acceptable strategy to starve a country from technology, medicine and trade and then blame the government of that country for not being able to provide these goods? This is truly wickedness. I would support a brutal military invasion over this hypocritical endless embargo. It is disgusting and it is designed to twist the minds of the Cubans which it thankfully hasn't.

Now those pictures are horrible. Especially the ones with the tied up starving people in the mental hospital. But let's remember that this is a poor country where corruption is more reasonable to exist. Even to this point. I'll email the Cuban embassy in my country and ask about this and see if they can answer.
Probably not but it's worth a shot.


Now the sad thing is that in an industrialized country like the US things like this still happen. Because of either the lack of regulation, privatization or various so called freedoms. The Church of scientology is allowed to operate its own hospitals. There has been several instances where people have been starved to death in these places. They are also allowed to operate gulags in which the public has no say as per comparison to the Soviet Union where it at least had some say.

In the United States there exists correctional facilities and "care" facilities owned by private interest that force children to wear huge 20 kg backpacks strapped to their backs when ever they aren't sleeping. These backpacks carry large batteries with electrical nodes strapped to their bodies.
They are routinely chocked for the smallest of disobedience or even independent thought. Parents are allowed to send their children to these torture-centers because the United States guarantees the freedoms of the parent over the duties of the state and rights of the child.

America has during its time performed countless of mind-washing experiments and continued with lobotomy all the way up to the 60's. Unsuspecting individuals with little or no family were usually the ones taken as guinea pigs for the CIA brain-washing MKULTRA experiments. While lobotomy was performed on various patients.

In the United States patients are routinely denied care, people choose between keeping their upper thumb or index finger and sometimes people are dumped on the streets using covert ambulances when they can't pay up.
In Cuba at least everyone get some form of treatment or at least the doctor can give you some advice. In the US this is not always the case.

Certainly if you had your fingers shopped up in Cuba an attempt would be made, how ever crude, to stitch them on. This may not be the case in your lovely nation.


Perhaps something to contemplate?


I thought I'd present some links. It's always more vivid then:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2007/08/school-shock
http://phcrunch.wordpress.com/2007/06/08/sicko-primer-3-patient-dumping/ (Seems that they are at least trying to regulate it?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
http://www.google.se/search?client=opera&rls=sv&q=Scientology+Gulag&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txnw6Jdu1hI - Person has to pick which finger to keep.

[bugsbunny]

So, if anyone wants to learn more about the cuban healthcare i recomend more neutral sources such as the WHO. And also, if you look at the HIV/AIDS statisitcs of the carribean and compare them, Cuba is in the bottom thanks to its program to combat it.


http://www.who.int/countries/cub/en/

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/5/08-030508/en/index.html


According to WHO, Cuba has the 33rd lowest infant mortality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate)rate in the world which is not bad.

And the life expectancy in Cuba is 36th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy)which is also not bad.

[Bostana]

Yep. There is nothing new under the sun. The Romans thought about it long before Bismarck and kept them from revolting.

My view on Socialism is based on empirical observation. I saw revolutions in Eastern Europe and wonder if they same will happen to Cuba. I think its likely.

Revolutions against an Imperialistic Government.

[bugsbunny]

First of all Bugsbunny and I hope that you answer.
Why aren't you at the protests and baricades (I know you aren't!) demonstrating against the Cuban embargo which every nation from monarchy to liberal democracy to socialist state has voted against except for USA, Israel and various puppet-micro-nations of the US like Fiji.

I think its time to end the embargo. It no longer serves any purpose. The embargo was started by Kennedy because it wanted to topple Castro for fear he would spread Communism in South America.

But unfortunately, the Cuban Americans want the embargo to remain and Florida is a swing state. End the embargo and you lose the swing state in this year's Presidential elections.



Why is it an acceptable strategy to starve a country from technology, medicine and trade and then blame the government of that country for not being able to provide these goods? This is truly wickedness. I would support a brutal military invasion over this hypocritical endless embargo. It is disgusting and it is designed to twist the minds of the Cubans which it thankfully hasn't.


The embargo is only by the US. All other countries can trade with Cuba.
Also the embargo exempts medicine and food (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/cuba-embargo-50_n_1260639.html). US is Cuba 7th largest trade partner. Foreign companies who trade with Cuba also gets embargoed. However, in practice this is hard to enforce.

Excerpt:


According to the most recent information available from Cuba's National Statistics Office, the U.S. was the island's seventh-largest trading partner in 2010, selling $410 million in mostly food products. However, that was down from nearly $1 billion in 2008, as the island increasingly turned to other countries that don't force it to pay cash up front.

I don't think the embargo does a lot of damage. Its Cuba's socialist economy that is the cause of their shortages. Have you not heard of shortages in the USSR and people have to queue up for long time? So why would you expect Socialist Cuba to be any different?






Now those pictures are horrible. Especially the ones with the tied up starving people in the mental hospital. But let's remember that this is a poor country where corruption is more reasonable to exist. Even to this point. I'll email the Cuban embassy in my country and ask about this and see if they can answer.
Probably not but it's worth a shot.


Well, I think the website was started by an anti-Castro Cuban American who posted the worst pictures he could find. Going by WHO reports, Cuban expectancy and infant mortality rates are not bad - 36th and 33rd places respectively.



Now the sad thing is that in an industrialized country like the US things like this still happen. Because of either the lack of regulation, privatization or various so called freedoms. The Church of scientology is allowed to operate its own hospitals. There has been several instances where people have been starved to death in these places. They are also allowed to operate gulags in which the public has no say as per comparison to the Soviet Union where it at least had some say.

In the United States there exists correctional facilities and "care" facilities owned by private interest that force children to wear huge 20 kg backpacks strapped to their backs when ever they aren't sleeping. These backpacks carry large batteries with electrical nodes strapped to their bodies.
They are routinely chocked for the smallest of disobedience or even independent thought. Parents are allowed to send their children to these torture-centers because the United States guarantees the freedoms of the parent over the duties of the state and rights of the child.

America has during its time performed countless of mind-washing experiments and continued with lobotomy all the way up to the 60's. Unsuspecting individuals with little or no family were usually the ones taken as guinea pigs for the CIA brain-washing MKULTRA experiments. While lobotomy was performed on various patients.

In the United States patients are routinely denied care, people choose between keeping their upper thumb or index finger and sometimes people are dumped on the streets using covert ambulances when they can't pay up.
In Cuba at least everyone get some form of treatment or at least the doctor can give you some advice. In the US this is not always the case.

Certainly if you had your fingers shopped up in Cuba an attempt would be made, how ever crude, to stitch them on. This may not be the case in your lovely nation.


Perhaps something to contemplate?


I find this hard to believe. Must be Socialist propaganda like that anti-Castro website.

[Blake's Baby]

...

My view on Socialism is based on empirical observation...

My view of socialism is based on knowing what socialism is.

It's not a question of definition. Shouting 'ning nong ning, I'm speaking Japanese' whilest making slanty eyes is not just a different definition of what 'Japanese' means.

Likewise calling something that isn't socialism 'socialism' isn't a question of a different definition of socialism. The word, 'socialism' refers to (and has referred to for more than a century, see for instance the Socialist Party of Great Britain, founded 1904, or the Second or Socialist International, founded 1889) a society in which the state and capitalism have been overthrown and a classless communal society which produces for human need has been established.

As capitalism is a world system and cannot be overthrown in one place, and as it has also not been overthrown everywhere, people and parties may be 'socialist' (meaning that they profess or aspire to 'socialism') but countries cannot.

I am a 'socialist'; I am not an embodiment of 'socialism' because I have not had my capitalist relations and state structure overthrown.

[RGacky3]

My view on Socialism is based on empirical observation...

That logic is so rediculous, its obvious capitalism CANNOT work, its internal contradictions have brought it to its knees and destroyed the livelyhoods of millions if not billions, and does not serve the needs of the vast majority.

But since ONE FORM of an alternative (Leninist State-"socialism"), did'nt work, that means that capitalism is the only game in town .... common now.

[Partizanac]

It is very probable neither is propaganda as there exists pictures of it.
My claims are far more substantiated in either case.


Simply saying that you don't believe them was a "WTF" moment for me.
Weak of you.

[Rafiq]

Am I wrong?

Or was there a revolution that was specifically FOR capitalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

And a bunch more.

You're such a joke, it's unbelievable. These were all Bourgeois revolutions carried out to exert their class interest: Establish capitalism. And it was all done under the guise of "Freedom" and "Democracy". That's just rhetoric. The real purpose of those revolutions was to put the Bourgoeisie in a position of class power and later fully develop the capitalist mode of production.

Do you actually think, with utter most seriousness, that all of these revolutions were done not to benefit the bourgoeisie, but for "Democracy", and that a socialist revolution is just going to forfill this democratic dream in the process of getting rid of that nasty, corrupt individuals who ruined your beutiful democrac?

Democracy is an illusion. No one ever wanted democracy. They wanted democracy among themselves, not the democracy of Aristotle, but bourgoeis democracy. Democracy was just a way fro themselves to organize. If not that, the revolutions would have been carried out in the name of some other bizarre and obscure political system.

[Rafiq]

Gacky, your arguments are structurally baseless, it's unbelievable. History for you is not a constant process of class struggle, it's simply a line going upwards, all to achieve your "Democracy" utopia. This is Liberalism and Bourgeois rationalism. And you dare get annoyed when I call you an Idealist?

[Omsk]

Democracy is a cruel lie,used to decieve the masses,from the very first societies,for an exmaple,in Athens,the Greeks wanted democracy,and during the "Age of Pericles" - Pericles constantly talked about freedom and democracy, - was it freedom and democracy ? Of course not,all power was de-facto concentrated in the hands of the most important citizen of Athens - Pericles.

There are countless examples of such democracies.We need the Dictatoriship of the Proleteriat,not some illusion for the mass.



Or was there a revolution that was specifically FOR capitalism?


Historical materialism: Society moves from stage to stage when the dominant class is displaced by a new emerging class, by overthrowing the "political shell" that enforces the old relations of production no longer corresponding to the new productive forces. This takes place in the superstructure of society, the political arena in the form of revolution, whereby the underclass "liberates" the productive forces with new relations of production, and social relations, corresponding to it.

Now if we look at this outline:


B. Slavery
C. Feudalism
D. Capitalism
E. Socialism (where evolution instead of revolution)


If there were no revolutions which had the main goal of establishing capitalism,how did society move on from C to D?

[Partizanac]

My view of socialism is based on knowing what socialism is.

It's not a question of definition. Shouting 'ning nong ning, I'm speaking Japanese' whilest making slanty eyes is not just a different definition of what 'Japanese' means.

Likewise calling something that isn't socialism 'socialism' isn't a question of a different definition of socialism. The word, 'socialism' refers to (and has referred to for more than a century, see for instance the Socialist Party of Great Britain, founded 1904, or the Second or Socialist International, founded 1889) a society in which the state and capitalism have been overthrown and a classless communal society which produces for human need has been established.

As capitalism is a world system and cannot be overthrown in one place, and as it has also not been overthrown everywhere, people and parties may be 'socialist' (meaning that they profess or aspire to 'socialism') but countries cannot.

I am a 'socialist'; I am not an embodiment of 'socialism' because I have not had my capitalist relations and state structure overthrown.

Certainly a country can be classified as socialist if it disallows or limits in a large sense the ownership of businesses through capital. Or simply has a highly planned economy. Maybe mixed is the correct word but then everything is freakin mixed.

[Revolution starts with U]

The only mixed economy I could percieve would be a market of nothing but cooperatives. A capitalist economy with a state, or even a capitalist economy controlled by the state, is still capitalism.

[Partizanac]

I'm quite sick of these new, almost orwellian words.
At most State-Capitalism is the final stage in wich the free market has failed so miserably that the state owns so many shares in capitalist, for profit corporations that it can be considered state capitalism.


State businesses/facilities owned by the state for the public benefit of the population are not state capitalist institutions or businesses. Private businesses in itself is not capitalism. Capitalism is the ownership of businesses through indirect means, that is through capital.

It is a system that originated in the Netherlands during the 16th century in a very limited form and failed miserably in the so called Tulip crisis. The reasons for its revival are to me inane but it was revived, ever more prolifically during the 18th century.

Thusly one must make a difference between a private-economy based on mercentalism or the guild-system and the capitalism economy of these independent entities called corporations.

I know you have such a burning desire to call everything you dislike clerical/fascist/capitalism. But very few things are.
Sadly, especially in the third case those things have become very spread.

[Blake's Baby]

Certainly a country can be classified as socialist if it disallows or limits in a large sense the ownership of businesses through capital. Or simply has a highly planned economy. Maybe mixed is the correct word but then everything is freakin mixed.

If you define 'socialism' as 'state control of the economy' it can.

If I define 'The Pope' as 'a small biscuit', I can eat the Pope.

If it has a mixed private capitalist economy and state capitalist economy, it's a capitalist economy like every economy in the world.

It's not a new idea. It's been around since the 1880s. Wilhelm Leibknecht is generally credited as being the first socialist to use the phrase. 'No one has done more than I to demonstrate that 'state socialism' is actually state capitalism' he said more than 100 years ago.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain was using it more than 100 years ago to describe the Fabian Society, Ossinsky used it to describe the economy of the USSR in 1918, Lenin agreed with him.

'State capitalism' has meant what it means now for nearly 125 years. Hardly 'new'.

[Partizanac]

No it hasn't. Certain circles have twisted it just like it is sadly done with fascism. Socialists and communists throw around the word fascism today because the word capitalism has lost all of it's strong, negative flavor. Now the movement is in the processes of destroying the meaning of fascism to, by labeling every semi-autocratic or nationalist element, even "capitalist" (sigh) element as fascist.

Leibknecht used it in precisely the same context. He wanted to prove to the world that state socialism doesn't necessarily entail worker control and management and is thusly as bad as capitalism. As a point it's good. If it begins to change the meaning of the word is is very bad.

Don't get me started on that elitist club known as the Fabian society.
Concerning Ossinsky I cannot comment although I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same as mine.

The official, noted definition of state-capitalism as per the communist manifesto and the self-destruction of capitalism is what I said.
It is the very firm belief that the state will be able to beat private corporate enterprise in its own game/that the private side will simply deflate and die by itself due to its destructive nature. It is what (in theory) is being attempted in China.
China is one of few places in the world where your definition of capitalism fits. Beyond the country side it is indeed a mix of private and state-capitalism.

[Rooster]

Democracy is a cruel lie,used to decieve the masses,from the very first societies,for an exmaple,in Athens,the Greeks wanted democracy,and during the "Age of Pericles" - Pericles constantly talked about freedom and democracy, - was it freedom and democracy ? Of course not,all power was de-facto concentrated in the hands of the most important citizen of Athens - Pericles.

There are countless examples of such democracies.We need the Dictatoriship of the Proleteriat,not some illusion for the mass.

So are you saying that democracy and the DotP are not compatible or something?


Historical materialism: Society moves from stage to stage when the dominant class is displaced by a new emerging class, by overthrowing the "political shell" that enforces the old relations of production no longer corresponding to the new productive forces. This takes place in the superstructure of society, the political arena in the form of revolution, whereby the underclass "liberates" the productive forces with new relations of production, and social relations, corresponding to it.

Now if we look at this outline:


B. Slavery
C. Feudalism
D. Capitalism
E. Socialism (where evolution instead of revolution)


If there were no revolutions which had the main goal of establishing capitalism,how did society move on from C to D?

So, comrade, how does one get from socialism to communism? :confused:

[Blake's Baby]

No it hasn't. Certain circles have twisted it just like it is sadly done with fascism. Socialists and communists throw around the word fascism today because the word capitalism has lost all of it's strong, negative flavor. Now the movement is in the processes of destroying the meaning of fascism to, by labeling every semi-autocratic or nationalist element, even "capitalist" (sigh) element as fascist.

Leibknecht used it in precisely the same context. He wanted to prove to the world that state socialism doesn't necessarily entail worker control and management and is thusly as bad as capitalism. As a point it's good. If it begins to change the meaning of the word is is very bad.

Don't get me started on that elitist club known as the Fabian society.
Concerning Ossinsky I cannot comment although I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same as mine.

The official, noted definition of state-capitalism as per the communist manifesto and the self-destruction of capitalism is what I said.
It is the very firm belief that the state will be able to beat private corporate enterprise in its own game. It is what (in theory) is being attempted in China.
China is one of few places in the world where your definition of capitalism fits. Beyond the country side it is indeed a mix of private and state-capitalism.

What does 'official' have to do with anything?

Where does 'state capitalism' appear in the Communist Manifesto?

What does ranting about the word 'fascism' have to do with the argument about state capitalism?

If you don't like the Fabians, what do you think about the fact that the Fabians loved Stalinist Russia? Was it because they saw it as their state capitalist project made manifest, maybe?

[Partizanac]

My bad not the communist manifesto. State, Utopian and Scientific by Engels.

The ranting about fascism is used in the same way that state-capitalism is employed everywhere where radical socialists believe they don't have direct control over state business. It is an example of the same corruption of words.

I have no opinion of the Fabians love of Stalinist Russia as I do not know if they loved it or not or why. I do not think Stalinist Russia was state capitalist.

[bugsbunny]

It is very probable neither is propaganda as there exists pictures of it.
My claims are far more substantiated in either case.


Simply saying that you don't believe them was a "WTF" moment for me.
Weak of you.

I believe they are true but I don't think the situation in the US is as bad as the articles say. Its the same as the anti-Cuba website. Those photos are real but as I said, the website cherry-picked the worst pictures to prove their anti-Castro views.

This is called propaganda. Tell the bad stuff and keep quiet about the good stuff. To get a balanced view you got to see how Mr Average fares under the system.

Here is something more scholarly - WHO's ranking of world health care systems. (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)

The US ranks 37 and Cuba ranks 39 out of 190 countries in the world that the WHO has data on. Not bad. It puts both in the top 20%. So both are equally good or equally bad.

The study was done in 2000. After that WHO refused to do any more rankings following criticisms about its methodology. Its really difficult to make cross border comparisons. Things like life expectancy depends on other factors besides health care like diet, gun control and auto accidents.

So a rich country like the US people over eat and drive cars and buy guns. So they grow obese, get into auto accidents and get shot all of which will affect life expectancy statistic which is part of WHO's assessment on the health care system.

[bugsbunny]

Bugsbunny wrote:

My view on Socialism is based on empirical observation...



My view of socialism is based on knowing what socialism is.

.

It seems like there are so many definations here on what Socialism is. Instead of arguing about what it means, let's focus on predicting what is going to happen to places like Cuba.

Is the present government likely to survive?

What must it do to ensure its survival?

My view is that the Cuban government is likely to fall after the demise of Castro. If it wants to stay in power, Raul must do a Deng - take the capitalist road.

[bugsbunny]

Certainly a country can be classified as socialist if it disallows or limits in a large sense the ownership of businesses through capital. Or simply has a highly planned economy. Maybe mixed is the correct word but then everything is freakin mixed.

That's exactly what I have been trying to say. All countries are hyrbids with elements of both capitalism and socialism. Some leans more to the left - like Cuba. Others lean more to the right - like the USA.

Since its quite a mouthful to say "Cuba leans more towards Socialism", we simply say "Cuba is Socialist" for convenience.

[Caj]

It seems like there are so many definations here on what Socialism is.

There's really only two definitions. There's the traditional, Marxist definition of socialism as proletarian control of the means of production. This definition is objective and based on material analysis. Then there's the bourgeois and Marxist-Leninist distortions of the word socialism as government intervention in the economy. How much government intervention is necessary to constitute "socialism" is never specified, and units of measurement for government intervention are non-existent. For this reason, the bourgeois/Marxist-Leninst definition of socialism is ambiguous, subjective, and meaningless.


That's exactly what I have been trying to say. All countries are hyrbids with elements of both capitalism and socialism. Some leans more to the left - like Cuba. Others lean more to the right - like the USA.

Once again, viewing socialism in this way is subjective and meaningless unless you 1) establish units of measurement for government intervention, and 2) define how much government intervention constitutes "socialism."

[#FF0000]

That's exactly what I have been trying to say. All countries are hyrbids with elements of both capitalism and socialism. Some leans more to the left - like Cuba. Others lean more to the right - like the USA.

Since its quite a mouthful to say "Cuba leans more towards Socialism", we simply say "Cuba is Socialist" for convenience.

this is not how marxists look at capitalism and socialism. this is not how anyone should view capitalism or socialism, because it relies on the flimsiest possible definitions for both terms

[bugsbunny]

There's really only two definitions. There's the traditional, Marxist definition of socialism as proletarian control of the means of production. This definition is objective and based on materialanalysis. Then there's the bourgeois and Marxist-Leninist distortions of the word socialism as government intervention in the economy. How much government intervention is necessary to constitute "socialism" is never specified, and units of measurement for government intervention are non-existent. For this reason, the bourgeois/Marxist-Leninst definition of socialism is ambiguous, subjective, and meaningless.

This is very good explanation. I agree with you completely. Generally most people, including myself take the second defination - government intervention of the economy to produce a more equal distribution of wealth.





Once again, viewing socialism in this way is subjective and meaningless unless you 1) establish units of measurement for government intervention, and 2) define how much government intervention constitutes "socialism."


I don't see Socialism/Capitalism as black or white. Its not one or the other. All economies are hybrids. Its all relative. Thus we can say that the US is more capitalist than say Cuba. Or Sweden is more Socialist than the US for example..

I think people here tend to see capitalism/socialism in black and white terms whereas the real world is in shades of grey. I think we should move away from theory and see what is actually happening in the real world.

[#FF0000]

I think people here tend to see capitalism/socialism in black and white terms whereas the real world is in shades of grey.

That isn't really the case, because the "more socialist" countries you might want to point to are still solidly capitalist according to literally every metric.

[CommunityBeliever]

I don't see Socialism/Capitalism as black or white. Its not one or the other. All economies are hybrids. Its all relative. Thus we can say that the US is more capitalist than say Cuba. Or Sweden is more Socialist than the US for example.. You should consider what the right-left dichotomy actually entails. On the one hand those on the right are economic elitists and those on the left are economic egalitarians. Those on the right wing want to support the efforts of the elite to accumulate profits through the system of production for profit (capitalism) and they don't want to help the other half of the world that is living on less then $2.50 dollars per day.

The system of production for profit consistently fails to satisfy the basic needs of the people because there are many poor people who don't have the purchasing power to partake in economic transactions that are profitable to business. The only reason there is about 22,000 child deaths / day is that it isn't profitable to give those poor children the sustenance they need to survive.

You also shouldn't delude yourself into thinking that capitalism is economically efficient. Capitalism is economically inefficient and destructive. Whenever something occurs in abundance, such as digital information, the capitalists actively work to reduce the supply of it to profitable levels, research artificial scarcity and planned obsolescence . The capitalists have failed to establish any significant projects that aim to create technologies of abundance, such as nuclear fusion or friendly artificial intelligence. Socialism is a more advanced economic system then capitalism so it doesn't have its economic inefficiencies.


I don't think the embargo does a lot of damage. Its Cuba's socialist economy that is the cause of their shortages. Compare Cuba to other Carribbean countries such as Haiti. In Haiti well there is a minority that makes millions of dollars in profit well there are children that are resorting to eating dirt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3337cj4sJQ). That is the twisted reality of capitalism.


Have you not heard of shortages in the USSR and people have to queue up for long time? I think we have all heard about the shortages of the capitalist USSR. One thing literally everyone on the left agrees on is that the USSR was officially state capitalist by 1965. The effect of officially establishing profit as the driving force behind the Soviet economy was to create the Era of Stagnation / Period of Stagnation / Brezhnevian Stagnation that eventually led to the fall of the USSR. The source of the shortages and the economic stagnation in the USSR were none other then state capitalism.

[bugsbunny]

You should consider what the right-left dichotomy actually entails. On the one hand those on the right are economic elitists and those on the left are economic egalitarians. Those on the right wing want to support the efforts of the elite to accumulate profits through the system of production for profit (capitalism) and they don't want to help the other half of the world that is living on less then $2.50 dollars per day.

Those on the right are not necessarily elitists. Most are just ordinary people like you and me. You seem to imagine, Marxist fashion, a bunch of plutocrats. The right are people who believe it is justice to reward someone based on his own efforts skill and entrepreneurship.

They could be barbers, taxi drivers, hot dog stand owner all the way up to the Koch Brothers. It is unjust to take someone's hard earned money by taxation to give it to another in the name of equality. That is stealing. Charity is a good thing which by defination must be voluntary but robbery is not a good thing.

Those on the right believe in nature. In nature, inequality is the norm. Amongst a pack of dogs, wolves, baboons, apes etc, there will always be someone stronger, faster etc. These rise to be leaders of the pack. While they don't have inequality in money, their inequality is expressed in acess to females. The strongest gets to mate with more females - which is a motivation for some men to make money. So inequality is natural.

Trying to impose an unnatural equality requires strong state intervention which often leads to totalitarianism and oppression. According to the book, "The black book of Communism", nearly 100 million people died.




The system of production for profit consistently fails to satisfy the basic needs of the people because there are many poor people who don't have the purchasing power to partake in economic transactions that are profitable to business. The only reason there is about 22,000 child deaths / day is that it isn't profitable to give those poor children the sustenance they need to survive.


The system of production for profit is the best way for poor people to become rich. John Rockefeller was poor before he became rich. So was Steve Jobs. Once poor people become richer, then social problems like ill health that you mention will disappear. Socialism is the best way to keep people in poverty. It has never worked and never will work.

That's because its unnatural. Human beings have it in their nature to provide for themselves and their families. That's the best motivation. Putting people in a collective society means you have taken away their strongest motivation to work.



You also shouldn't delude yourself into thinking that capitalism is economically efficient. Capitalism is economically inefficient and destructive. Whenever something occurs in abundance, such as digital information, the capitalists actively work to reduce the supply of it to profitable levels, research artificial scarcity and planned obsolescence . The capitalists have failed to establish any significant projects that aim to create technologies of abundance, such as nuclear fusion or friendly artificial intelligence. Socialism is a more advanced economic system then capitalism so it doesn't have its economic inefficiencies.


You should not delude yourself that Socialism can ever be as efficient as capitalism. Compare East and West Germany during the Cold War. Compare China and Taiwan/Hong Kong/Singapore before Deng gained power and put China on the capitalist road. These two examples hold the ethnic variable constant. In both cases, the more capitalist economy gave the people a higher standard of living. Why do you think East Germans risked their lives to cross the Berlin Wall?

The Chinese built the Great Wall to keep Mongol invaders out. Socialism is the only system that built a wall to keep people in.



Compare Cuba to other Carribbean countries such as Haiti. In Haiti well there is a minority that makes millions of dollars in profit well there are children that are resorting to eating dirt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3337cj4sJQ). That is the twisted reality of capitalism.


Why don't you compare Cuba with say the Bahamas? Bahamas has a per capita income of $22,352 as compared to Cuba's $9,900. The people in Bahamas do not drown trying to reach Florida so as to flee the Castro dictatorship. So they are better off than Cubans. The question you should ask is if the people of Haiti would be better off following Cuba's form of government. I suspect, they would be eating worst things than dirt under a Socialist system.




I think we have all heard about the shortages of the capitalist USSR. One thing literally everyone on the left agrees on is that the USSR was officially state capitalist by 1965. The effect of officially establishing profit as the driving force behind the Soviet economy was to create the Era of Stagnation / Period of Stagnation / Brezhnevian Stagnation that eventually led to the fall of the USSR. The source of the shortages and the economic stagnation in the USSR were none other then state capitalism.


That's typical. All Socialist failures are immediately called capitalist. So the USSR was capitalist after 1965. (Someone here had it even earlier - 1918) By that standard, Cuba is capitalist too. So it shows that the Cubans are better at capitalism than Haitians. Then why were you comparing Haiti to Cuba? By your defination of Socialism, the USSR, Cuba and other countries that majority of people regard as Socialist are not really Socialist but capitalist. So how do you know Socialism is more efficient when no Socialist country exists?

[RGacky3]

You're such a joke, it's unbelievable. These were all Bourgeois revolutions carried out to exert their class interest: Establish capitalism. And it was all done under the guise of "Freedom" and "Democracy". That's just rhetoric. The real purpose of those revolutions was to put the Bourgoeisie in a position of class power and later fully develop the capitalist mode of production.


But they wern't FOR class power, perhaps that was the underlying structure, but they were revolts against monarchies, they were FOR the purpose of taking out a monarch and putting in a republic.

Now a Marxist would say that these revolutions happened historically for class issues, but the justification (what I was talking about), was uprooting the monarch.

That was my point, capitalism is'nt something that people were fighting for in these revolutions, the average person in the conflict was thinking about republic.


Do you actually think, with utter most seriousness, that all of these revolutions were done not to benefit the bourgoeisie, but for "Democracy", and that a socialist revolution is just going to forfill this democratic dream in the process of getting rid of that nasty, corrupt individuals who ruined your beutiful democrac?


BTW, Socialism IS democracy,
Anyway, these revolutions happened according to marxian analysis because of class conflicts, but the justification was not that, and the people involved in it were motivated by the idea of a republic.

But yeah, revolutions happen to change the structure of society.


Democracy is an illusion. No one ever wanted democracy. They wanted democracy among themselves, not the democracy of Aristotle, but bourgoeis democracy. Democracy was just a way fro themselves to organize. If not that, the revolutions would have been carried out in the name of some other bizarre and obscure political system.

Sure ...

But no one was making speaching FOR capitalism.



Gacky, your arguments are structurally baseless, it's unbelievable. History for you is not a constant process of class struggle, it's simply a line going upwards, all to achieve your "Democracy" utopia. This is Liberalism and Bourgeois rationalism. And you dare get annoyed when I call you an Idealist?


You were missing the whole damn point of my post.

Bugsbunny claims: "Since the fall of the USSR and the revolts that followed ended up as capitalism, that MUST mean that people wanted capitalism."

I claim: "No, Capitalism was never the justification for these revolts, that was never the rallying cry that got people to overthrow the USSR."

You have to READ the context.

As for your claim, history is a lot of things, and its a very complicated process, I don't think its a line up to my democracy, (although Marx did, considering he was an economic determanist thinking pure communism was the inevitable step). I don't know where your getting my ideas, but your certainly reading inbetween the lines.

[Blake's Baby]

That's exactly what I have been trying to say. All countries are hyrbids with elements of both capitalism and socialism. Some leans more to the left - like Cuba. Others lean more to the right - like the USA.

Since its quite a mouthful to say "Cuba leans more towards Socialism", we simply say "Cuba is Socialist" for convenience.

Yeah, that's exactly what I've been trying to say too. All you have to do is shout 'ning nong ning' while you make your eyes go slanty and if anyone says that's not Japanese, well, obviously they don't know what they're talking about, right?

[CommunityBeliever]

Those on the right are not necessarily elitistsActually they are. The fundamental different between the left and the right is that those in the right believe in production for profit which inevitably leads to an elite group of capitalists (the industrial bourgeoisie) which accumulates profits through exclusive the control of the means of production and the exploitation of the majority of the world's population (the international proletariat).

This leads to considerable economic inequality, and then those that are on the poor end of the spectrum suffer from starvation, dehydration, disease, homelessness, and all the other ills of modern society, because it isn't profitable for the capitalist ruling class to satisfy their needs. There is no lack of resources, it just that the elitist profit-based system doesn't allocate those resources to help the poor.

Furthermore, the system of production for profit hinders economic and technological progress. Whenever there is a complete abundance of something, it is no longer profitable to market, so capitalists apply all kinds of destructive techniques such as planned obsolescence and artificial scarcity. Everyone on the Internet should be familiar of these destructive practices, because we could live in a world where all digital information is free but as a result of the system of production for profit, copyright, patents, and other destructive practices get in the way of this process.


The right are people who believe it is justice to reward someone based on his own efforts skill and entrepreneurship. Capitalism is a pyramid. There is only so much room the top on the pyramid, so even if you get on the top of the pyramid there will still be millions on the bottom.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png/370px-Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png

Your position of the top of the pyramid is based upon the exploitation of those on the bottom that hold the system up and produce all of its products, if you get to the top of the pyramid you have to step on all your fellow workers on the way up. What right wingers reform to as "entrepreneurship" is actually the process of finding new ways to step on those on the bottom of the pyramid, it doesn't actually refer to any technological innovations. Those that create technological innovations or scientific breakthroughs in capitalism are not rewarded for it, socialism will be another story entirely.


The system of production for profit is the best way for poor people to become rich. John Rockefeller was poor before he became rich. So was Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs and John Rockefeller got to the top of the pyramid by stepping on people on the way up. Neither of these individuals had any noticable technical skills, Steve Jobs wasn't even known for writing any computer programs, and John Rockefeller never made any significant contributions to natural science or engineering. The only reason these two people got to the top of the pyramid is that they stepped on the people on the bottom in ways that were harder then ever before.


Socialism is the best way to keep people in poverty.On the contrary, poverty is a product of capitalism. There is an abundance of wealth available to us today; however, it isn't profitable for the capitalists to use that wealth to bring people out of poverty. Otherwise, there would be no poverty in the world today.

20th century socialism


According to the book, "The black book of Communism", nearly 100 million people died. The black book of capitalism is about as an accurate a reflection of the real world as the Christian bible, that is to say not at all. The authors of the black book were so obsessed with reaching the figure of 100 million killed by communism that they twisted all their data to support that conclusion.

Why don't you compare Cuba with say the Bahamas? I don't compare Cuba with the Bahamas, because the Bahamas has about 2.5% of the population of Cuba and the only reason the Bahamas is richer then Cuba is it is a popular tourist attraction for the bourgeoisie from capitalist countries. Since the bourgeoisie derives its income from the exploitation of the proletariat, the ultimate source of most of the income in the Bahamas is from exploitation, not from successful economic policies.


The question you should ask is if the people of Haiti would be better off following Cuba's form of government. I suspect, they would be eating worst things than dirt under a Socialist system.If Haitan society were focused on satisfying social needs such as health care, education, and housing, rather then on satisfying the greed of the Haitian elite, then there 10% of Haitian society wouldn't have 40% of the countries GDP and there wouldn't poor Haitians who are led to consume dirt. Cuba sets a relatively good example for Haiti to emulate because the Cuban economy is generally focused upon satisfying social needs and as a result there is full employment, complete health coverage, no illiteracy, and virtually no homelessness in Cuba.


It has never worked and never will work. On the contrary, socialism has worked plenty of times throughout history. Socialist Albania is one good example of the successes of socialism. Please view this excellent documentary to learn more about the successes Albanian socialism:

eZ9xNVEyNgM

Socialism is the only system that built a wall to keep people in. Throughout the 1950's the Americans and the West Germans attempted to economically sabotage the GDR. The East German government provided free and high quality education to its citizens and then the West attempted to drain the GDR of its educated workers. The wall improved the economic stability of the GDR and it prevented Western sabotage efforts.


That's typical. All Socialist failures are immediately called capitalist. You got that backwards, the late USSR isn't called capitalist because it is failure. Even pro-Soviet economists such as Jozef Wilczynski recognise that profit officially replaced social need in the USSR in 1965. It is a well recognised fact that the USSR was capitalist and that point and it is a fact that the restoration of capitalism created economic stagnation which culminated in the collapse of the USSR in 1991. In every case throughout history, socialism has proved economically superior to capitalism.

Human nature
The argument that socialism doesn't work because of human nature, is the weakest argument against socialism. The example of primitive communism completely disproves the idea that communism is against human nature. The issue of primitive communism is currently being discussed in the thread The Bushmen and their remarkable society (http://www.revleft.com/vb/bushmen-and-their-t168202/index.html) in our Science and Environment forum.


Those on the right believe in nature. In nature, inequality is the norm. On the contrary, is no money, private property, states, classes, profits, or other elements of capitalist society in nature. Nature is communist, which is we Marxists refer to early human societies as primitive communist.


Putting people in a collective society means you have taken away their strongest motivation to work.There is an abundance of scientific evidence that indicates that the purpose motive (http://garry.posterous.com/purpose-motive-its-not-about-the-money-its-ab) will be a sufficient replacement for the profit motive once we have a global communist society.

Economic efficiency


You should not delude yourself that Socialism can ever be as efficient as capitalism. On the contrary, capitalism is an inherently inefficient system because it creates artificial scarcity. Consider that digital goods can be copied instantly and with no cost, and nonetheless, capitalists are actively working to market digital information, in the process the capitalists produce artificial scarcity to artificially reduce the accessible supply of digital information. Wherever there is abundance, there are capitalists that seek to eliminate that abundance with artificial scarcity and other destructive practices, and wherever there could be abundance, ie through the use of nuclear fusion technology, the capitalists don't work to bring about that abundance. Socialism won't have all the economic inefficiencies or the contradictions inherent to capitalism so it will necessarily be more efficient then capitalism.


So how do you know Socialism is more efficient when no Socialist country exists? There have been plenty of socialist societies, starting with the Paris commune in 1871, upto present day. All of these socialist societies demonstrate the economic superiority of socialism. Furthermore, there is every indication that socialism is more efficient then capitalism. Consider the free and open source software movement; the free sharing of information is a fundamental communist principle, and with the expansion of the internet in the past few years, it is becoming abundantly clear that open source is economically superior to proprietary software.

[Omsk]

So are you saying that democracy and the DotP are not compatible or something?



This shows how far the capitalist and anti-communist propaganda went,- "democracy" is not excluded from the DoTP,freedom in speech and debate,the freedom to vote,it is not something we are hostile to,as communists,the point is that the revolutionary masses,and the people,should not be tricked by the 'democracy' part of the capitalist state,its just a paper wall,and behind it,is capitalist partrocracy.

Capitalist "democracy" was often mentioned in the countries of Eastern Europe - do you think the people were any better off with "democracy" - no.



So, comrade, how does one get from socialism to communism


It's a difficult and a long road,and it can't happen overnight.The building of socialism is a tough enough task.

[Partizanac]

So you think that the norm in the USA is to get all fingers stitched on even if you can't pay for it?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

And a bunch more.




yeah nobody half educated in any of those things is going to say outright that these were revolutions that introduced capitalism.

Can I ask you, have you actually read any history at all on these topics? I get the sense from reading your posts that you've just read some introductory text about historical materialism and spent the next two years arguing with anarchists on revleft.

[bugsbunny]

Yeah, that's exactly what I've been trying to say too. All you have to do is shout 'ning nong ning' while you make your eyes go slanty and if anyone says that's not Japanese, well, obviously they don't know what they're talking about, right?

That's exactly how I feel when some people here say stuff like the USSR was capitalist.

[Partizanac]

Nice video of Albania. The country that built more bunkers than homes during that maniacs rule.

[bugsbunny]

On the contrary, socialism has worked plenty of times throughout history. Socialist Albania is one good example of the successes of socialism. Please view this excellent documentary to learn more about the successes Albanian socialism:

eZ9xNVEyNgM


I watched the video and I think its just communist propaganda. If Albanian socialism was so good how come the Party of Labor of Albania (Hoxha's old party) lost the elections in 1991 despite changing its name to Socialist Party of Albania. Obviously, the people don't agree.

[Caj]

That's exactly how I feel when some people here say stuff like the USSR was capitalist.

You continue to insist upon equating socialism with government intervention in the economy. Once again, if you want to describe the USSR as socialist, first you must 1) establish a means of quantitatively measuring government intervention, and 2) defining how much government intervention constitutes "socialism." If you can't do both of these two things, your definition of socialism is meaningless and should be discarded in favor of more objective definitions, such as understanding capitalism and socialism as different class relations to the means of production.

[bugsbunny]

Capitalism is a pyramid. There is only so much room the top on the pyramid, so even if you get on the top of the pyramid there will still be millions on the bottom.

Your position of the top of the pyramid is based upon the exploitation of those on the bottom that hold the system up and produce all of its products, if you get to the top of the pyramid you have to step on all your fellow workers on the way up. What right wingers reform to as "entrepreneurship" is actually the process of finding new ways to step on those on the bottom of the pyramid, it doesn't actually refer to any technological innovations. Those that create technological innovations or scientific breakthroughs in capitalism are not rewarded for it, socialism will be another story entirely.


This is all false. You have been brainwashed. That's why I started this thread. When the Cuban regime collapses, you will see that it is Socialism that does not work. Always relate your ideas to what's happening to the real world as a reality check.

The pyramid you posted reminds me of Castro's regime actually. He is at the top of the pyramid. He has his police and army to shoot you if you don't obey. He has his commisars to fool you with his propaganda. The people at the bottom - they are the ones who suffer.

[Partizanac]

I watched the video and I think its just communist propaganda. If Albanian socialism was so good how come the Party of Labor of Albania (Hoxha's old party) lost the elections in 1991 despite changing its name to Socialist Party of Albania. Obviously, the people don't agree.

Perhaps due to the massive, coherent and cohersive propaganda campaign at the time aimed at destroying communism in Europe.

After they tried unregulated capitalism they had a revolution. At least the commies were taken off thanks to peaceful elections. The capitalists had to be killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_unrest_in_Albania

Of course the west supported the government *sigh*.


Also you never answered. Do you think that it is norm to have all fingers stitched on in America if you can't pay? Why do you think this guy in Moores film didn't get it then?

[Caj]

The pyramid you posted reminds me of Castro's regime actually. He is at the top of the pyramid. He has his police and army to shoot you if you don't obey. He has his commisars to fool you with his propaganda. The people at the bottom - they are the ones who suffer.

Well, it makes sense since Cuba is capitalist. Those at the top, government bureaucrats, hold the same relation to the means of production as do any other capitalists. All capitalist societies, whether state or private, are hierarchical class societies.

[#FF0000]

That's exactly how I feel when some people here say stuff like the USSR was capitalist.

People were calling the USSR capitalist since 1918 though. I mean, shit, it's not even that novel of an observation to point out "hey, weren't the folks running the show basically the same as bosses in capitalism anyway?"

[Blake's Baby]

That's exactly how I feel when some people here say stuff like the USSR was capitalist.

It's not my problem if you don't know what either the USSR or capitalism are.

It's not my problem if you think 'democratic' means 'whatever Barak Obama does' (he's a democrat, right? That's what democratic means, doesn't it?)

It's not my problem if you can't speak Japanese.

[CommunityBeliever]

If Albanian socialism was so good how come the Party of Labor of Albania (Hoxha's old party) lost the elections in 1991 despite changing its name to Socialist Party of Albania. Obviously, the people don't agree.Most people in Albania preferred socialism because everyone had a good standard of living, there was a low crime rate, and there was well maintained public infrastructure. The elections you mentioned probably didn't reflect the wishes of the majority of the people, elections in capitalist societies rarely do.


The pyramid you posted reminds me of Castro's regime actually. He is at the top of the pyramid. He has his police and army to shoot you if you don't obey.As far as I know the Cuban regime is focused on satisfying social needs such as housing, health care, and education and not personal greed. Fidel Castro doesn't even have a dollar in any bank account. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate that there is really is a pyramid in Cuba, such that those on the top profit off of the exploitation of those on the bottom, then I will be the first to denounce Cuba as state capitalist.


That's exactly how I feel when some people here say stuff like the USSR was capitalist.

The USSR was state capitalist which effectively caused the economic stagnation which culminated in the collapse of 1991. This is an uncontroversial fact.

[TrotskistMarx]

From my own point of view, Cuba doesn't have a police-dictatorship. It is true that The Cuban Government is a welfare state-capitalist government. And Cuba has a state-capitalist system, just like Venezuela which has a sort of welfare pseudo-state-capitalist system (I label it "pseudo"), because according to Alan Woods from http://www.marxist.com/ only about 40% of the businesses in Venezuela are owned by the Venezuelan government. It is true that Cuba has a police, jails, judges and punishment for criminals. But that really doesn't make it a police-dictatorship

The USA, England, Mexico, India, Saudi Arabia, Colombia and Honduras are police-dictatorships. Not the paradise of Cuba (Cuba is a paradise compared with the hell of USA, a country where the only thing that majority of people can do is eat cheap high-carbohydrate meals. And nothing else, no dental health care, no eye-care, no opportunity to visit a doctor if you have a disease or a life-theatening illness. The majority of american citizens are banned from studying law, medicine, business, economics, astronomy, chemistry and all the other bachelors degree college professions in a university). So the only thing that americans can do is to eat, in Cuba people can join a college for free. The Cuban government is not a socialist government and doesn't have a socialist system, because socialism means workers-ownership of the 100% of corporations of a country, and workers governing a country. And socialism cannot work in 1, 2 or 3 isolated countries, while all the other countries would have a capitalist system or a state-capitalist system.

So I think that the Cuban authorities are either waiting for more countries of this world to become socialists, and/or for capitalism to be overthrown by the popular movements and working classes in Europe, like in Greece, in Spain, in The Middle East, so that there will be a bigger block of Left-leaning governments like Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Uruguay, Brazil and Paraguay

And of course we will have to wait for USA to collapse and for the poor americans to become leftists, to join leftist movements and to help the american left rise to The White House

we will have to wait for some years for socialism to spread to more countries



What do you guys think? Will the People revolt against the Cuban government?

[bugsbunny]

Most people in Albania preferred socialism because everyone had a good standard of living, there was a low crime rate, and there was well maintained public infrastructure. The elections you mentioned probably didn't reflect the wishes of the majority of the people, elections in capitalist societies rarely do.


I think the elections did reflect the wishes of the people. You have to face facts.



As far as I know the Cuban regime is focused on satisfying social needs such as housing, health care, and education and not personal greed. Fidel Castro doesn't even have a dollar in any bank account. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate that there is really is a pyramid in Cuba, such that those on the top profit off of the exploitation of those on the bottom, then I will be the first to denounce Cuba as state capitalist.


Castro does not need a cent in any bank. Use materialism to judge him. He lives in the lap of luxury in a palace. He gets the best health care that his poeple do not get. He gets the best food, cigars. So he is at the top of the pyramid. Follow the money. Generally, those in power will get the money. But in Castro's case, we should say follow the material benefits since he does not need money to gain access to material goodies. Ultimately, his material goodies must come from the workers - the farmer who grows his food or tobacco; the people who repair and maintain the luxury palace he lives in. What does he do? He simply exercises political control over the farmers who grows his tobacco and food, the doctors who treat him, the workers who maintain his home etc.

Instead of priests, he has his propagandists to convince Cubans and foreign "useful idiots", that his rule is just and the best thing that ever happen to Cuba even though thousands drown to cross the water to Miami to escape his "heaven on earth". For those who do are not convinced by his "priests", he has the army and police to shoot them.




The USSR was state capitalist which effectively caused the economic stagnation which culminated in the collapse of 1991. This is an uncontroversial fact.


If the USSR was a state capitalist state, then which country do you prefer? Which country is closer to your ideals? Which country would you support in the event of a war? Hypothetically speaking of course because the USSR is now defunct.

[Revolution starts with U]

If the USSR was a state capitalist state, then which country do you prefer?
The international working class.

Which country is closer to your ideals?
None.

Which country would you support in the event of a war?
None.


Hypothetically speaking of course because the USSR is now defunct.

:blink:

[Ostrinski]

We don't support countries, we support a class.

[RGacky3]

This is all false. You have been brainwashed.

Most of us are from the US or europe? Who's brainwashing us???

[Ostrinski]

This is all false. You have been brainwashed.
Protip: When debating, it's always more productive to talk to the person, rather than at them.

[RGacky3]

People were calling the USSR capitalist since 1918 though. I mean, shit, it's not even that novel of an observation to point out "hey, weren't the folks running the show basically the same as bosses in capitalism anyway?"

Exactly, this is'nt a last minute excuse, this was the issue FROM THE BEGINING, some of the most ardent opposers of the bolshevik government were socialists, socialists who were being thrown in prison in the United States.

[bugsbunny]

Most of us are from the US or europe? Who's brainwashing us???

all the leftist stuff you have been reading.

[bugsbunny]

We don't support countries, we support a class.

good. then you are for free trade. free trade has given poor chinese and indian workers rising income.

[RGacky3]

all the leftist stuff you have been reading.

Well, considering I've gone through the US education system, Im bombarded by right wing propeganda ALL THE TIME, (all the US mainstream media is pro capitalist), its probably healthy to mix it up a bit.


good. then you are for free trade. free trade has given poor chinese and indian workers rising income.

No it has'nt, what helped the Chinese was open investment with HUGE government control.

What helped india was decades of social-democratic reforms, and then the same thing as China.

The Chinese do something that is far far far away from anything resembling what you'd call free trade.

[bugsbunny]

Forbes: Castro worth $900 million. (http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-05-04-castro_x.htm)

I think his supporters have been fooled.

[RGacky3]

What are they counting in that?

I've seen that before and its been called out as bullshit manytimes.

If you include airforce 1, the white house, the army, the airforce, the navy, the marines and so on in the presidents personal wealth it would be pretty damn high too.

Read closer.

[bugsbunny]

We don't support countries, we support a class.

Which countries' policies are more supporting of the working class?

1)USA
2)Cuba
3)Sweden
4)USSR (when it was around)
5)UK

Rank them in order from least supporting to most supportive.

Thanks.

[bugsbunny]

What are they counting in that?

I've seen that before and its been called out as bullshit manytimes.

If you include airforce 1, the white house, the army, the airforce, the navy, the marines and so on in the presidents personal wealth it would be pretty damn high too.

Read closer.

Here is some explanation (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/5/17/183910.shtml) on how they calculated Castro's wealth.

[daft punk]

From my own point of view, Cuba doesn't have a police-dictatorship. It is true that The Cuban Government is a welfare state-capitalist government. And Cuba has a state-capitalist system, just like Venezuela which has a sort of welfare pseudo-state-capitalist system (I label it "pseudo"), because according to Alan Woods from http://www.marxist.com/ only about 40% of the businesses in Venezuela are owned by the Venezuelan government. It is true that Cuba has a police, jails, judges and punishment for criminals. But that really doesn't make it a police-dictatorship

The USA, England, Mexico, India, Saudi Arabia, Colombia and Honduras are police-dictatorships. Not the paradise of Cuba (Cuba is a paradise compared with the hell of USA, a country where the only thing that majority of people can do is eat cheap high-carbohydrate meals. And nothing else, no dental health care, no eye-care, no opportunity to visit a doctor if you have a disease or a life-theatening illness. The majority of american citizens are banned from studying law, medicine, business, economics, astronomy, chemistry and all the other bachelors degree college professions in a university). So the only thing that americans can do is to eat, in Cuba people can join a college for free. The Cuban government is not a socialist government and doesn't have a socialist system, because socialism means workers-ownership of the 100% of corporations of a country, and workers governing a country. And socialism cannot work in 1, 2 or 3 isolated countries, while all the other countries would have a capitalist system or a state-capitalist system.

So I think that the Cuban authorities are either waiting for more countries of this world to become socialists, and/or for capitalism to be overthrown by the popular movements and working classes in Europe, like in Greece, in Spain, in The Middle East, so that there will be a bigger block of Left-leaning governments like Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Uruguay, Brazil and Paraguay

And of course we will have to wait for USA to collapse and for the poor americans to become leftists, to join leftist movements and to help the american left rise to The White House

we will have to wait for some years for socialism to spread to more countries

In Cuba you can get several years in jail from writing anything that sounds remotely Trotskyist, eg that there should be democratic socialism. Even if nobody has read it. This is not democracy but is a police state. Also in the elections you get a choice of one candidate.

[RGacky3]

Here is some explanation (http://www.anonym.to/?http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/5/17/183910.shtml) on how they calculated Castro's wealth.

Exactly its bullshit, if we're going by this we'd have to include all the military industrial complex in the US.

[RGacky3]

Which countries' policies are more supporting of the working class?

1)USA
2)Cuba
3)Sweden
4)USSR (when it was around)
5)UK

Rank them in order from least supporting to most supportive.

Thanks.

Thats a stupid question, all of those countries have different conditions and systems. This is nothing more than a troll question, plus policies in the USSR changed all the time, the same with the UK, USA, Cuba and so on.

[Revolution starts with U]

Which countries' policies are more supporting of the working class?

1)USA
2)Cuba
3)Sweden
4)USSR (when it was around)
5)UK

Rank them in order from least supporting to most supportive.

Thanks.

5) USA 5)Cuba 5)Sweden 5)USSR 5)UK

[Tavarisch_Mike]

In Cuba you can get several years in jail from writing anything that sounds remotely Trotskyist, eg that there should be democratic socialism. Even if nobody has read it. This is not democracy but is a police state. Also in the elections you get a choice of one candidate.


Just wanna say that i found a biografy on Trotsky in Cuba (Although all books are censured there). I also found an ex of Adolf Hitlers Mein Kmapf too, but havnt Ernest Mandel visited the country many times, and even given his support? :confused:


But yeah, it is a police state although its worth to remember that they have not reached the same controling level as the USSR had. And anti regime protests are allowed and gets police escort to protect them from contra protesters.
The countrys election system is made so that there is just one party allowed (no points to anyone who can guess which) but the party cant suggest any candidates, so each parlament politician have had theire own campaign and have been elected by the pepole. One can argue that there still isnt much of possibility for change, but as Emma Goldman said: "If voting could change anything it would be forbidden."

[Ostrinski]

good. then you are for free trade. free trade has given poor chinese and indian workers rising income.I suppose I should have been more specific. We support the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie.


Which countries' policies are more supporting of the working class?

1)USA
2)Cuba
3)Sweden
4)USSR (when it was around)
5)UK

Rank them in order from least supporting to most supportive.

Thanks.This question has little meaning in that the proletariat has class power in none of those places. Of course, all these countries have had concessional policies toward the working class as a means of pacifying them.

[CommunityBeliever]

You have been brainwashed. Where as you have been enlightened by the magnificent mises institute and the totally accurate black book of communism, we leftists have been brainwashed by the devil to take away Christianity and the skilled entrepreneurs from the god's chosen country: the United States of America...


Forbes: Castro worth $900 million. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-05-04-castro_x.htm)Fidel said that he would resign if anyone could find even a single dollar in his name. He said that because he doesn't have any money in his name in any bank account, so Forbes is fabricating and twisting the data. Fidel Castro doesn't live a life of luxury, he fought against those people who actually live lives of luxury: the capitalists. In return for his efforts the capitalists plotted his assassination over 638 times and they attempted to execute over 100 of these plots.


When the Cuban regime collapses, you will see that it is Socialism that does not work. You can't evaluate the merits of socialism based upon the activities of one small and isolated island. Cuba is only an example of how a small country can provide excellent public services such as health care and education by focusing on satisfying social need rather then personal greed.

As a result of greed and profiteering there are thousands of billionaires well over a billion people that are malnourished. Things don't have to be this way, and Cuba demonstrates this.

[bugsbunny]

Where as you have been enlightened by the magnificent mises institute and the totally accurate black book of communism, we leftists have been brainwashed by the devil to take away Christianity and the skilled entrepreneurs from the god's chosen country: the United States of America...


Don't understand what you mean.



Fidel said that he would resign if anyone could find even a single dollar in his name. He said that because he doesn't have any money in his name in any bank account, so Forbes is fabricating and twisting the data. Fidel Castro doesn't live a life of luxury, he fought against those people who actually live lives of luxury: the capitalists. In return for his efforts the capitalists plotted his assassination over 638 times and they attempted to execute over 100 of these plots.


You don't need to find any $ in his name. It's his control over the means of production that counts. Castro through his political power controls farms and factories in Cuba and can use the production as he wishes.

The means of production theoretically belongs to the people - that's the lie his "priests" (ie propagandists) have been telling the people. But effectively it belongs to him because he controls them. Didn't most people here say that Cuba is state capitalist and not truly Socialist because the workers do not control the means of production.

Please use the technique of Materialism to determine the truth and not be fooled by Castro's "priests".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png/462px-Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png

Castro is at the top of Cuba's state capitalist system.

[bugsbunny]

As a result of greed and profiteering there are thousands of billionaires well over a billion people that are malnourished. Things don't have to be this way, and Cuba demonstrates this.

Poverty is not caused by capitalism. What makes a country rich and another poor?

There are three reasons:

1)Natural resources
2)Culture.
3)political system

The first one is obvious and need no further elaboration. Countries with natural resources will be richer than those who don't. The second is most important. Japan has little natural resources but it grew rich on one generation after the destruction of WW II. S Korea, Taiwan and Singapore grew rich even though they have little natural resources.

Culture gives the right attitudes, behavior patterns that can determine success or failure. Go back to your school days. Notice why some kids do better than others in academics and sports? What sort of qualities that contributed to their success?

Its the same for whole nations. Religion is the most important part of culture. From religion a whole people get its moral values.

So far, those countries with Christian and Confucianist legacies have achieved the greatest success.

Political systems also makes a difference. After holding the culture variable constant, we find that the free market economies do better than the more socialist ones. Thus Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan beat China (which is slowly turning more capitalist). South Korea is miles ahead of North Korea. West Germany was much richer than East Germany before the reunification.

[Revolution starts with U]

1) political systems are part of culture

2) what about sun worship allowed Egyptians to build temples we would have trouble building today?

3) Why did Christian Europe lag behind Muslim Asia/Africa for 1000 years?

4) Why have many of our greatest advancements come from the minds of Jews?

[eric922]

Poverty is not caused by capitalism. What makes a country rich and another poor?

There are three reasons:

1)Natural resources
2)Culture.
3)political system

The first one is obvious and need no further elaboration. Countries with natural resources will be richer than those who don't. The second is most important. Japan has little natural resources but it grew rich on one generation after the destruction of WW II. S Korea, Taiwan and Singapore grew rich even though they have little natural resources.

Culture gives the right attitudes, behavior patterns that can determine success or failure. Go back to your school days. Notice why some kids do better than others in academics and sports? What sort of qualities that contributed to their success?

Its the same for whole nations. Religion is the most important part of culture. From religion a whole people get its moral values.

So far, those countries with Christian and Confucianist legacies have achieved the greatest success.

Political systems also makes a difference. After holding the culture variable constant, we find that the free market economies do better than the more socialist ones. Thus Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan beat China (which is slowly turning more capitalist). South Korea is miles ahead of North Korea. West Germany was much richer than East Germany before the reunification.
Haha, Christianity= success. Hell, for most of its history, Christianity acted against science and still does in the way it tries to forces its Creationism garbage in public schools.

[CommunityBeliever]

Poverty is not caused by capitalism.Yes it is. At least 99.9% of the entire world is capitalist and over half the world is living on $2 and struggling to find food, water, clothing, and shelter. There is a definite correlation between poverty and capitalism.


What makes a country rich and another poor?The divide between rich and poor countries is a product of imperialism, which is itself a product of the capitalist practices of profiteering and capital accumulation.


Notice why some kids do better than others in academics and sports? What sort of qualities that contributed to their success? The only way for some kids to "do better" than others is for them to participate in a competition. As a communist, I don't have a competitive mindset, so I view my acquaintances as comrades and not as competitors. That said, poverty is not caused by differences in talents.


So far, those countries with Christian and Confucianist legacies have achieved the greatest success. Not really. The countries that were effected by the feudal dark ages were primarily Christian.

[RGacky3]

Poverty is not caused by capitalism. What makes a country rich and another poor?

There are three reasons:

1)Natural resources
2)Culture.
3)political system


That idea has been refuted ove rand over again.

In Capitalism you NEED poverty to have wealth.

BTW, Singapore is by no means free market, neither is Taiwan, West Germany was richer than east Germany, mostly because it had a HUGE boost from the US (relatively untouched in WW2 and an economic super power), while the east had hte USSR which was devistated. Any country that has followed neo-liberal policies have ended up the same (quick growth then collapse), all countries that have followed more social-democratic policies have done better long term.

As far as christianity .... Africa is only 60 years away from colonialism but its starting to get better, South American is about 150 or so years away from it, its started to get better, Europe took hundreds and hundreds of years out of the Roman Empire to stop murdering each other and living in squallor.

Now I know your gonna bring up the United States, and yeah, when you murder all the natives, have tons of room for growth, things will go better than usual. (until capitalism catches up to you, which it has).

[Blake's Baby]

Christianity = development? That must be why Ethiopia has been the most developed country since... oh, no wait...

Armenia then, Armenia has been Christian since AD300, it must be the most devloped economy in the... no, wait...

Spain Portugal Greece Italy, all Christian since AD312, they're all doing really well and - wait...

Gotta hand it to bugsbunny, he managed to keep the fact that he thinks it's all down to his invisible friend a secret for several days.

I feel liberated to tell my 'Pope Meets Castro' joke now.

So, there we are, on the Holy Father's first visit to Cuba. Castro and the Pope are walking along the seafront at Habana when a gust of wind blows the Pope's skullcap into the sea. Castro dives in (aged, like 103 or whatever) and swims a way out to get it.

Headlines the next day:
Habana People's Glorious Newspaper: CASTRO IS A SOCIALIST SUPERMAN

Catholic Times: POPE PRAYS AND GOD GIVES CUBAN LEADER MIRACULOUS STRENGTH

Miami Herald: OFFICIAL - CASTRO CAN'T WALK ON WATER

[Grenzer]

Thus Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan beat China (which is slowly turning more capitalist).

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.

There are no gradients of capitalism. A country is either capitalist or it isn't. If you mean China is starting to have a more "free" market, then that's certainly true; but no matter how much Misean demagogues might cry to the contrary, there is no scientific basis in the statement that partial state ownership of the means of production is contradictory with the capitalist mode of production. Now if you wanted to argue that whole state ownership of the means of production cannot be considered capitalism due to the inability for individual capital accumulation to take place and such, then you might have a starting point there.

I'm also obliged to mention that the statement that capitalism doesn't create poverty is complete bullshit. Poverty is usually a relative thing given the conditions of the country which takes into account per capita income and living conditions. Capitalism is directly responsible for poverty through the accumulation of capital.

I do have to hand it to you though, you're a huge improvement over Night Ripper, who confines himself to making petty moralistic arguments. Moral arguments don't really hold much weight in the real world.

[Ostrinski]

Night Ripper is a goofball.

[bugsbunny]

QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2373203]1) political systems are part of culture
2) what about sun worship allowed Egyptians to build temples we would have trouble building today?


3) Why did Christian Europe lag behind Muslim Asia/Africa for 1000 years?4)Why have many of our greatest advancements come from the minds of Jews?[/QUOTE]

These are good questions. I will try to answer them one by one.


1)”political systems are part of culture”. This is not a question. So I will just make some comments.


This is true to some extent. Julius Nyerere was very confident that Socialism would succeed because his people had a Socialist culture. They had for centuries practiced communal farming and shared the food production. The idea of private property and private profits came from the British imperialist which was alien to Tanzanians.


But in the end he still failed. What worked for a small group of villagers could not be expanded to encompass a larger population. Human nature asserted itself and human nature is basically selfish.


If you look at the world, you will find that most Muslim countries are not democracies. Freedom House has ranked the majority of Muslim countries as either not free or unfree.


So there is something in Muslim culture that impedes the development of democracy. In the “Christian West”, there has always been a theological rationale for the seperation of church and state. Jesus said, “Render unto Caesre the things that are Caesre's. Render unto God the things that are God's.”


So Christianity left room for Caesre. Caesre is of course now gone. So are the Kings and Emperors. Today's Caesre is now the People. Its the people who are sovereign and the People's will is uncovered through elections.


But things are different in Islam. Prophet Mohammed was both spiritual and temperoal ruler while he lived. After he died he was succeeded by a long line of Caliphs till the 1920s when Ataturk booted out the last Caliph. Mohammed and his successors were both Pope and King rolled into one. There was no seperation of Church and state. So there was no room for Caesre. This means there is no room for the People in today's context.


A part of Islam is the Shariah which governs all aspects of human society. It not only governs private behavior but also prescribes public laws – like stoning for adultery, amputation for theft, death of apostasy etc. Shariah law was fully developed by the 10th century based on the words and deeds of Prophet Mohammed found in the Koran and Hadiths. These laws must be implemented whether the People want it or not. If they don't want it, it means they are disobedient to Allah.


Secular Muslims do not want Shariah. Cafetaria Muslims will pick and choose which parts they want. Devout Muslims want to implement it to the full. Fanatical Muslims fight a jihad to have it implemented believing that they will get 72 Virgins in heaven in the event that they are matyred.


In the face of Muslim terrorism, the first two groups keep their mouths shut because they know that Islamic theology is on the side of the fanatics and for fear of getting killed. After all, Mohammed himself fought a holy war to establish Islam which means to establish Shariah law. The third group will donate money to these organizations and vote for Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. A small minority – the fanatics – would actually participate in holy war.


So with this sort of culture, it is difficult to transplant democracy to Muslim countries particularly those in the Mid East. The culture needs to accept the seperation of mosque and state and the accept that the People, not Allah is sovereign. Too many Muslims reject this. So culture does affect the political system to some extent.


2)Sun worship, ancient Egypt.


I don't know much about ancient Egypt and so can't comment much. The religion and hence culture of ancient Egypt was more progressive than the religion and culture of modern Egypt.


That was why ancient Egypt was a rich place, overflowing with grain which it could export. Alexandria was also a cultural and academic city boasting of a great library. Today, Egypt could not feed its own population and has to import food. It could not pay for the imports because it cannot make anything the rest of the world wants to buy. Its main foreign exchange earner is tourism where Muslim Egytian tour guides show tourists the artifacts of a pre Islamic civilization – like the pyramids etc. This is insufficient and Egypt has to rely on foreign aid to make up the deficit.


Don't forget that women are potentially 50% of the labor force. If you under-utilize their potential, the economy will suffer. A religion which allows a man to have 4 wives will always see women as inferior. A religion which allows wife beating will see women as inferior. That is one reason why Egypt is in the dog house while its Jewish neighor prospers. Capitalism has nothing to do with it. Its their culture of which religion is the most important component
3) Why did Christian Europe lag behind Muslim Asia/Africa for 1000 years?Firstly, you are really referring to Western europe that lagged behind and that was because of barbarian invasions which destroyed Roman civilization. The Byzantines did not lag behind Muslim civilization. Secondly, it did not lag behind for that long. By the end of the 13th century, Christian western Europe caught up in Science technology while the Muslims were stagnating in those fields. But the Muslims still excelled in warfare till their defeat before the Gates of Vienna in 1683.
Before Mohammed died, he (according to the Hadiths. See Sahih Bukhari) sent a letter to Roman Emperor Heraclius demanding he submit to Islam. He refused and war began. Mohammed's successors quickly dismembered the Byzantine empire, conquering the most educated, cultured and advanced part of what was then Christiandom.

The Arab armies were backwards and mostly illiterate people. But they soon placed Christians and Jews in charge of the administration. The conquered region remained majority Christian for many centuries after the conquest and it was their culture and abilities that was mainly responsible for the Muslim empire's prosperity and abilites. Even today, Egypt still has a Christian population of 10%.

The Arabs were the military rulers who simply taxed the rich, educated, more advanced people. Initially, they did not bother to convert them. Non-Muslims were required to pay the jizya tax according to Shariah and they feared an erosion of the tax base. Muslims were simply the military overlords who excelled in warfare just like the Mongols in China.

Islam in the first 3 centuries was much different than the Islam of today. Their theology had not yet solidfied and they were tolerant of new ideas. So it was progressive and not stifling. Then came the great debate between the Asharites and the Mutazilites., two rival school of theologians. The Mutazilites championed human reason while the Asharites believed that human reasoning is faulty and cannot be trusted. The Mutazilites were like Thomas Aquinas. They believed that faith must be in accord with human reasoning. In this, they were probably influenced by the Greek philosophers. So for them, murder is bad and that is why God forbids it.
But to the Asharites, God is above human reason. For them, God forbids murder and that is why murder is bad. To the Mutazillites, you can use human reasoning to prove the murder is bad and from there understand why God forbade it. To the Asharites human reasoning must be cast aside for it is inadequate. It also limits God's power. Our job is simply to obey even if we don't understand.


Thus Shariah Law requires 4 male witnesses to prove rape. If a woman cannot find four witnesses, then she cannot prove rape and is assumed guilty of illicit sex and thus must be punished. We admit it does not make sense but must obey.


Such thinking has wide ranging impact from Science to economics to politics. It has screwed up the Muslim world and the Golden Age of Islamic civilization soon turned into iron and rust. Why did the Asharites win? Its simply because Islamic Scriptures were on their side and they had the better argument. After their initial conquests of parts of the Byzantine empire, they had access to the same books that Christian Europe had – books written by the classical Greeks and Romans. Christian Europe embraced Greek rationality while Islam eventually rejected it after a brief bright period. Judae-Christian Scriptures are in accord with human reasoning while Islamic Scriptures are not.


In Christian Europe, Science flourished as a result.


If you are interested in further reading, I recommend the following books from where I drew the above essay. They explained why Science grew in Christian Europe and not other civilizations.

“For the Glory of God”, by Rodney Stark
“Science and Religion from Aristotle to Copernicus” by Edward Grant.
4)Why have Jews contibuted the most.

They have a progressive culture. That is one reason. There is yet another possible theory that someone advanced though I am not sure. They (the Akhenazi jews) have higher intelligence. According to IQ tests, Akhenazi Jews have average IQ of 115. According to this theory, they were persecuted in the Mid Ages and forced to go into money lending business. This requires higher intelligence to perform. Thus only the smart Jews survived and the dumb ones died out. Evolution is still going on and did not stop 50,000 years ago as some scientists say. So over the past 2,000 years European Jews became smarter and smarter. That accounts for their high percentage of Nobel Prizes.

[RGacky3]

bugsbunny, no one is gonna read copy and pastes, write your own thoughts.

[leftistman]

I don't believe that there will be a revolution by the Cuban people against their government which provides them with education, housing, health care, food, and protection from American imperialism. I am sure that there will be reform made by government officials but not an actual revolution. I can't imagine that the Cubans would revolt against a government that they are so reliant on.

[eyeheartlenin]

In college, I used to subscribe to an English-language edition of the Cuban paper Granma. As I remember, the very first issue I got carried pictures of the veteran Cuban communist Aníbal Escalante holding (unauthorized) political meetings, for which Escalante was subsequently expelled from the Cuban CP, I believe. [EDIT: In fact, Escalante was sentenced to 15 years in prison, and passed away a few years after completing his sentence, reportedly.] What happened to Escalante shows that if there is one thing the Cuban government is good at, it is surveillance, and, after fifty years of police surveillance, the Cuban working class is very likely completely atomized and being pacified by the Castro brothers' piecemeal, slow-motion restoration of capitalism. So no: no revolution in Cuba, thanks to more than half a century of personal rule by Fidel, and now, Raúl – who knew that "socialism" entailed dynastic rule? Instead, the galloping approach of the restoration of exploitation of Cuban workers.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Poverty is not caused by capitalism. What makes a country rich and another poor?

There are three reasons:

1)Natural resources
2)Culture.
3)political system

The first one is obvious and need no further elaboration. Countries with natural resources will be richer than those who don't. The second is most important. Japan has little natural resources but it grew rich on one generation after the destruction of WW II. S Korea, Taiwan and Singapore grew rich even though they have little natural resources.

Culture gives the right attitudes, behavior patterns that can determine success or failure. Go back to your school days. Notice why some kids do better than others in academics and sports? What sort of qualities that contributed to their success?

Its the same for whole nations. Religion is the most important part of culture. From religion a whole people get its moral values.

So far, those countries with Christian and Confucianist legacies have achieved the greatest success.

Political systems also makes a difference. After holding the culture variable constant, we find that the free market economies do better than the more socialist ones. Thus Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan beat China (which is slowly turning more capitalist). South Korea is miles ahead of North Korea. West Germany was much richer than East Germany before the reunification.

You're obviously totally out of your depth.

Search 'natural resource curse' on google. Or buy a book. It's widely accepted that countries rich in natural resources tend almost in every case to be poorer, because it encourages civil war and goes hand in hand with a fragile political system, and encourages rebel guerilla movements to pop up.

Pretty much every 'successful' Capitalist country has a separation of church and state, so that's a redundant factor. In fact, the weakening of religion in these countries can probably be seen as more important factor in their sustained economic growth. Christianity imperils economic success just as much as any other religion. Otherwise, some Christian African countries would surely have developed by now?

Again, political systems are not exogenous; they are endogenous to a multitude of other factors, mostly economic growth actually. Institutions were set up in western developed/(at the time developing) nations to facilitate capitalism. There is a strong argument for institutions actually, but this is different to the political system. Institutions can be political, social or economic. The political system is merely political cover for the economic system of capital.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In college, I used to subscribe to an English-language edition of the Cuban paper Granma. As I remember, the very first issue I got carried pictures of the veteran Cuban communist Aníbal Escalante holding (unauthorized) political meetings, for which Escalante was subsequently expelled from the Cuban CP, I believe. [EDIT: In fact, Escalante was sentenced to 15 years in prison, and passed away a few years after completing his sentence, reportedly.] What happened to Escalante shows that if there is one thing the Cuban government is good at, it is surveillance, and, after fifty years of police surveillance, the Cuban working class is very likely completely atomized and being pacified by the Castro brothers' piecemeal, slow-motion restoration of capitalism. So no: no revolution in Cuba, thanks to more than half a century of personal rule by Fidel, and now, Raúl – who knew that "socialism" entailed dynastic rule? Instead, the galloping approach of the restoration of exploitation of Cuban workers.

This is funny because when I was there, ordinary Cubans were very friendly with the Cuban police. I saw little evidence of corruption. Moreover, even workers I spoke to who were unhappy with the political and economic system there were genuinely very respectful of Fidel Castro; and tbh, there's little of a personality cult around him, it just seems that many Cubans (especially mulatto and black Cubans who may have come from poorer families) are just grateful for what the Cuban revolution acheived.

Rather, the degeneration of the Cuban revolution is due to a huge move back to Capitalism in the form of private property, currency etc. There are many factors for this: economic strangulation via the blockade, a lack of democracy at the national level, the collapse of the USSR and loss of trading partners etc.

[Alric]

I think there will eventually be a "revolution", a peaceful one probably - where the ruling bureaucracy gets bored of maintaining a police state. Naturally, extreme leftists will analyze it as a fascist coup stamping out the forces of good again.

[Blake's Baby]

You think bureaucracies remain in power until they get 'bored'?

What 'extreme leftists' would oppose the end of the state-capitalist regime in Cuba? I'm not sure what you think is 'extreme left' here.