Cuba

[MaximMK]

I've been reading many posts on the forum that say Cuba is not socialist. I've been taught that a country is Socialist when the state is led by a Communist Party which represents the working class (Dictatorship of the Proletariat) and has state controlled economy (the whole production/export/import is controlled by the government to satisfy the needs of the people). Can you explain me why do you consider Cuba is not socialist?

[Caj]

I've been taught that a country is Socialist when the state is led by a Communist Party which represents the working class (Dictatorship of the Proletariat) and has state controlled economy (the whole production/export/import is controlled by the government to satisfy the needs of the people). Can you explain me why do you consider Cuba is not socialist?

Socialism can't exist in one country. Cuba is state capitalist, because the means of production is controlled by the state, which constitutes the Cuban bourgeoisie by extracting surplus value from the Cuban working class. Cuba is currently undergoing reforms that will most likely re-establish market capitalism on the island.

[Drosophila]

nope (http://news.yahoo.com/cuba-legalizes-sale-purchase-private-property-112525156.html)

[Caj]

nope (http://news.yahoo.com/cuba-legalizes-sale-purchase-private-property-112525156.html)

Not that it was socialist prior to this. . . .

[Drosophila]

Not that it was socialist prior to this. . . .

I know, I was just citing a recent example.

[Comrade Samuel]

I've been reading many posts on the forum that say Cuba is not socialist. I've been taught that a country is Socialist when the state is led by a Communist Party which represents the working class (Dictatorship of the Proletariat) and has state controlled economy (the whole production/export/import is controlled by the government to satisfy the needs of the people). Can you explain me why do you consider Cuba is not socialist?

Socialism can as a matter of fact exist within one country however today cuba does not do it correctly. The problem with Cuba is that they are revisionist and that they have strayed so far from the communist principals that made the revolution possible that they are today practically capitalists. There is too much inequality, private property ect. and with the way they have been going as of recent I wouldn't be surprised if Cuba ends up becoming a U.S Allie in the next 50 years give or take.

[MaximMK]

I see. I just had to ask because i saw alot of criticism about all socialist states so far.


Socialism can as a matter of fact exist within one country however today cuba does not do it correctly. The problem with Cuba is that they are revisionist and that they have strayed so far from the communist principals that made the revolution possible that they are now practically capitalists. There is too much inequality, private property ect. and with the way they have been going as of recent I wouldn't be surprised if Cuba doesent end up becoming a U.S Allie in the next 50 years give or take.

It is possible after the old revolutionaries like Castro die. It would be a pity if that happened. Such a famous revolution..

[Caj]

Socialism can as a matter of fact exist within one country however today cuba does not do it correctly. The problem with Cuba is that they are revisionist and that they have strayed so far from the communist principals that made the revolution possible that they are today practically capitalists. There is too much inequality, private property ect. and with the way they have been going as of recent I wouldn't be surprised if Cuba ends up becoming a U.S Allie in the next 50 years give or take.

This is an un-Marxist way of looking at it. Instead of looking at the material conditions that led to Cuba's situation, you argue that it's because of "revisionism" -- whatever that means.


I see. I just had to ask because i saw alot of criticism about all socialist states so far.

"Socialist states" do not, and cannot, exist. Socialism is classless. The state is an organ of class rule. They are incompatible.

[The Jay]

I've been reading many posts on the forum that say Cuba is not socialist. I've been taught that a country is Socialist when the state is led by a Communist Party which represents the working class (Dictatorship of the Proletariat) and has state controlled economy (the whole production/export/import is controlled by the government to satisfy the needs of the people). Can you explain me why do you consider Cuba is not socialist?

The fact that Cuba still has a state means that it isn't socialist. They still use money too. I'm not sure where you learned that crap, probably school, but you should read the Communist Manifesto to get a basic idea of what socialism is.

[MaximMK]

What if the country is led by people that really care for the proletariat and only use the role of government to help the people and not control them. Is it not possible for a state to be socialist and use money.

[The Jay]

What if the country is led by people that really care for the proletariat and only use the role of government to help the people and not control them.

It would still be a state and by definition, not a socialist area.

[MaximMK]

So i guess you do not support socialist revolutions while the rest of the world is still capitalist ?

[The Jay]

That's not what I said at all.

[MaximMK]

But you said if they use money they are not socialist and its impossible not to use money when the rest of the world is capitalist. Because of the trade.

[Caj]

What if the country is led by people that really care for the proletariat and only use the role of government to help the people and not control them. Is it not possible for a state to be socialist and use money.

That's idealism at its worst. People don't just "care for the proletariat" out of some moral obligation to do so. Individuals follow their perceived material self-interests above personal moralities. Heads of bourgeois states have material self-interests diametrically opposed to those of the proletariat.

[The Jay]

That's a problem that must be dealt with, that's true. I don't have all the answers but you should still read the manifesto.

[Caj]

So i guess you do not support socialist revolutions while the rest of the world is still capitalist ?

No, it's just that a socialist revolution cannot remain in one nation. It has to spread internationally without becoming isolated. Otherwise it will degenerate and the bourgeoisie will re-take power.

[Caj]

But you said if they use money they are not socialist and its impossible not to use money when the rest of the world is capitalist. Because of the trade.

Some form of currency will probably be used temporarily after the revolution, during what Marx termed the "lower phase of communism".

[Prometeo liberado]

Look, whether or not a country strives for socialism is probably what your asking. By the standards of the vague phenomena known as 'left communism' there never was, is or shall be socialism, communism or even a working class. Cuba has in indeed been working for a classless society. The reasons for its lack of continued progress are too many to state here.

[Comrade Samuel]

This is an un-Marxist way of looking at it. Instead of looking at the material conditions that led to Cuba's situation, you argue that it's because of "revisionism" -- whatever that means.



"Socialist states" do not, and cannot, exist. Socialism is classless. The state is an organ of class rule. They are incompatible.

"the word revisionism is used to refer to various ideas, principles and theories that are based on a significant revision of fundamental Marxist premises." -wikipedia
I can't put it more bluntly than that. You say I should examine the material conditions that led to cuba's current situation however you don't see that refusing to accept poor material conditions does not lead to capitalism it is the exact opposite.

[MaximMK]

I agree but it is hard to spread because some countries are richer than other and therefore some don't have circumstances for beginning a revolution because the people are not desperate enough to take up a rifle and fight the state like in other countries.

[Caj]

Cuba has in indeed been working for a classless society. The reasons for its lack of continued progress are too many to state here.

One of the primary reasons is that it's capitalist.

[Caj]

I agree but it is hard to spread because some countries are richer than other and therefore some don't have circumstances for beginning a revolution because the people are not desperate enough to take up a rifle and fight the state like in other countries.

Yes, it is difficult for revolutions to spread, but we can't afford to try to circumvent this necessity by proposing bullshit like "socialism in one country". Otherwise, we'll have another century of failure.

[MaximMK]

I agree a progressive revolution must be global for it to work.

[MaximMK]

A country where a socialist revolution occurs will turn into capitalist if it stays too long among capitalist states without spreading the revolution.

[Caj]

"the word revisionism is used to refer to various ideas, principles and theories that are based on a significant revision of fundamental Marxist premises." -wikipedia

Marxism is a science, not a religion. Science is based on the revision of hypotheses. Any real Marxist is simultaneously a revisionist.


I can't put it more bluntly than that. You say I should examine the material conditions that led to cuba's current situation however you don't see that refusing to accept poor material conditions does not lead to capitalism it is the exact opposite.

I'm confused by your wording here.

My point is that we shouldn't blame failures on individual "revisionists", but on the material conditions that caused these failures.

[Prometeo liberado]

One of the primary reasons is that it's capitalist.

My contention though is that they are socialist, yet have not reached socialism. To denigrate the work of a great revolution to capitalist status reinforces a ridiculously narrow criteria for the benefit of armchair theoreticians at the expense of those in the trenches seeking to make the dream real.

[Caj]

My contention though is that they are socialist, yet have not reached socialism. To denigrate the work of a great revolution to capitalist status reinforces a ridiculously narrow criteria for the benefit of armchair theoreticians at the expense of those in the trenches seeking to make the dream real.

If by "socialist" you mean the DotP, i.e., the "revolutionary transformation" (Marx) of capitalism into socialism, you are still wrong. Marxists distinguish between modes of production based on differing class relations to the means of production. In Cuba, the workers do not control the means of production. The means of production is controlled by a state that extracts surplus value in the same way that the bourgeoisie in any other capitalist nation does. Just because Cuba's bourgeoisie shrouds its "socialism" in red flags and Marxian (or rather pseudo-Marxian) rhetoric, it does not account for the material conditions and social relations that make it capitalist.

[Drosophila]

"Socialist states" do not, and cannot, exist. Socialism is classless. The state is an organ of class rule. They are incompatible.

I would like to know how socialism would be enforced without a state. This is a serious question - I'm not just being a smartass.

[CommieTroll]

Socialism can as a matter of fact exist within one country however today cuba does not do it correctly. The problem with Cuba is that they are revisionist and that they have strayed so far from the communist principals that made the revolution possible that they are today practically capitalists. There is too much inequality, private property ect. and with the way they have been going as of recent I wouldn't be surprised if Cuba ends up becoming a U.S Allie in the next 50 years give or take.

Cuba was doomed from the start. From the beginning of Castro's rule there was the only option of becoming a Soviet neo-colony, revisionist trends in the USSR had taken place years before the Cuban revolution. The Capitalistic reforms that have taken place under Raul are a measure of desperation by the regime not because they are ''revisionist capitalists''.

[Caj]

I would like to know how socialism would be enforced without a state. This is a serious question - I'm not just being a smartass.

What do you mean "enforced"? Force will not be necessary to maintain socialism, but only to establish it. In the same way, the state, the proletarian dictatorship, will only be necessary to seize the means of production and establish socialism, at which point it will be rendered unecessary and will "wither away". By definition, the moment socialism begins is the moment classlessness and statelessness begins.

[Prometeo liberado]

To be socialist simply implies that one is striving for socialist things/goals that are not readily attainable under the current conditions. I would suspect that if the Cuban working class one day did indeed take democratic control of the means of production then a new line of "they are not truly the working class, but the new bourgeoisie element of the working class", thus again not socialist. The left-com practice of continually needing to widdle down and dissect revolutionary progress can only lead to theoretical cannibalism.

[Caj]

To be socialist simply implies that one is striving for socialist things/goals that are not readily attainable under the current conditions.

Capitalist Cuba is not "striving for socialist things/goals". You're a bourgeois socialist if you think that's the case. Only the proletariat can strive for socialism.


The left-com practice of continually needing to widdle down and dissect revolutionary progress can only lead to theoretical cannibalism.

The Stalinist practice of supporting the bourgeoisie can only lead to more practical failure.

[Prometeo liberado]

Achieving revolutionary change is much different in practice than it is in theory. Dismissing the current state of affairs in Cuba as merely the product of the CCP selling out is just to easy and irresponsible. All to often the truth is much more complicated and the responsibility to understand and defend it very burdensome. Therefore some choose the easy way out.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Capitalist Cuba is not "striving for socialist things/goals". You're a bourgeois socialist if you think that's the case. Only the proletariat can strive for socialism.



The Stalinist practice of supporting the bourgeoisie can only lead to more practical failure.

You are one of the most annoying and demagogic ultra-leftists I have ever met on this website. Your right-off-the-bat attempts at indoctrination followed by your continuous agitation of anyone with ideas different from yours do not aid in the conversation one bit.

[Caj]

Dismissing the current state of affairs in Cuba as merely the product of the CCP selling out is just to easy and irresponsible. All to often the truth is much more complicated and the responsibility to understand and defend it very burdensome. Therefore some choose the easy way out.

Wait, you're not addressing me, are you? I didn't say anything about the CCP "selling out". That would be a simplistic and un-Marxist way of analyzing the situation, on par with blaming those "damn revisionists" for the failure of the USSR.

[Prometeo liberado]

I'm pretty much lumping all of the left-com arguments together. Seems they all come out eventually when these type of discussions come up.

[Caj]

You are one of the most annoying and demagogic ultra-leftists I have ever met on this website.

Well, thank you.


Your right-off-the-bat attempts at indoctrination followed by your continuous agitation of anyone with ideas different from yours do not aid in the conversation one bit.

It's not "anyone with ideas different from" mine. It's just Stalinists. Apart from my opposition to them, I'm pretty non-sectarian.

[Prometeo liberado]

Well, thank you.



It's not "anyone with ideas different from" mine. It's just Stalinist. Apart from my opposition to them, I'm pretty non-sectarian.

So I'm a Stalinist now? Does labeling make it easier for you to dismiss the arguments of others? This is the same tactic as labeling Cuba capitalist. Once that is done then there is no need to look any closer, or for that matter to even entertain the notion of thoughtfully analysis. With one stroke of a label we can all be freed of that cumbersome relic called thinking.

[Caj]

So I'm a Stalinist now? Does labeling make it easier for you to dismiss the arguments of others?

Based on the fact that you described Cuba as socialist, I'd figured you were. Sorry if I mislabeled you.

Even if you aren't, you're taking a bourgeois socialist position in this thread by claiming that Cuba is "striving" towards socialism.

[Caj]

This is the same tactic as labeling Cuba capitalist. Once that is done then there is no need to look any closer, or for that matter to even entertain the notion of thoughtfully analysis. With one stroke of a label we can all be freed of that cumbersome relic called thinking.

Hahaha :laugh:

That's a good one, jbeard. It's actually the other way around though. By looking at the objective material conditions and social relations that exist in Cuba, we can conclude, through Marxian analysis, that Cuba is capitalist and certainly not socialist . . . or we can just say "fuck Marxian analysis" and conclude that Cuba is socialist for no other reason than the fact that it's disguised in alluring red flags and socialistic rhetoric.

[Drosophila]

What do you mean "enforced"? Force will not be necessary to maintain socialism, but only to establish it. In the same way, the state, the proletarian dictatorship, will only be necessary to seize the means of production and establish socialism, at which point it will be rendered unecessary and will "wither away". By definition, the moment socialism begins is the moment classlessness and statelessness begins.

It seems rather Utopian to me to think that no one would oppose socialism in a post-revolutionary society.

[Caj]

It seems rather Utopian to me to think that no one would oppose socialism in a post-revolutionary society.

Still, the state would be unecessary, because there wouldn't be classes.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

"the word revisionism is used to refer to various ideas, principles and theories that are based on a significant revision of fundamental Marxist premises." -wikipedia
I can't put it more bluntly than that. You say I should examine the material conditions that led to cuba's current situation however you don't see that refusing to accept poor material conditions does not lead to capitalism it is the exact opposite.
You don't "accept" or "reject" material conditions, it's not a situation (as I recall someone else putting it, but I don't remember who) that you deal with.

I'll quote Engels here because he says it better than myself:


The new productive forces have already outgrown the capitalistic mode of using them. And this conflict between productive forces and modes of production is not a conflict engendered in the mind of man, like that between original sin and divine justice. It exists, in fact, objectively, outside us, independently of the will and actions even of the men that have brought it on. Modern Socialism is nothing but the reflex, in thought, of this conflict in fact; its ideal reflection in the minds, first, of the class directly suffering under it, the working class.

[Prometeo liberado]

Hahaha :laugh:

That's a good one, jbeard. It's actually the other way around though. By looking at the objective material conditions and social relations that exist in Cuba, we can conclude, through Marxian analysis, that Cuba is capitalist and certainly not socialist . . . or we can just say "fuck Marxian analysis" and conclude that Cuba is socialist for no other reason than the fact that it's disguised in alluring red flags and socialistic rhetoric.

Maybe you just choose not to hear. I never stated that Cuba had achieved socialism. Rather, there are and have been efforts to retard and replace capitalism thru the gains won by revolution. These are the very real issues and struggles that are played out in the day to day lives of the Cuban people. You can throw or take away all the labels you want, throw out smoke screens such as the waving of red flags and what not. I and many others will reserve our venom and lust for deconstruction for the proper time and place.

[Ostrinski]

Cuba is capitalist. If we can't even agree on this then there is obviously more than one conception of socialism used among different tendencies. Personally, I choose to follow the traditional Marxist definition: classless (and by extension stateless) economic structure wherein the means of production are owned publicly, economy is democratically planned, and no market/production for exchange. There would only be analogue for a debate like this if the Cuban economy met any of this criteria, which it fucking doesn't.

The Cuban economy run a bureaucracy that internally has taken upon a bourgeois class character. There exists money, wage, capital, exchange-oriented production.. the fuck else do you need? The ruling class in Cuba, like in all Stalinist states, has placed its interests antithetical to the interests of the proletariat, i.e. socialism. The fact that the proletariat still exists there is proof enough that it can no way, in no abstract universe, be characterized as socialist.

Furthermore, for it classify as dictatorship of the proletariat, the organs of the state must not only be controlled by the proletariat, but be utilized to expropriate and suppress the class enemy, the bourgeoisie. We do not see this happening. Instead we see the state organs being oriented toward ends antithetical to the interests of the proletariat, and also no proletarian control over said state.

If the revision of Marxism is why all attempts at socialism have failed, then we will never, ever have socialism. Marxism is not some divine ordinance that we must strictly follow and abide by, lest we stray from our path. That is idealism of the filthiest sort, in fact it's borderline religious fanaticism. Of course, ideas become more and less relevant, and the nature of how they are relevant change as the material conditions change, afterall ideas are merely the regimentation of mass scale interests into a central directive. Obviously, the nature of interests changes as the material conditions change. So too should the ideas that address them. In a word, in order not to be revisionists, we have to be revisionists, if we are to stay true to the Marxist method.

[Caj]

Maybe you just choose not to hear. I never stated that Cuba had achieved socialism.

Maybe you just choose not to hear. Re-read my post. I never said that you claimed Cuba had achieved socialism; rather I stated, correctly, that you referred to Cuba as socialist, i.e., "striving" to achieve socialism.


Rather, there are and have been efforts to retard and replace capitalism thru the gains won by revolution.

Got reformism? One cannot "retard and replace capitalism". It has to be overthrown and replaced in a proletarian revolution.


These are the very real issues and struggles that are played out in the day to day lives of the Cuban people. You can throw or take away all the labels you want, throw out smoke screens such as the waving of red flags and what not. I and many others will reserve our venom and lust for deconstruction for the proper time and place.

Blah, blah, blah.

Don't act like you're on the side of "the Cuban people" (I presume, and hope, you mean the Cuban proletariat), when you're supporting the very regime that exploits them.

[Ostrinski]

Only utopians I see here are the anti-revisionists who think that simply by obeying the countenance of some ideal we will reach communism.

[Prometeo liberado]

Maybe you just choose not to hear. Re-read my post. I never said that you claimed Cuba had achieved socialism; rather I stated, correctly, that you referred to Cuba as socialist, i.e., "striving" to achieve socialism.



Got reformism? One cannot "retard and replace capitalism". It has to be overthrown and replaced in a proletarian revolution.



Blah, blah, blah.

Don't act like you're on the side of "the Cuban people" (I presume, and hope, you mean the Cuban proletariat), when you're supporting the very regime that exploits them.

I assume through your extensive time spent in Cuba that you have come these conclusions. I will assume further that even you are aware that a full overthrow of capitalism after the revolution would have been the extinction of Cuban sovereignty. This revolution has been suspended in mid air because of the tenacity of outside reactionary forces the likes of which has never been seen.
Lets see, I am a revisionist, Stalinist, and now a reformer. When one doesn't stick do you just keep moving on until something will?
Give me a list of personal names that I have used towards you in this thread please.

[Caj]

I assume through your extensive time spent in Cuba that you have come these conclusions.

I love this argument. It's so pathetic. If I'm not allowed to come to conclusions regarding Cuba simply because I've never been there, then there's nothing more to discuss. Of course, I doubt you've been there either, so I guess you can't argue that Cuba is socialist by your own logic.


I will assume further that even you are aware that a full overthrow of capitalism after the revolution would have been the extinction of Cuban sovereignty. This revolution has been suspended in mid air because of the tenacity of outside reactionary forces the likes of which has never been seen.

Well, overthrowing capitalism wasn't even on the agenda of the Cuban Revolution.


Lets see, I am a revisionist, Stalinist, and now a reformer. When one doesn't stick do you just keep moving on until something will?
Give me a list of personal names that I have used towards you in this thread please.

Let's see, I never called you a revisionist (I'm not such an idiot that I would consider that an insult); I never called you a Stalinist (in fact, I apologized if I gave you that impression); lastly, I did call you a reformist, and that's because you were advocating reformism. If you seriously believe that revolutions can be "suspended" and that the Cuban regime can "achieve socialism" by "retarding and replacing capitalism" without the proletariat taking state power, you are a reformist.

[Prometeo liberado]

No one I have ever spoken who has lived in Cuba could be as dismissive and narrow sighted in their view of Cuba as you. Whatever term you need to use, go for it. But the truth remains that the Revolutionary process was held in check by imperialist forces. Maybe you could just do everyone a favor and recite the standard laundry list left-com mantra.
There has never been socialism
Stalin destroyed socialism in country X(yes the same socialism that never exsisted)
Country X was never socialist
Anyone to the left of me is not a socialist
Anyone to the right of me is not a socialist
When left to ourselves left-coms resort to purging each other.
This way the rest of us can just move on and deal with a world in which the rest of the world lives in.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I do not understand quite why people say that socialism is not possible in one country, why not? Of course it might be more difficult to make trade deals with other nations, but how is just sitting around waiting fro the world revolution to come going to help. Somebody has to clear me up about why Socialism (social ownership of the Mop, the struggle for workers control and heightening of the productive forces) needsto be world wide. I still have not gotten any real empirical answers for that one. (Of course i also want global communism, but... that will take a while)

[Caj]

No one I have ever spoken who has lived in Cuba could be as dismissive and narrow sighted in their view of Cuba as you.

Oh, really? How many Cubans have told you that the means of production is controlled by the workers there? None of them, because it's not. Cuba is not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship over the proletariat.


the truth remains that the Revolutionary process was held in check by imperialist forces.

The truth remains that supporting the bourgeoisie of any nation in the name of "anti-imperialism" amounts to supporting capitalism.


Maybe you could just do everyone a favor and recite the standard laundry list left-com mantra.
There has never been socialism
Stalin destroyed socialism in country X(yes the same socialism that never exsisted)
Country X was never socialist
Anyone to the left of me is not a socialist
Anyone to the right of me is not a socialist
When left to ourselves left-coms resort to purging each other.
This way the rest of us can just move on and deal with a world in which the rest of the world lives in.

This is just so stupid, I don't even know how to respond. I didn't think it could get any more ridiculous than your arguing that Cuba is socialist and yet hasn't achieved socialism, but I guess I stand corrected.

[Prometeo liberado]

Again, never said that the Cuban workers control the means of production or anything else like that. My whole contention is that your analysis seems to be based what you can rip apart. And never what the left-com has achieved. Yet by your criteria I see that there can never be anything positive to say about any revolutionary endeavorer.
No one is agruing definitions here. What I am saying is that socialism has not yet been abandoned. Socialist in character, yes. Blanket statements and personal replies only scream to the very nature of your understanding.
And to quell any concerns you may have, yes I have spent a considerable amount of time there. I saw things that I did not like and things that are truly revolutionary. And no, they do not live under a dictatorship. And yes socialism is very real and not limited to theoretical panderings. It is something that the Cuban people strive for collectively. To dismiss them and their hopes is the very essence of socialist-bourgeois elitism.

[Caj]

Again, never said that the Cuban workers control the means of production or anything else like that.

Then how can you possibly argue that it is socialist? If the workers don't control the means of production, that means that a proletarian revolution still has to occur and a proletarian state has to be established. This is basic Marxism for fuck's sake.


My whole contention is that your analysis seems to be based what you can rip apart. And never what the left-com has acheived.

This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with left communism, but with whether or not Cuba is socialist and/or a proletarian state.


Yet by your criteria I see that there can never be anything positive to say about any revolutionary endeavorer.

I do think that the Cuban Revolution was positive in the fact that it raised the average Cuban worker's standard of living drastically, but it was certainly not a socialist revolution. To argue that it was, is to sacrifice a materialist, objective understanding of what socialism means.


And to quell any concerns you may have, yes I have spent a considerable amount of time there.

You must understand if I don't believe you. It seems odd that you didn't mention this earlier in the thread.


And no, they do not live under a dictatorship.

Yes, they do. It is a bourgeois dictatorship.


And yes socialism is very real

No, it's not. First off, socialism is not possible in one country. Secondly, even if you mean the DotP by "socialist", you are still wrong. The workers don't control the means of production, surplus value extraction exists, the bourgeoisie is the ruling class, private property is legalized, etc., etc. What the fuck constitutes a DotP to you?


To dismiss them and their hopes is the very essence of socialist-bourgeois elitism.

For you to take the side of the bourgeoisie of Cuba is not only a betrayal of the Cuban proletariat, but a betrayal of the world proletariat. It's disgusting for you to call yourself a leftist while supporting such reaction.

[Prometeo liberado]

First, throwing it out that I have been there is only something to do as a last resort. I hate it when people start out by saying that. As if any one else's opinions are for not since they haven't been there.


Then how can you possibly argue that it is socialist? If the workers don't control the means of production, that means that a proletarian revolution still has to occur and a proletarian state has to be established. This is basic Marxism for fuck's sake

I'll explain it this way. Socialist in character, sounds crappy but they had/have no other choice. Because of the unique situation of imperialist isolation the revolution could never move more forward than this. This is the day to day reality of it. I'd like to see any arm-chair theoretician tell a Cuban worker how untheoretical and useless the revolution was.


[/Yes, they do. It is a bourgeois dictatorship.QUOTE]

No. Semantics.


No, it's not. First off, socialism is not possible in one country. Secondly, even if you mean the DotP by "socialist", you are still wrong. The workers don't control the means of production, surplus value extraction exists, the bourgeoisie is the ruling class, private property is legalized, etc., etc. What the fuck constitutes a DotP to you?[/B]]

See, the disagreement here is our definitions. I'm using socialism synonymously with communism. You're using it synonymously with the DotP.

When you can get your terms in order then, maybe I'll take you seriously.


I understand, but again I am talking about a socialist program versus it's completion. I never said that they had achieved a high stage of socialism. The Cuban people deal with the reality of living with American guns aimed at them 24/7. Not stuck on revleft all day.

For you to take the side of the bourgeoisie of Cuba is not only a betrayal of the Cuban proletariat, but a betrayal of the world proletariat. It's disgusting for you to call yourself a leftist while supporting such reaction
Then add "disgusting". to the long list of personal names you have called me. So long as the progressive revolutionary forces continue to defend the island by superior ideas and freedom of thought, with the guiding principles of Marxism-Leninism, then yes I will defend them.

I'm bored.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, 'The Economist's front page title of March 24th is "Cuba hurtles towards Capitalism". But honestly, there is no prescribed Marxian idea or doctrine for the "transition to communism", which is socialism. - Here a quote "If you are not moving towards communism, you are moving towards capitalism" Mao Zedong.- The fact is that Marx himself advocated a Central economic transition period, and Engels called Socialism "a state of flux". Of course for left wing communists, socialism is quite clearly the immediate control of workers over the MoP. If Cuba is Socialist does not really matter, what i think does matter, is that Raul Castro has been making reforms on Cuba to expand the private Capitalist sector even past its current 10% of the cuban economy. Cuba is definitely not moving towards communism, it is "hurtling towards capitalism"; so, i'd say Cuba is obviously not workers' controlled and not in "the transition phase of communism". Cuba is not Socialist, it is giving up its state owned property and Privatising.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

"No, it's not. First off, socialism is not possible in one country."

This i need explained to me.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

But given the imperialist conditions of Cuba, i wouldn't be too harsh as to call it a "bourgeois" dictatorship, the people in the Cuban party and society are still very much dedicated to achieving socialism. The problem is the economy, IT is not socialist, and not looking like it will be all too soon. But who knows? Maybe USA becomes communist and helps Cuba...

[Caj]

As if any one else's opinions are for not since they haven't been there.

. . . you were the one implying this.


I'll explain it this way. Socialist in character, sounds crappy but they had/have no other choice. Because of the unique situation of imperialist isolation the revolution could never move more forward than this. This is the day to day reality of it. I'd like to see any arm-chair theoretician tell a Cuban worker how untheoretical and useless the revolution was.

Socialism wasn't even on the agenda for the Cuban revolutionaries. Even Marxist-Leninists should accept this fact, as Castro didn't declare himself a Marxist-Leninist until after the Bay of Pigs. The Cuban Revolution was, from the very beginning, a bourgeois revolution.


No. Semantics.

Whatever. Even with the conventional definition of the word dictatorship, I think the term can be used to describe Cuba.


I understand, but again I am talking about a socialist program versus it's completion. I never said that they had achieved a high stage of socialism.

Okay, but what succeeds capialism and preceeds socialism? It's the "revolutionary transformation" of the one into the other: the proletarian revolution, or, what amounts to the same thing, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Cuba is not in the midst of a revolution, and the current state is not controlled by the proletariat.


The Cuban people deal with the reality of living with American guns aimed at them 24/7.

Yes, they do. Imperialism is, however, a structural system inherent to modern capitalism. One cannot oppose imperialism by supporting the bourgeoisie of an imperialized nation. The struggle against imperialism is simultaneously a struggle against all manifestations of capitalism, as they are inseperable.


Then add "disgusting". to the long list of personal names you have called me.

Oh, chill the fuck out. The only thing I've actually directly called you is a reformist, and that's because you were advocating reformism.


So long as the progressive revolutionary forces continue to defend the island by superior ideas and freedom of thought, with the guiding principles of Marxism-Leninism, then yes I will defend them.

So you are a Stalinist then. . . .

Supporting the bourgeoisie, regardless of nation, is no longer progressive, but reactionary.

[Caj]

When you can get your terms in order then, maybe I'll take you seriously.

Here's how I see it (and how any Marxist would see it): the DotP precedes socialism, which is synonymous with communism. I'm the one who has to keep adjusting my fucking definitions because of your use of the word "socialist" as synonymous with the DotP while being different from "socialism". Maybe you should get your terms in order.

[Prometeo liberado]

Im just not so quick to use my armchair litmus test to dismiss what can be learned from the real day to day struggles of socialism. Do you really think that this can happen over night?

[Ostrinski]

Im just not so quick to use my armchair litmus test to dismiss what can be learned from the real day to day struggles of socialism. Do you really think that this can happen over night?No, that's what the dotp is for.

[Caj]

But given the imperialist conditions of Cuba, i wouldn't be too harsh as to call it a "bourgeois" dictatorship, the people in the Cuban party and society are still very much dedicated to achieving socialism. The problem is the economy, IT is not socialist, and not looking like it will be all too soon. But who knows? Maybe USA becomes communist and helps Cuba...

The political superstructure is determined by the economic basis. The economy can't be capitalist without the state being bourgeois as well.

[Caj]

Do you really think that this can happen over night?

I don't recall saying it could. . . .

[Prometeo liberado]

But until the revolution is complete it doesn't deserve support or even a fair analysis void of the left-com-destruction-without-construction litmus test?

By the way, none of this is personal.

[Caj]

But until the revolution is complete it doesn't deserve support or even a fair analysis void of the left-com-destruction-without-construction litmus test?

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that a proletarian revolution is currently happening in Cuba??


By the way, none of this is personal.

No, I'm pretty sure it was, and I'm adding it to the list of hurtful things you've said to me throughout the thread. :crying:

Kidding :laugh:

[Prometeo liberado]

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that a proletarian revolution is currently happening in Cuba??



No, I'm pretty sure it was, and I'm adding it to the list of hurtful things you've said to me throughout the thread. :crying:

Kidding :laugh:

I know your confused. I've been trying to help you for most of the day. The revolution has been stuck in a game of brinksmanship since it started. The sad fact is that Cuba was the first to blink.

[Caj]

I know your confused. I've been trying to help you for most of the day. The revolution has been stuck in a game of brinksmanship since it started. The sad fact is that Cuba was the first to blink.

I'm confused because you aren't clarifying what you're saying. In what way have you been trying to help me?

What the fuck do you mean by "over night"? When did I ever say a revolution could happen overnight?

[Prometeo liberado]

By dismissing the revolution as it stands today you imply that it is over. You make statements that the revolution did not start out as a Marxist one(true). But it is also true that it did indeed incorporate a communist ideology. So by your standards the revolution in its infancy should have been dismissed as bourgeois. If in fact that did happen then we would have been responsible for withholding vital public support for one of the greatest events in the southern hemisphere. People denied a just society based purely on a shallow litmus test and shifting definitions.

See isn't that helping all ready!:thumbup:

[Caj]

By dismissing the revolution as it stands today you imply that it is over.

That's because it is in a literal sense. Batista was overthrown in 1959 and replaced with a state capitalist regime, leaving social and class relations essentially unchanged. It was at this point that the revolution ended. What is necessary now is for the Cuban proletariat to overthrow the current regime and the bourgeoisie that controls it and collectivize the means of production. That is the proletarian revolution. It is not in any way a continuation of the bourgeois revolution of 1959, but a revolution of its own.


You make statements that the revolution did not start out as a Marxist one(true). But it is also true that it did indeed incorporate a communist ideology.

No, it didn't. Castro didn't adopt socialist rhetoric until after the revolution. He originally wanted to make Cuba an independent capitalist nation like the US instead of just an exploited neo-colony.


So by your standards the revolution in its infancy should have been dismissed as bourgeois.

It was a bourgeois revolution because it established bourgeois property relations. A proletarian revolution is what is necessary now.


See isn't that helping all ready!:thumbup:

Thank you for clarifying.

[Prometeo liberado]

I'll finish with this. Even if the revolution had succeeded with the workers taking full ownership I still think that left-coms would dismiss large sectors of the working class as having bourgeois tendencies and thus still not a true socialist society. Will it ever end?

By the way Caj. If you respond to this post then we will commence with an all night thread. Consider this a warning.

[Caj]

I'll finish with this. Even if the revolution had succeeded with the workers taking full ownership I still think that left-coms would dismiss large sectors of the working class as having bourgeois tendencies and thus still not a true socialist society. Will it ever end?

Assuming that by "socialist society" you mean the DotP (as the "workers" as a distinct class would cease to exist under post-revolutionary socialism/communism), I disagree that left-coms would dismiss it. Why do you think they would? So long as the proletarian dictatorship is controlled democratically by the workers, seizes and collectivizes the means of production, and effectively repels counter-revolution, I don't see what left-coms could possibly object to.


By the way Caj. If you respond to this post then we will commence with an all night thread. Consider this a warning.

Oh shit. I didn't see this until after I responded. Looks like I won't be sleeping tonight. . . .

[Prometeo liberado]

I warned you. It's on

I have yet to read or have a discussion with a left-com that didn't involve a total dismissal of every workers revolution. Either by insinuating that they never were truly workers led or were corrupted by evil Stalinist. That shit may fly in academia but doesn't hold any credence in the trenches.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I've been taught that a country is Socialist when the state is led by a Communist Party which represents the working class (Dictatorship of the Proletariat)
Vanguard parties are a dictatorship over the proletariat not of the proletariat.

[Caj]

I warned you. It's on

I have yet to read or have a discussion with a left-com that didn't involve a total dismissal of every workers revolution. Either by insinuating that they never were truly workers led or were corrupted by evil Stalinist. That shit may fly in academia but doesn't hold any credence in the trenches.

I'd be surprised to see a left-com argue that. A Trot maybe, but not a left-com. Blaming revolutionary degenerations on "Stalinists" is on par with blaming it on "revisionists". Neither are materialist analyses of the situations that led to the revolutionary degenerations.

[Prometeo liberado]

I often have trouble making out the difference between left-coms and Trots. I know the ideological differences but many of their debating tactics as well as language are shared.

[Caj]

Fuck it. I'm going to bed. :bored:

It seems we already finished with the whole Cuba debate anyway.

[Prometeo liberado]

Fuck it. I'm going to bed. :bored:

It seems we already finished with the whole Cuba debate anyway.

Is that a towel that I see being thrown in?
Thank goodness Im exhausted.:thumbup1:
That's an 81/2 hour thread folks. Anyone know what the record is?

[Caj]

Well, since we began going off-topic, I'd concluded that we had "agreed to disagree" (for now). What's the record?

[Prometeo liberado]

Well, since we began going off-topic, I'd concluded that we had "agreed to disagree" (for now). What's the record?

I think that a new thread asking this question needs to be started. And yes, agree to disagree. Towel thrower.

[MaximMK]

It is still better to have a communist party leading a state than a rightist one. At least the workers would have more rights and if a world revolution starts that country would peacefully join.

[Caj]

It is still better to have a communist party leading a state than a rightist one. At least the workers would have more rights and if a world revolution starts that country would peacefully join.

If by "communist party" you mean a Marxist-Leninist party, then I disagree. Marxist-Leninist parties are rightist because they support capialism. Sure, you can say the workers might be better off under a Marxist-Leninist regime, but they will still be exploited. To suggest that a nation controlled by a Marxist-Leninist party "would peacefully join" the workers after the outbreak of a world proletarian revolution is naive. Marxist-Leninist parties are bourgeois parties. They do not care for the workers, but only for the material self-interests and class-interests of the bourgeoisie. Like any other bourgeois party, they would combat the proletarian revolution that seeks to deprive them of their class position.

[MaximMK]

I don't think so. If my country was in a very poor state from which the only exit is a revolution i would have to make a Marxist-Leninist Socialist State because my country can not exist on its own because it needs foreign resources and for them i need cash. But if a world revolution starts my country would be able to transit in a stateless society so it will just join the revolution with an already prepared and educated army of people. I don't see an alternative for the workers of a state like mine except a Marxist-Leninist state for the time being.

[Caj]

I don't think so. If my country was in a very poor state from which the only exit is a revolution i would have to make a Marxist-Leninist Socialist State because my country can not exist on its own because it needs foreign resources and for them i need cash.

Why is a Marxist-Leninist party, as opposed to an actual Marxist party, necessary for this task?


But if a world revolution starts my country would be able to transit in a stateless society so it will just join the revolution with an already prepared and educated army of people.

Again, Marxist-Leninist parties are bourgeois parties. To join the revolution, the workers would have to rise up, oust the Marxist-Leninist party from power, and seize the state apparatus. We can't rely on bourgeois parties to assist the proltarian revolution "out of the goodness of their hearts" when their class interests, i.e., their collective material self-interests, are against it.


I don't see an alternative for the workers of a state like mine except a Marxist-Leninist state for the time being.

Why? Why not a proletarian state?

[MaximMK]

Again, Marxist-Leninist parties are bourgeois parties. To join the revolution, the workers would have to rise up, oust the Marxist-Leninist party from power, and seize the state apparatus. We can't rely on bourgeois parties to assist the proltarian revolution "out of the goodness of their hearts" when their class interests, i.e., their collective material self-interests, are against it.

Not necessarily what if the party is led by the workers a system can be made where the syndicates have more influence on the work of the government and the party plays just a organizational role - making the demands of the syndicates ( the workers ) real. If the party really wants to achieve communism and works for the interests of the workers and is led by true communists i see no reason why it would oppose a world revolution.



Why? Why not a proletarian state?
Can you explain me how is a proletarian state different form a Marxist-Leninist state?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Why is a Marxist-Leninist party, as opposed to an actual Marxist party, necessary for this task?



Again, Marxist-Leninist parties are bourgeois parties. To join the revolution, the workers would have to rise up, oust the Marxist-Leninist party from power, and seize the state apparatus. We can't rely on bourgeois parties to assist the proltarian revolution "out of the goodness of their hearts" when their class interests, i.e., their collective material self-interests, are against it.



Why? Why not a proletarian state?

I agree with CAJ here. If I Marxist-Leninist party works the way for a proletarian state in which the workers control the means of production and essentially the state apparatus then that's great and I would support them, but historically this does not happen for various reasons (such as external threat, internal backwardsness, power-hungry individuals, etc.) some of which are not the fault of the Marxist-Leninist societies that have existed.

I agree with (and I think CAJ probably does as well) that for socialism to work the workers need to control the workplace through direct democratic councils and society needs to be controlled by the community through their direct democratic councils.

[Caj]

Not necessarily what if the party is led by the workers a system can be made where the syndicates have more influence on the work of the government and the party plays just a organizational role - making the demands of the syndicates ( the workers ) real. If the party really wants to achieve communism and works for the interests of the workers and is led by true communists i see no reason why it would oppose a world revolution.

Well, then it wouldn't really be a Marxist-Leninist party.


Can you explain me how is a proletarian state different form a Marxist-Leninist state?

A proletarian state is controlled democratically by the proletariat for the sole purpose of seizing the means of production and repelling the counter-revolution that attempts to prevent it from doing so. A Marxist-Leninist state is a state capitalist dictatorship covered in red flags.

[MaximMK]

Thats what i imagine the party would just be there to listen to the workers demands and make them real with their power over the state. Ofcourse if its led by real communists not people that use the idea to get to power.


A proletarian state is controlled democratically by the proletariat for the sole purpose of seizing the means of production and repelling the counter-revolution that attempts to prevent it from doing so. A Marxist-Leninist state is a state capitalist dictatorship covered in red flags.

You still need a dicatorship which will keep the workers in power and not give a chance to the bourgeoisie to get their power back

[Caj]

You still need a dicatorship which will keep the workers in power and not give a chance to the bourgeoisie to get their power back

Yeah, that's what the DotP is.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The dotp is not a dicatorship in the traditional sense. Marx used it to describe the Paris Commune. Actually, the dotp is highly democratic.

[Omsk]

Well, then it wouldn't really be a Marxist-Leninist party.

Absolutely not true,you should actually read something which can relate to Marxism-Leninism,to find out that the principles of Marxism-Leninism and the general ideas of the only path are not an abandonment of internationalism.

[Caj]

The dotp is not a dicatorship in the traditional sense. Marx used it to describe the Paris Commune. Actually, the dotp is highly democratic.

This.

Like all states, the dictatorial/democratic nature of it is based on class perspectives. It will only be a dictatorship from the perspective of the bourgeoisie, in the same way that all bourgeois states are dictatorships from the perspective of the proletariat.

[MaximMK]

Well imagine the masses of workers that dictate as part of one party through which they lead society. It doesn't have to turn out like the USSR if the leader of the party is not one but a council of workers which changes its members on periods of time. The party is just a type of a political organization which will help them organize their rule. - as i think it should be.

[Caj]

Absolutely not true,you should actually read something which can relate to Marxism-Leninism,to find out that the principles of Marxism-Leninism and the general ideas of the only path are not an abandonment of internationalism.

Well, looking at the fine history of Marxism-Leninism, it seems reasonable to conclude that it is true.

[Caj]

Well imagine the masses of workers that dictate as part of one party through which they lead society. It doesn't have to turn out like the USSR if the leader of the party is not one but a council of workers which changes its members on periods of time. The party is just a type of a political organization which will help them organize their rule. - as i think it should be.

That's good, but then why do you call yourself a Marxist-Leninist?

[Omsk]

It doesn't have to turn out like the USSR if the leader of the party is not one but a council of workers
No party will be led by a council of workers,becuase the party itself is a conglomerate of different groups of revolutionary progressive elements,and such a party is the Vanguard party,democratically presented by the most militant of the working class,it will represent the entire working people of the proletarian class and the order plus the proletarian country itself.


Well, looking at the fine history of Marxism-Leninism, it seems reasonable to conclude that it is true.

Let's leave the heroic past of Marxism-Leninism and look to the bright future,in which there are no automatic 'shifts' and 'conclusions'.

[MaximMK]

Well i thought Marxist-leninists support the idea that a party should lead the society. And i agree if the party works as i explained. Do they have something against a council of workers controlling the party and through it the state?

[Omsk]

Well i thought Marxist-leninists support the idea that a party should lead the society. And i agree if the party works as i explained. Do they have something against a council of workers controlling the party and through it the state?


You use Marxism-Leninism as your main tendency,and yet you act as if you are completely distant from it,well,maybe you are,but than you should learn rather than engage in the reckless shaping of a political opinion based on a couple of words on an internet forum.

The 'party' is the main wing of action against the anti-revolutionary elements of society,and the struggle is led by the party.It itself,is an organ of the proletarian controll.

[Caj]

Well i thought Marxist-leninists support the idea that a party should lead the society. And i agree if the party works as i explained. Do they have something against a council of workers controlling the party and through it the state?

Every instance of a Marxist-Leninist taking power has resulted in a bourgeois dictatorship and a complete absence of workers' control. I suppose theoretically one could argue that Marxism-Leninism could involve workers' councils and an advisory role for the party, but it would involve revisions of Marxism-Leninism to such a degree that it would be rendered unrecognizeable -- and we all know how much M-Ls like revisions.

[MaximMK]

Yes i imagine the party as a tool for the workers to control the state and fight enemies of the revolution. I consider it the best way of organization. I guess people think it cannot work because it did not so well in some states. But that doesn't mean that the system is bad but the ones that lead it. This system can work out if the leaders really care about the working class.

[Omsk]

Every instance of a Marxist-Leninist taking power has resulted in a bourgeois dictatorship and a complete absence of workers' control.


And every uprising controlled by anarchists either failed completely or was simply crushed,not to mention the Trotskyites also had quite the problems with actually succeeding in anything.

Do you see how pointless your line of 'argumentation' is.As for the rest of your post,i think you should read more on the basics about Marxism-Leninism.

[MaximMK]

Every instance of a Marxist-Leninist taking power has resulted in a bourgeois dictatorship and a complete absence of workers' control. I suppose theoretically one could argue that Marxism-Leninism could involve workers' councils and an advisory role for the party, but it would involve revisions of Marxism-Leninism to such a degree that it would be rendered unrecognizeable -- and we all know how much M-Ls like revisions.
I dont know about their opinion about revision but everything should be questioned constantly and improved.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

This.

Like all states, the dictatorial/democratic nature of it is based on class perspectives. It will only be a dictatorship from the perspective of the bourgeoisie, in the same way that all bourgeois states are dictatorships from the perspective of the proletariat.

True, but the majority of people are proletarian, not bourgeois. So, the majority of people would have a democratic perspective of the dictatorship of the proletarian. That was what I was getting at.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I dont know about their opinion about revision but everything should be questioned constantly and improved.

Amen

[MaximMK]

Ok so i support the idea of a party leading the state but only if its controlled by the workers and works for the good of the working class. And it should be controlled by a council of workers not only one man. Maybe the council can be formed from representatives of different syndicates in the country. My point is that i support the party idea only if the party is more democratically organized on the inside ( if the workers have full control over the party and its work through the workers council. ) Can i consider this Marxist-Leninist оr not ? Trying to find where i belong...

[Caj]

Ok so i support the idea of a party leading the state but only if its controlled by the workers and works for the good of the working class. And it should be controlled by a council of workers not only one man. Maybe the council can be formed from representatives of different syndicates in the country. My point is that i support the party idea only if the party is more democratically organized on the inside ( if the workers have full control over the party and its work through the workers council. ) Can i consider this Marxist-Leninist оr not ? Trying to find where i belong...

Sounds like left communism. Definitely not Marxism-Leninism. Don't worry about "where [you] belong" though. You can decide that later.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Ok so i support the idea of a party leading the state but only if its controlled by the workers and works for the good of the working class. And it should be controlled by a council of workers not only one man. Maybe the council can be formed from representatives of different syndicates in the country. My point is that i support the party idea only if the party is more democratically organized on the inside ( if the workers have full control over the party and its work through the workers council. ) Can i consider this Marxist-Leninist оr not ? Trying to find where i belong...

I wouldn't say this anti-Leninist by any means, honestly. I personally am not a Marxist-Leninist but the ideas above don't indicate anti-Leninism from what I see.

I consider myself a council communist with Marxist-DeLeonist tendencies. I don't value a vanguard party to lead the revolution (as Marxist-Leninists do) and support workers councils controlling the means of production and society controlled by community councils. I would not say I am anti-Leninist, just non-Leninist. I see value and harm in Leninism.

If you are interested in council communism and non-Leninism (not anti-leninism) then I would check out:
1. Open Letter to Comrade Lenin by Herman Gorter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm)
2. Communism and It's Tactics by Sylvia Pankhurst (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/communism-tactics/index.htm)
3. Council Communism by Paul Mattick (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1939/council-communism.htm)

A good introduction to council communism is provided here (http://libcom.org/thought/council-communism-an-introduction) and includes other sources to check out as well.

My politics falls close in line with council communism, but not exactly. Check out every theory for yourself and make your own decision.:D

EDIT: My links in my sig. may help out too.

[MaximMK]

I see the point of council communists from that text you gave me and i agree with it. Councils ensure that it is the workers that lead the state not men masked as communists. The party that i imagine would be the ultimate council it would be led by representatives of all councils in the state elected by the council members and that could be changed at anytime as explained in the text. So we still have a party led country but with council-type leadership. I think MLs should be OK with that because we still keep the one party system and its role in purging the enemies of the revolution but we only change the type of leadership which ensures that its role is always in the favor of the working class.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I see the point of council communists from that text you gave me and i agree with it. Councils ensure that it is the workers that lead the state not men masked as communists. The party that i imagine would be the ultimate council it would be led by representatives of all councils in the state elected by the council members and that could be changed at anytime as explained in the text. So we still have a party led country but with council-type leadership. I think MLs should be OK with that because we still keep the one party system and its role in purging the enemies of the revolution but we only change the type of leadership which ensures that its role is always in the favor of the working class.

I guess you could post that in the Marxist-Leninist group and see what they think, but remember just because they might not agree with it doesn't mean you need to change your views. I don't agree with everything the council communists believe, but I still hold my differential views.

[sithsaber]

A bit off topic but i think i have a theory on the new links being established between the RCC and the Cuban government. In a nutshell the RCC can be a useful tool for uniting the populace. The growth of Pentecostalism can be linked to the US and is more apolitical than other Christian sects and afrocaribean religions like Santeria are seen as both undesirable and a threat to the supposed post racial nature of a socialist and Latin American state like Cuba. The RCC can help to further legitimize the government in the eyes of the people, instill a greater sence of morality amongst the populace and even ensure that racist attitudes spread less (i know the RCC isn't that progressive, but it beats the hell out of the more charismatic competition.

[A Marxist Historian]

Socialism can't exist in one country. Cuba is state capitalist, because the means of production is controlled by the state, which constitutes the Cuban bourgeoisie by extracting surplus value from the Cuban working class. Cuba is currently undergoing reforms that will most likely re-establish market capitalism on the island.

If Cuba is ruled by the Cuban bourgeoisie, it must be ruled rather feebly, as the Cuban bourgeoisie is pretty old by now, though it's probably recovered from its long swim in 1960 from Havana to Miami.

However, given the extreme mess the Cuban economy is in, reestablishment of market capitalism and the birth of a new bourgeoisie out of black marketeers etc., Russian style, is quite possible.

It's impossible to build socialism in one country, and Cuba is just an island, moreover an island that is isolated on all sides with no real friends except for Chavez in Venezuela. Who is having troubles of his own.

-M.H.-

[Caj]

If Cuba is ruled by the Cuban bourgeoisie, it must be ruled rather feebly, as the Cuban bourgeoisie is pretty old by now, though it's probably recovered from its long swim in 1960 from Havana to Miami.

However, given the extreme mess the Cuban economy is in, reestablishment of market capitalism and the birth of a new bourgeoisie out of black marketeers etc., Russian style, is quite possible.

It's impossible to build socialism in one country, and Cuba is just an island, moreover an island that is isolated on all sides with no real friends except for Chavez in Venezuela. Who is having troubles of his own.

-M.H.-

What would you say Cuba is then, if not socialist or capitalist?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

"the word revisionism is used to refer to various ideas, principles and theories that are based on a significant revision of fundamental Marxist premises." -wikipedia
I can't put it more bluntly than that. You say I should examine the material conditions that led to cuba's current situation however you don't see that refusing to accept poor material conditions does not lead to capitalism it is the exact opposite.

Surely by that definition, you'd accept that Marxism-Leninism is simple revisionism.

[Rooster]

Socialism can as a matter of fact exist within one country


"the word revisionism is used to refer to various ideas, principles and theories that are based on a significant revision of fundamental Marxist premises." -wikipedia


Originally posted by Engels

Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

What was that about revisionism? :confused:

[Kyu Six]

If by "communist party" you mean a Marxist-Leninist party, then I disagree. Marxist-Leninist parties are rightist because they support capialism.

WTF?! :laugh: More delusional left-com thinking? What left-communist party has ever been more than just a footnote in history? Young idealists who can't agree on anything except that anyone who isn't an idealist is a "rightist"! Where are the KAPD and KAPN now? Lenin was right to dismiss left-com as an infantile disorder because it can never achieve maturity. Its fatal flaw is its idealism. It has no discipline. You have people with barely trade union consciousness making decisions at local levels without any real cohesion or ability to transcend the council. Left-com parties have never been and will never be anything more than effectively unions. Without a vanguard and without democratic centralism, no revolution will ever succeed.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

WTF?! :laugh: More delusional left-com thinking? What left-communist party has ever been more than just a footnote in history? Young idealists who can't agree on anything except that anyone who isn't an idealist is a "rightist"! Where are the KAPD and KAPN now? Lenin was right to dismiss left-com as an infantile disorder because it can never achieve maturity. Its fatal flaw is its idealism. It has no discipline. You have people with barely trade union consciousness making decisions at local levels without any real cohesion or ability to transcend the council. Left-com parties have never been and will never be anything more than effectively unions. Without a vanguard and without democratic centralism, no revolution will ever succeed.

You are dismissing historical notoriety for success. Leonid Brezhnev was one of the most successful leaders of all time, judging by his longevity in power. I don't think that makes him one of the most successful leaders of all time.

This politicking of yours really is petty. You're making baseless claims.

1) How is left-communism infantile? It doesn't accept State Social Democracy. It strives for the unthinkable. At many points in history it has come close to achieving its aims of worker-led revolution.

2) Not all Left-Coms are syndicalists or unionists, i'm not sure why you say left-communists are simply beholden to the union. Doesn't make any sense as a criticism to me.

3) The 20th century revolutions in Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia etc. were all led by vanguards, bound by democratic centralism. They set up 'Socialist States'. In some of these places, the lives of the working class were undoubtedly improved in some ways, particularly in economic ways, overall. Because of this, you enact simple - yet ultimately wrong - binary logic. Revolution X meant the workers lived better in Period Y than they did in Period Z. Thus, action X can be applied to period Y1, Y2...Yn [Y=post-revolution, Z=capitalism] without a hitch. You mistake all Y periods as homogenous, and fail to understand that because Period Y may have improved upon Period Z, that is not to mean that a new or different Revolutionary strategy cannot work better in Period Y1..Yn than Revolution X did.

4) I'm not sure, also, where you get the idea that all left-communists are young idealists. I imagine a lot of left-communists aren't young, but if every left-communist was 25 years old, then so fucking what? Who are you to dismiss the ideas of people based on their age? I'm sure you'd be outraged if I pointed to the decrepit nature of much of the Stalinist left as 'evidence' of its ineptitude. In reality, I don't need to stoop to blatant ageism like you do to defend my beliefs. I think really you should apologise for this ageist insult.

But yeah, I do love the irony of a Stalinist laughing at another ideology being a footnote in history. Our ideas live long into the future. Even if Rosa Luxemburg's portrait is never carried through any sort of parade, our ideas of worker-led, not worker-following, revolution, of real democracy and of abolition of the state, of the class, the nation and of fiat money, will live on. Your ideas, of arguing which of Stalin or Trotsky gave the best blowjob to the erstwhile Lenin, are rooted in the past and, in mainstream society, are laughed at.

[Deicide]

^ Marxist-Leninists are the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs and Alex Jones of Communism.

[Rafiq]

^ Marxist-Leninists are the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs and Alex Jones of Communism.

I don't think so. These anaologies won't work out.

[sithsaber]

Does anyone know anything practical about Cuba? (Current communist party aparatus, foreign firms currently investing in the island, details on that santeria esque fraternity from that one movie i keep forgetting etc)

[Grenzer]

What would you say Cuba is then, if not socialist or capitalist?

Of course MH is referring to the mythical quasi-mode of production that exists between Socialism and Capitalism. You know, the one that Marx and Engels forgot to mention.

It has nothing to do with the fact that they "couldn't have predicted this". They established a pretty clear methodology on what determines the mode of production. Something is either wholly capitalist, or wholly socialist(ignoring the remnants of feudalism and those isolated bastions of pre-industrial society).. there is no basis in the material conditions to argue otherwise.

Even if the wildly unmarxist notion of "Degenerated worker's state" had some basis in material analysis, its thesis that states such as the Soviet Union are somehow "closer to socialism" is complete trash, and history has shown this time and time again. In effect, upholding this deeply flawed interoperation leads to supporting nationalism, imperialism, and capitalism in short.

When Trotsky was alive, the Soviet Union was the only quasi-socialist state around; and furthermore it was weak and vulnerable. It's easy to see how he would have made the false conclusion it was somehow worth defending, given its weakness and his emotional connection to the state. Had he lived to see Russia extend its imperialist tendrils across eastern Europe and much of the world following World War 2, he might have revised his theory. I'm not sure what Trotsky made of the imperialist invasion of Finland, but if he supported it; then he is even more delusional than I thought.

[manic expression]

It's too bad some posters like to think capitalism can exist where there's no large-scale private property, no large-scale market for manpower, no empowered capitalist class and where we see the most democratic political system the world has ever seen maintained for over a decade.


1) How is left-communism infantile? It doesn't accept State Social Democracy. It strives for the unthinkable. At many points in history it has come close to achieving its aims of worker-led revolution.
Name those "many points in history".


4) I'm not sure, also, where you get the idea that all left-communists are young idealists. I imagine a lot of left-communists aren't young, but if every left-communist was 25 years old, then so fucking what?I hope you say this the next time a left-communist or anarchist throws the "Stalinist kiddie" insult at M-Ls.


But yeah, I do love the irony of a Stalinist laughing at another ideology being a footnote in history. Our ideas live long into the future.Changing the world means living in the present, do you disagree?

[bricolage]

anyone saying left communists are 'young idealists' has seriously never met any, in my experience the organisations suffer largely from not having anyone young in them, from the brief times I've been in contact with left communist organisations they seem a very ageing lot.

[Ocean Seal]

Socialism can't exist in one country.
True, especially not an island 90 miles away from a world capitalist super-power.


Cuba is state capitalist, because the means of production is controlled by the state,
This isn't why its not socialist.


which constitutes the Cuban bourgeoisie
No it doesn't.


by extracting surplus value from the Cuban working class.
Not in the same sense that a private proprietor does.


Cuba is currently undergoing reforms that will most likely re-establish market capitalism on the island.
This is true,