Which is a workers' state? (for Leninists) [Archive]

A Marxist Historian

27th April 2012, 02:01

Question for Leninists, Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists--but mainly for the former.

Leninists assert that the Soviet Union was a workers' state as the bourgeoisie was beaten and property nationalised. Trotskyists argue it became a degenerated workers' state in 1924.

According to Trotskyists, Cuba is a deformed workers' state because the working class never held political power.

If Cuba is a workers' state, deformed or otherwise, then are the following countries deformed or degenerated workers' states as well?

China
Vietnam
Venezuela
Belarus
Hong Kong
Singapore
Guyana
India
Sri Lanka
Portugal
Norway
Sweden
North Korea
Nepal

Can you explain for each of this countries, briefly, why you believe they are workers' states--in some form--or not.

Important questions:

when does a state become a workers' state? (don't be too abstract)
When does it cease to be a workers' state?

I would say Cuba, China, Vietnam and even North Korea are still workers states, the others are all capitalist.

The questions are easy to answer. A state cannot "become" a workers state, rather if a state is overthrown and a brand new state is created, it can have a class nature different from that of the previous state.

So when China, Vietnam and North Korea became workers states is pretty self-evident. When you had revolutions in China, Vietnam and North Korea. And that's why none of the other states you mention, aside from the USSR decomposition products, are now or ever could have been workers states.

When did the USSR cease to be a workers state? It ceased to be a workers state when it ... ceased to exist. You can't even find it on the map these days. You had a full blown counterrevolution in the USSR.

Without a counterrevolution, a workers state can't simply peacefully turn into a capitalist state, that would be reformism in reverse. That is why China and Vietnam and North Korea, despite whatever pro-capitalist measures the ruling Communist Party may have undertaken, are still workers states, as you have the same "armed bodies of men" and the same fundamental political structures now that you did when Mao (etc.) was alive.

All those pro-capitalist measures are reversible, and in China at any rate there are various low-level bureaucrats who want to reverse them and bring back old-fashioned Maoism. (The Politburo member who just got purged, by the way, was not that, though that's what he claimed to get some popular backing.)

-M.H.-

hashem

28th April 2012, 12:10

I would say Cuba, China, Vietnam and even North Korea are still workers states

if you truly believe that, then you can ask the workers to create such states every where. you can begin by filtering the internet, banning trade unions and other mass organizations, abolishing freedom of speech, restoring execution laws, creating a cult of personality around the leader, arresting anyone who criticizes the state, creating a secret police organization for spying on people, jamming radio and satellite TV and ...

dont be so shy. openly tell the others about your plans and see what will they do.

LuÃs Henrique

28th April 2012, 12:20

China Vietnam Belarus North Korea

Those were once something that might (or might not) have been a "workers' State". They certainly are no longer anything similar.

Venezuela Hong Kong Singapore Guyana India Sri Lanka Portugal Norway Sweden

Those have never been "workers' States" in any conceivable way. All of them have always been bourgeois States, except of course for those among them that were feudal States before that (Portugal, Norway, and Sweden). Hong Kong was given back to China after China ceased to be anything similar to a "workers' State" - and even then retained its own peculiar - and very capitalist - social organisation.

when does a state become a workers' state? (don't be too abstract)

If any State is a "workers' State", it is when the working class takes hold over it (Russia 1917, arguably China, Vietnam, Cuba, less arguably Eastern Europe).

When does it cease to be a workers' state?

When the working class is evicted from power.

Of course, this only postpones the discussion - has the working class ever held power in any of these countries? When has is lost such power, if it ever held it?

But then I am no kind of Leninist.

Luís Henrique

Per Levy

28th April 2012, 12:33

I would say Cuba, China, Vietnam and even North Korea are still workers states, the others are all capitalist.

The questions are easy to answer. A state cannot "become" a workers state, rather if a state is overthrown and a brand new state is created, it can have a class nature different from that of the previous state.

So when China, Vietnam and North Korea became workers states is pretty self-evident. When you had revolutions in China, Vietnam and North Korea. And that's why none of the other states you mention, aside from the USSR decomposition products, are now or ever could have been workers states.

When did the USSR cease to be a workers state? It ceased to be a workers state when it ... ceased to exist. You can't even find it on the map these days. You had a full blown counterrevolution in the USSR.

Without a counterrevolution, a workers state can't simply peacefully turn into a capitalist state, that would be reformism in reverse. That is why China and Vietnam and North Korea, despite whatever pro-capitalist measures the ruling Communist Party may have undertaken, are still workers states, as you have the same "armed bodies of men" and the same fundamental political structures now that you did when Mao (etc.) was alive.

All those pro-capitalist measures are reversible, and in China at any rate there are various low-level bureaucrats who want to reverse them and bring back old-fashioned Maoism. (The Politburo member who just got purged, by the way, was not that, though that's what he claimed to get some popular backing.)

-M.H.-

just so you didnt awnser why cuba, china and north korea are worker states, you just said they are without explaining what makes them a workers state. it might also be useful to explain what you think a worker state is.

but still, in non of these states the workers have a say in things, workers are exploited, workers are opressed, and if you say its a worker state because the means of productions are nationalized then that is also not true since in china a lot is in private hands, as it is in cuba, and in north korea there are also special economic zones.

besides i find it naive to wait for a reform in china from the low level bureaucrats since they are not in power and when they are they wont reform china to be more maoist or anything.

Blanquist

28th April 2012, 13:48

Veovis

28th April 2012, 13:59

None of the above, degenerated or otherwise.

LuÃs Henrique

28th April 2012, 16:57

And if someone like Gaddafi wanted to, he could easily claim to be a 'communist' as his regime was a mirror copy of Castro's.

No, it wasn't.

Luís Henrique

A Marxist Historian

28th April 2012, 22:37

if you truly believe that, then you can ask the workers to create such states every where. you can begin by filtering the internet, banning trade unions and other mass organizations, abolishing freedom of speech, restoring execution laws, creating a cult of personality around the leader, arresting anyone who criticizes the state, creating a secret police organization for spying on people, jamming radio and satellite TV and ...

dont be so shy. openly tell the others about your plans and see what will they do.

They are bureaucratically deformed workers states, misrun (especially in North Korea) by tyrannical Stalinist bureaucrats.

The kind of stuff you describe is done by governments all over the world, and increasingly here in the USA too. As your anti-communist rhetoric is absolutely indistinguishable from anything from Ronald Reagan or Glenn Beck, I think it's safe to assume you are a USA all the way type.

In places like Vietnam and China, the regime can get away with it, and get popular support, because the masses see these as regimes based on popular revolutions in which their grandparents and parents participated in, which took the land away from the landlords and gave it to the peasants, kicked out the foreign imperialists, etc. etc.

And, as even all the "Marxist Leninists" here on Revleft know, who in power might well do all the things you describe, that is where they would have to begin, not by being tyrants.

By the way, where did you get this notion about banning all trade unions? China is just about the only place in the world where Wal Mart is unionized.

Granted, Chinese unions are pretty crappy, but so are American unions these days.

-N.H.-

A Marxist Historian

28th April 2012, 22:45

For me, the SU was the only workers state, it was degenerated around 1924 and ceased being a workers states around 1990.

It was a regime between capitalism and socialism.

China was a radical bourgeois nationalist regime, now just bourgeois. Mao's reforms differed very little from Nehru's in India, they were only slightly more radical and Mao was a master phrase-monger who waved a red flag.

The same applies to a certain degree to regimes likes Cuba's. And if someone like Gaddafi wanted to, he could easily claim to be a 'communist' as his regime was a mirror copy of Castro's.

Blanquist has the USSR right, but his views on other countries are bizarre. China under Mao differed very little from Nehru? Nehru's regime rested solidly on the Indian landlords, who in China all lost their lands and got sent to "re-education camps" or killed outright during the Chinese Revolution.

India to this day probably has the highest level of social inequality in the entire world, with an increasingly rich bourgeoisie in a huge sea of peasant starvation and urban misery. The living standards of the Chinese (and Vietnamese) masses now are probably further ahead of the Indian masses than American workers are ahead of Chinese. (North Korea, well, that's another story, the ultimate example of Stalinist misplanning and stupidity.)

And the idea of Cuba as a "radical bourgeois nationalist" regime is downright hilarious. In 1960, Fidel nationalized everything right down to the lemonade stands, and the entire Cuban bourgeoisie fled to Miami.

-M.H.-

MagÃ³n

28th April 2012, 23:03

When the working class remains as the sole class in the social structure and thereby the ruling one.

Not to go too off topic, but what? :confused:

If there's no other class, but the Workers in society, how are they going to be ruling over any other kind of class but other workers since they're the sole class in the social structure? Class itself really, would cease to exist if all that remained were those who were once known as the Working Class. The whole idea behind the DotP, is that there's still class distinctions, but the Workers are on top, getting rid of the Bourgeois, etc. and when that's done, class distinctions would cease to be since everyone was on the same playing field.

Your statement doesn't make sense.

And if someone like Gaddafi wanted to, he could easily claim to be a 'communist' as his regime was a mirror copy of Castro's.

Have you ever actually visited Cuba to confirm Gaddafi was mirroring Castro? Obviously by your statement, you haven't been. As for me, I have visited Cuba (many times, for many reasons), and from what I know about Gaddafi's Libya, the two were nothing alike. Both fucked up in their own ways, sure, what state isn't fucked up? Gaddafi was no way mirroring Castro, that's just bullshit talk.

And I'm not even pro-Castro's Cuba, I find just as many problems with it, as I do with Libya under Gaddafi. But seriously, don't try and kid around with bullshit statements like that.

JAM

28th April 2012, 23:18

Not to go too off topic, but what? :confused:

If there's no other class, but the Workers in society, how are they going to be ruling over any other kind of class but other workers since they're the sole class in the social structure? Class itself really, would cease to exist if all that remained were those who were once known as the Working Class. The whole idea behind the DotP, is that there's still class distinctions, but the Workers are on top, getting rid of the Bourgeois, etc. and when that's done, class distinctions would cease to be since everyone was on the same playing field.

Your statement doesn't make sense.

Coincidence or not, this is the second time today that I have this discussion in RevLeft in two different threads. I'll give you exactly the same response that I give to the other user since the question was exactly the same:

Just because the bourgeoisie was crushed in Russia it doesn't mean that the bourgeoisie ceased to exist as a class. The bourgeoisie is internationally organized and only ends once its defeated world wide and not only nationally. That's why the struggle against the bourgeoisie is fought on a international scale and not on a national one. So, as long as you have a capitalist predominance all over the world you cannot say that there is no capitalist class. You cannot just look at one country and ignore what is around it. The bourgeoisie is organized on a world scale and not only on a national one.

MagÃ³n

28th April 2012, 23:30

Coincidence or not, this is the second time today that I have this discussion in RevLeft in two different threads. I'll give you exactly the same response that I give to the other user since the question was exactly the same:

Just because the bourgeoisie was crushed in Russia it doesn't mean that the bourgeoisie ceased to exist as a class. The bourgeoisie is internationally organized and only ends once its defeated world wide and not only nationally. That's why the struggle against the bourgeoisie is fought on a international scale and not on a national one. So, as long as you have a capitalist predominance all over the world you cannot say that there is no capitalist class. You cannot just look at one country and ignore what is around it. The bourgeoisie is organized on a world scale and not only on a national one.

Let's put it this way, and make it easy. If Cuba was a true Worker's State in the Marxist sense that the Working Class is indeed in control of everything, and has gotten rid of the Ruling Class, unlike in reality, that the former bosses and leaders of Cuba were either exiled, killed, or assimilated into the Working Class society to being as everyone else, then there is no other class in Cuban society itself. Yes, there's no debating that outside of Cuba, there's still a Ruling Class looking to oppress the Workers somewhere else, I never said there wasn't, but in Cuba all the Workers would be doing is ruling over themselves, which doesn't make sense because Cuba would lack any class since there's nothing else but those who rose up as the Working Class, and now control everything after having gotten rid of the Ruling Classes.

Outside of Cuba, there's still class, inside Cuba, there wouldn't be.

seventeethdecember2016

28th April 2012, 23:31

China
Vietnam
Venezuela
Belarus
Hong Kong
Singapore
Guyana
India
Sri Lanka
Portugal
Norway
Sweden
North Korea
Nepal

Can you explain for each of this countries, briefly, why you believe they are workers' states--in some form--or not.

None of them, as they aren't ruled under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

when does a state become a workers' state?

When the Means of Production are owned by the Proletariat ether through direct rule or Vanguard rule.

When does it cease to be a workers' state?

When the rights of the workers are exchanged for maximized profits that aren't used for the greater good. If the rights of the workers are temporarily suspended for development, which will enhance livelihood in the long run, than it is justified and still maintains workers' state status.

JAM

28th April 2012, 23:46

MagÃ³n

29th April 2012, 00:01

No. The working class in Cuba is still oppressed by the bourgeoisie internationally. The Cuba embargo is a perfect example of this. That is why you never can isolate a country from the international scenario because classes today have an international dimension.

Firstly, Cuba never has in all it's history of being "Communist", a true Worker's State, so even domestically, Cuba's Working Class has been oppressed by Cuba's Ruling Class. Fidel never made Cuba a worker controlled state, where the Working Class controlled the MoP, or anything else. He just put himself in Batista's chair, and all his close friends in the other kicked out bureaucrats chairs, making themselves the next set of Cuban bureaucrats to control Cuba.

As for the rest, Cuban society is Cuban society. It differs from Mexican society, Ecuadorian society, US society, Canadian society, etc. A nation's society is not international. Solely focusing on Cuban society, as in, the society that takes place only on Cuba (because it's different than everywhere else, just like everywhere else is different than Cuba,) if the Working Class of Cuba took absolute control of Cuba's MoP, running things themselves, rather than a bureaucracy running things for them, continuing to divide people into classes, then Class in Cuba would cease to exist in Cuban society. There would be no Working Class or Ruling Class in Cuba, if the Working Class of Cuba took everything over in Cuban society.

Blanquist

29th April 2012, 00:14

Blanquist has the USSR right, but his views on other countries are bizarre. China under Mao differed very little from Nehru? Nehru's regime rested solidly on the Indian landlords, who in China all lost their lands and got sent to "re-education camps" or killed outright during the Chinese Revolution.

India to this day probably has the highest level of social inequality in the entire world, with an increasingly rich bourgeoisie in a huge sea of peasant starvation and urban misery. The living standards of the Chinese (and Vietnamese) masses now are probably further ahead of the Indian masses than American workers are ahead of Chinese. (North Korea, well, that's another story, the ultimate example of Stalinist misplanning and stupidity.)

And the idea of Cuba as a "radical bourgeois nationalist" regime is downright hilarious. In 1960, Fidel nationalized everything right down to the lemonade stands, and the entire Cuban bourgeoisie fled to Miami.

-M.H.-

"From 1949 to 1955 the party preached harmony... In the cities private enterprise and ownership were allowed to persist in a mixed economy, while in the vast rural areas socialist schemes were brought in gradually and always voluntary. The peasant owned his land... The professionals, the engineers, the businessmen and the owners of factories... were provided with the class label of 'national bourgeoisie'"

- J.A.S Grenville, "A history of the world, in the twentieth century"

JAM

29th April 2012, 00:35

Firstly, Cuba never has in all it's history of being "Communist", a true Worker's State, so even domestically, Cuba's Working Class has been oppressed by Cuba's Ruling Class. Fidel never made Cuba a worker controlled state, where the Working Class controlled the MoP, or anything else. He just put himself in Batista's chair, and all his close friends in the other kicked out bureaucrats chairs, making themselves the next set of Cuban bureaucrats to control Cuba.

As for the rest, Cuban society is Cuban society. It differs from Mexican society, Ecuadorian society, US society, Canadian society, etc. A nation's society is not international. Solely focusing on Cuban society, as in, the society that takes place only on Cuba (because it's different than everywhere else, just like everywhere else is different than Cuba,) if the Working Class of Cuba took absolute control of Cuba's MoP, running things themselves, rather than a bureaucracy running things for them, continuing to divide people into classes, then Class in Cuba would cease to exist in Cuban society. There would be no Working Class or Ruling Class in Cuba, if the Working Class of Cuba took everything over in Cuban society.

Firstly, you were the one bringing Cuba for the discussion.

Secondly, it was a worker's state as much it was USSR.

Thirdly, you seem to deny a very basic Marxist principle which states that classes have an international dimension and not national. You see the very same social groups everywhere. The difference is that in Cuba bourgeoisie was smashed but this doesn't mean that the Cuba's working class ceased to exist since the bourgeoisie didn't cease either. Classes have no borders and you are trying to distort this very simple Marxist principle. I'll give you two historical examples of what I am talking about (if you knew Marxism well this examples wouldn't be necessary):

1- In order to prevent the bourgeoisie from taking over the power in Europe the old feudal order established an alliance in 1815, The Holy Alliance, composed by Russia, Austria and Prussia which aim was to smash any revolutionary attempt in Europe.

2- The Russian White army was supported by the main capitalist countries in order to end the Russian revolution. It was an international effort to bring an end to the revolution in one country.

Once again, you cannot separate which is inseparable. The working class triumphed in Cuba but this doesn't necessarily means that working class triumphed over bourgeoisie. As long as you have this division outside Cuba you still have a working class in Cuba. Cuba is just a country, not the whole world and the classes have a global dimension. Even Karl Marx recognized that the working class doesn't disappear after the revolution so what is your point here?

MagÃ³n

29th April 2012, 01:28

Firstly, you were the one bringing Cuba for the discussion.

And yet you missed that I was talking about a Cuba, not like the Cuba is in reality. I was talking of a hypothetical Cuba, where the Workers actually had been victorious, taken control over everything, and weren't like they are in Cuba irl, oppressed by an internal bourgeois.

Secondly, it was a worker's state as much it was USSR.

Which was nothing of the sort in any genuine socialist/communist way. It was just as bureaucratic and imperialist as the West. Now you're probably going to disagree with me on that, but I don't really care because debating whether the USSR was really for the Workers or just wolves in sheep's clothing, never really interested me. The debates on it, always dwindled down to pointless stuff I have no interest in wasting my time debating about.

Thirdly, you seem to deny a very basic Marxist principle which states that classes have an international dimension and not national. You see the very same social groups everywhere. The difference is that in Cuba bourgeoisie was smashed but this doesn't mean that the Cuba's working class ceased to exist since the bourgeoisie didn't cease either. Classes have no borders and you are trying to distort this very simple Marxist principle. I'll give you two historical examples of what I am talking about (if you knew Marxism well this examples wouldn't be necessary):

I'm not denying or distort that class has international dimensions, I'm trying to point out to you that even if it does, it doesn't make all Working Class struggles, the same everywhere on the planet. You can't compare the struggles in Greece, for example, to those in the US. They share some similarities, sure, but how you go about them isn't just cut n' paste one over the other, expecting the same result. How they're playing out, isn't the same either, they have to be approached to that in which society they're apart of (because Greek and American society are two very different things.) Cuba's Working Class struggle, is completely different than Greece's or the US's.

Once again, you cannot separate which is inseparable. The working class triumphed in Cuba but this doesn't necessarily means that working class triumphed over bourgeoisie. As long as you have this division outside Cuba you still have a working class in Cuba. Cuba is just a country, not the whole world and the classes have a global dimension. Even Karl Marx recognized that the working class doesn't disappear after the revolution so what is your point here?

The Cuban Working Class didn't triumph in Cuba, like I said, Fidel and friends just took the seats Batista and his friends occupied before. It was one bureaucrat fighting another, taking over the previous, instilling their own bureaucracy.

And on a national level, if the Cuban Working Class took control, erasing all other classes, making everyone free and equal to everyone else, then on a national level the Working Class would cease to exist, in Cuba. Outside of Cuba, on an international level, Cuba would just be a (actual) Worker's State going up against Bourgeois States. But Cuba can't control the whole world, that's not what I was inferring to at all, ever. Cuba can on the other hand, control Cuba, and if there's no other class in Cuba but what would be the Working Class, then they cease to be in Cuba, a class nationally. Understand? Internationally, Cuba is still Cuba, separate from the Mexican Working Class, US Working Class, because of society, but that's not what I was talking about in the first place.

JAM

29th April 2012, 02:29

I'm not denying or distort that class has international dimensions, I'm trying to point out to you that even if it does, it doesn't make all Working Class struggles, the same everywhere on the planet. You can't compare the struggles in Greece, for example, to those in the US. They share some similarities, sure, but how you go about them isn't just cut n' paste one over the other, expecting the same result. How they're playing out, isn't the same either, they have to be approached to that in which society they're apart of (because Greek and American society are two very different things.) Cuba's Working Class struggle, is completely different than Greece's or the US's.

Attention, I never said that the class struggles are at the same level everywhere. Of course they aren't. I don't know why you brought this matter for this discussion since I never said or implied it. The fact that the class struggles are different everywhere doesn't mean that the classes involved in the struggles are different, does it?

What I said and will continue to is that classes have an international dimension and you just can't kill one class by killing the rule of this class in one country, that is what I have been talking about all this time. As you may know the USA attempted several times to restore the bourgeoisie rule in Cuba but failed. If the bourgeoisie didn't exist anymore there wouldn't be no attempts against the Cuba state to restore the bourgeoisie rule, understood?

And on a national level, if the Cuban Working Class took control, erasing all other classes, making everyone free and equal to everyone else, then on a national level the Working Class would cease to exist, in Cuba. Outside of Cuba, on an international level, Cuba would just be a (actual) Worker's State going up against Bourgeois States. But Cuba can't control the whole world, that's not what I was inferring to at all, ever. Cuba can on the other hand, control Cuba, and if there's no other class in Cuba but what would be the Working Class, then they cease to be in Cuba, a class nationally. Understand? Internationally, Cuba is still Cuba, separate from the Mexican Working Class, US Working Class, because of society, but that's not what I was talking about in the first place.

How can Cuba be a workers state internationally and not be nationally? This is very confuse and makes no-sense at all. If they are a workers state as you said they are a workers state in all aspects. If you admitted that they are a workers state then you admitted that there is a working class there since it is a workers state, right?

The class struggle has an international dimension as I said a million times and you already agreed with. You cannot say that they are workers internationally and something else nationally. The working class never ceases to exist nationally as long as you have bourgeoisie outside, not even in countries where the workers took the power.

Regarding USSR and Cuba's states I agree with you. There are another threads where we can discuss the nature of the Soviet and Cuba states.

MagÃ³n

29th April 2012, 03:14

Attention, I never said that the class struggles are at the same level everywhere. Of course they aren't. I don't know why you brought this matter for this discussion since I never said or implied it. The fact that the class struggles are different everywhere doesn't mean that the classes involved in the struggles are different, does it?

What I said and will continue to is that classes have an international dimension and you just can't kill one class by killing the rule of this class in one country, that is what I have been talking about all this time. As you may know the USA attempted several times to restore the bourgeoisie rule in Cuba but failed. If the bourgeoisie didn't exist anymore there wouldn't be no attempts against the Cuba state to restore the bourgeoisie rule, understood?

You're not getting me man, you're just not getting me. I never said that the classes involved in these struggles were different. I said the individual situations they're apart of are different. The situation the US Working Class is in, is different than the one the Greek Working Class is in. Understand? I'm not saying that by defeating one Ruling Class in a nation, you defeat the Ruling Class internationally either, I never said that, I said it's different nationally than internationally.

In Cuba, after the revolution, the Bourgeois never left when Fidel came to power. I'll say it again. Fidel and his friends, only replaced Batista and his friends, in their seats of power as the new Bureaucrats. Cuba traded one group of crooks for another. The US just didn't happen to like the new Bureaucrats in Cuba, and wanted to reinstall the ones who they did like, which was why they tried to overthrow Fidel.

How can Cuba be a workers state internationally and not be nationally? This is very confuse and makes no-sense at all. If they are a workers state as you said they are a workers state in all aspects. If you admitted that they are a workers state then you admitted that there is a working class there since it is a workers state, right?

The class struggle has an international dimension as I said a million times and you already agreed with. You cannot say that they are workers internationally and something else nationally. The working class never ceases to exist nationally as long as you have bourgeoisie outside, not even in countries where the workers took the power.

Ignore the international part of this, will you? It'll be easier for you to understand, like I've been trying to explain to you the past several posts. I'm talking inside Cuba, domestically, not outside Cuba, internationally.

Along with that, you completely misunderstood what I said. I'm not saying Cuba is a Worker's State, it's not, far from it in any meaningful way. I was hypothetically saying, that if Cuba hadn't turned out as it has today, just another state calling itself "Communist", and "for the Proletariate", but actually had been Communist and for the Proletariate, then Cuba would actually be a Worker's State today, in and of itself. I don't give a shit about outside, US Imperialist/Ruling Class embargoes or agitation, so don't bring it up. The nation of Cuba would be an actual Worker's State since it got rid of the Cuban Ruling Class, and all that was left was what was known as the Cuban Working Class, hypothetically, if it had gotten rid of completely, the Cuban Ruling Class. In Cuba, Class would be no more, Cuba would be a classless place, nationally. Internationally it would still be there, since there are still plenty of Ruling Class nation's, but in Cuba itself, it would be an actual Worker's State, run by Workers, not some Ruling Class parading around to be a "Worker's State", deformed or not.

A Marxist Historian

29th April 2012, 03:43

just so you didnt awnser why cuba, china and north korea are worker states, you just said they are without explaining what makes them a workers state. it might also be useful to explain what you think a worker state is.

but still, in non of these states the workers have a say in things, workers are exploited, workers are opressed, and if you say its a worker state because the means of productions are nationalized then that is also not true since in china a lot is in private hands, as it is in cuba, and in north korea there are also special economic zones.

besides i find it naive to wait for a reform in china from the low level bureaucrats since they are not in power and when they are they wont reform china to be more maoist or anything.

What is a workers state? It's a state which defends the social interests of the working class, as opposed to a capitalist state, which defends the social interests of the capitalist class. Whether the workers have a say in things tells you how healthy and democratic a workers state is, but it doesn't tell you what its basic class nature is.

Germany under Hitler was a 100% capitalist state, despite the fact that any capitalist who got out of line could easily end up dead or in a concentration camp.

The class nature of Stalinist states was pretty obvious in the USSR and Eastern Europe, where you had (and in Cuba still have) free education, free medical coverage, no unemployment, etc. etc. And, of course, no democratic say by the workers in running things.

In China and Vietnam, when the Communist Party came to power, the old ruling class was expropriated for the benefit of the people, and industrialization and the rise of the working class, recognized as the leading class in society, began. Ultimately the authority of the Chinese and Vietnamese Communist Parties rests on the Chinese and Vietnamese Revolutions, which overthrew those countries' capitalist rulers for the benefit of the people, both the peasants and the then pretty small working classes.

The pro-capitalist measures taken in the last few decades have confused the issue, but they have also resulted in a big increase in the standard of living of the working people, who by and large live much better now than under Mao or Ho Chi Minh. And now of course you have big and growing working classes in both countries, unlike before the Revolutions.

And that is why the Chinese government is currently the only government of a significant country in the entire world where the majority of the population, according to Gallup Polls, approves of the government.

Why? Because, China not being in fact a capitalist country, it has escaped the worldwide capitalist economic crisis. The bankers don't rule in China, like they do elsewhere, instead they follow party orders.

It's true there's a lot of private capitalism in these countries, but not in the decisive sectors of the economy, and especially not in banking, which these days rules everything. Most private capitalism is for the export trade, to fill up the shelves at Wal-Mart. The Chinese economy is still basically non-capitalist.

In China, the capitalist class is rising, but it does not rule. The Chinese Communist Party rules, and it balances between the rising capitalist class--and the rising working class, which gets stronger daily and more and more rebellious.

And, by the way, I don't one bit think that the Chinese Stalinists will "self-reform." They will have to be overthrown, as is I should think pretty obvious. But that will be a political revolution to establish democracy, like the American Revolution vs. the Brits, not a full blown social revolution like the Bolshevik or French Revolutions or the American Civil War.

But, as the current bureaucratic crisis in China illustrates, the rule of the Chinese bureaucracy is highly unstable and insecure. Sooner or later, either the workers or the capitalists will overthrow it.

Really, all that's preventing that is the remarkable success of the Chinese Communist Party's economic policies, with dramatic economic growth in China while just about the whole rest of the world is in extreme crisis getting worse daily. The average wages of Chinese workers have at least doubled in the last decade, while dropping like rocks elsewhere.

But the bizarre fantasies about how China is gonna rule the world and become richer than America these days are just that, fantasies. Sooner or later the boom will go bust, economic crisis will explode--and the bureaucracy will collapse.

Let's just hope that the country then goes towards revolutionary socialism instead of collapsing into capitalist chaos Russia-style.

-M.H.-

JAM

29th April 2012, 03:49

You're not getting me man, you're just not getting me. I never said that the classes involved in these struggles were different. I said the individual situations they're apart of are different. The situation the US Working Class is in, is different than the one the Greek Working Class is in. Understand? I'm not saying that by defeating one Ruling Class in a nation, you defeat the Ruling Class internationally either, I never said that, I said it's different nationally than internationally.

Yes, the level of the class struggle is different in each country as I said previously. My point from the very beginning was saying that classes have an international dimension and not a national one. I don't know how your argument counters this. Besides, you've already agreed with my statement.

In Cuba, after the revolution, the Bourgeois never left when Fidel came to power. I'll say it again. Fidel and his friends, only replaced Batista and his friends, in their seats of power as the new Bureaucrats. Cuba traded one group of crooks for another. The US just didn't happen to like the new Bureaucrats in Cuba, and wanted to reinstall the ones who they did like, which was why they tried to overthrow Fidel.

I thought we had agreed to not derail this thread with another discussion of the nature of Cuba's state. I disagree with you of course but I don't want to derail the thread. If you want we can discuss this but in a more appropriate thread.

Ignore the international part of this, will you? It'll be easier for you to understand, like I've been trying to explain to you the past several posts. I'm talking inside Cuba, domestically, not outside Cuba, internationally.

Along with that, you completely misunderstood what I said. I'm not saying Cuba is a Worker's State, it's not, far from it in any meaningful way. I was hypothetically saying, that if Cuba hadn't turned out as it has today, just another state calling itself "Communist", and "for the Proletariate", but actually had been Communist and for the Proletariate, then Cuba would actually be a Worker's State today, in and of itself. I don't give a shit about outside, US Imperialist/Ruling Class embargoes or agitation, so don't bring it up. The nation of Cuba would be an actual Worker's State since it got rid of the Cuban Ruling Class, and all that was left was what was known as the Cuban Working Class, hypothetically, if it had gotten rid of completely, the Cuban Ruling Class. In Cuba, Class would be no more, Cuba would be a classless place, nationally. Internationally it would still be there, since there are still plenty of Ruling Class nation's, but in Cuba itself, it would be an actual Worker's State, run by Workers, not some Ruling Class parading around to be a "Worker's State", deformed or not.

You said it. You just confirmed my point. Is a workers state meaning that the state is ruled by the working class, therefore you still have a working class. The working class would be in power in Cuba.

I'll give you another one: if there is no classes at all why is the need for a state? (I presume that you know and agree with the Marxist interpretation of the state.)

A Marxist Historian

29th April 2012, 03:56

Coincidence or not, this is the second time today that I have this discussion in RevLeft in two different threads. I'll give you exactly the same response that I give to the other user since the question was exactly the same:

Just because the bourgeoisie was crushed in Russia it doesn't mean that the bourgeoisie ceased to exist as a class. The bourgeoisie is internationally organized and only ends once its defeated world wide and not only nationally. That's why the struggle against the bourgeoisie is fought on a international scale and not on a national one. So, as long as you have a capitalist predominance all over the world you cannot say that there is no capitalist class. You cannot just look at one country and ignore what is around it. The bourgeoisie is organized on a world scale and not only on a national one.

What is a state? It's an apparatus, whose core is "armed bodies of men," ruling over society within the geographical boundaries that delimitate it, defending the social interests of a particular class in society.

So yes, you could in theory have a workers state with an entirely proletarian population, though no such thing has ever existed, including in Cuba. Defending the interests of that working class vs. world imperialism on the outside.

And the Castro regime does sort of look like that. Though its defense has always been pretty passive, simply defending the current state of affairs in Cuba, with no concept of getting rid of the capitalist imperialists on the outside through the Trotskyite heresy of world revolution. Whatever interest in that direction the Castro brothers ever had died with Guevara, long ago.

And now, with Cuba utterly isolated in the world except for Chavez in Venezuela, the defenses are crumbling, and they are trying to solve Cuba's mounting economic problems by letting capitalism in, in ever growing doses.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

29th April 2012, 04:08

Let's put it this way, and make it easy. If Cuba was a true Worker's State in the Marxist sense that the Working Class is indeed in control of everything, and has gotten rid of the Ruling Class, unlike in reality, that the former bosses and leaders of Cuba were either exiled, killed, or assimilated into the Working Class society to being as everyone else, then there is no other class in Cuban society itself. Yes, there's no debating that outside of Cuba, there's still a Ruling Class looking to oppress the Workers somewhere else, I never said there wasn't, but in Cuba all the Workers would be doing is ruling over themselves, which doesn't make sense because Cuba would lack any class since there's nothing else but those who rose up as the Working Class, and now control everything after having gotten rid of the Ruling Classes.

Outside of Cuba, there's still class, inside Cuba, there wouldn't be.

Even in that case, Cuba would not be a socialist society. That would be impossible. You can't build socialism in one country, and you certainly can't build socialism in one island.

So yes, you would still have a dictatorship of the proletariat, as Cuba would still need to defend itself vs. capitalism from the outside, and from internal capitalist counterrevolution.

If blue jeans and iPads and whatnot can be cranked out cheaper and better in Miami than in Havana, and if living standards in general are higher in Florida than in Cuba, then regardless of how democratic Cuba might be and how 100% proletarian the population was, there would be backward Cuban workers wanting to make things more like Florida, and you would need a workers state, to suppress them if necessary.

And, by the way, there most certainly still is a Cuban capitalist class. However, it's located in Miami not Havana these days.

-M.H.-

Rusty Shackleford

29th April 2012, 04:19

China
Vietnam
Venezuela
Belarus
Hong Kong
Singapore
Guyana
India
Sri Lanka
Portugal
Norway
Sweden
North Korea
Nepal

why are all of those bolded countries even on the list?

A Marxist Historian

29th April 2012, 04:23

"From 1949 to 1955 the party preached harmony... In the cities private enterprise and ownership were allowed to persist in a mixed economy, while in the vast rural areas socialist schemes were brought in gradually and always voluntary. The peasant owned his land... The professionals, the engineers, the businessmen and the owners of factories... were provided with the class label of 'national bourgeoisie'"

- J.A.S Grenville, "A history of the world, in the twentieth century"

China was then an overwhelmingly peasant country, whose cities were very small. The working class back then was maybe 1% of the population--indeed a lot smaller than it had been 20 years ago, due to the huge ravages of Japanese and KMT rule, under which millions died and cities were destroyed.

So what really mattered immediately was what was going on in the countryside, where you had a vast peasant revolution, with the peasantry overthrowing the landlords and killing them or turning them over to the state authorities.

And yes, socialist measures in the countryside were gradual and voluntary. You gotta problem with that? But by the end of the 1950s, land ownership was collective. And to some degree it still is.

Under Mao, urban industry really grew for the first time, and a large proletariat came into existence for the first time, in industries run by the state, not those "national capitalists." The "national bourgeoisie" got purged, after the regime had used them and squeezed them dry. Large numbers of them were killed in the Cultural Revolution.

So, overall not a pretty picture, a ruthless regime that committed economic blunders in the late '50s as disastrous as forced collectivization in the USSR or worse, and the insanity of the so-called "Cultural Revolution."

But, as ugly as it has been, it has overall defended and advanced the social interests of the Chinese working class and peasantry--while brutalizing them and tyrannizing over them.

Contradictory? Well, such is life.

-M.H.-

JAM

29th April 2012, 04:27

What is a state? It's an apparatus, whose core is "armed bodies of men," ruling over society within the geographical boundaries that delimitate it, defending the social interests of a particular class in society.

And that society is isolated in the world? No. It is immune to outside? No.
Attacks against the Cuba State were launched from outside or inside? Outside. So why bother with the international aspect, right? Lets just think that the boundaries of the classes dimension are the same as the geographical ones. Unbelievable.

So yes, you could in theory have a workers state with an entirely proletarian population, though no such thing has ever existed, including in Cuba. Defending the interests of that working class vs. world imperialism on the outside.

This one is good:"you could in theory have a workers state with an entirely proletarian population, though no such thing has ever existed".

Now look at what you said in the previous post: "What is a workers state? It's a state which defends the social interests of the working class"

I don't know if you were trying to counter my argument about the existence of the working class or just kidding.

A Marxist Historian

29th April 2012, 04:32

...
In Cuba, after the revolution, the Bourgeois never left when Fidel came to power. I'll say it again. Fidel and his friends, only replaced Batista and his friends, in their seats of power as the new Bureaucrats. Cuba traded one group of crooks for another. The US just didn't happen to like the new Bureaucrats in Cuba, and wanted to reinstall the ones who they did like, which was why they tried to overthrow Fidel....

That's absurd and insane, and shows that you know absolutely nothing about Cuba. The entire Cuban bourgeoisie fled for Miami, lock, stock and barrel. No Cuban capitalists remained. Not one, as far as I know.

And the workers took over industry, with the blessing of Fidel. After all, what else could he do? He couldn't just run the whole country from the back of his pickup truck. He was just a guerilla leader from the hills, with initially little or no apparatus to put in to run things, and little or no notion of how to run things.

Which is why he turned so quickly to the Soviet model, which gave him something to copy.

The Cuban bureaucracy was gradually created, and gradually edged out the rank and file workers from running the factories. The spokesmen for the workforce who emerged spontaneously were the foundations of his new bureaucracy. In the absence of much of a revolutionary alternative to Castroism, they gave their allegiance to Fidel--and turned into privileged bureaucrats.

A good way for you to begin to understand something about Cuba would be to watch Godfather I. The Cuban scenes might begin to let some air into your noggin.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

29th April 2012, 04:43

And that society is isolated in the world? No. It is immune to outside? No.
Attacks against the Cuba State were launched from outside or inside? Outside. So why bother with the international aspect, right? Lets just think that the boundaries of the classes dimension are the same as the geographical ones. Unbelievable.

This one is good:"you could in theory have a workers state with an entirely proletarian population, though no such thing has ever existed".

Now look at what you said in the previous post: "What is a workers state? It's a state which defends the social interests of the working class"

I don't know if you were trying to counter my argument about the existence of the working class or just kidding.

Well, as I really am mystified by what you are trying to say, I was really just trying to explain how things work rather than directly trying to counter your argument. Er, what argument?

And how do the two statements from me you quote contradict each other in any way?

And how on earth did you get the idea that I want to not "bother with the international aspect," when that is almost the exact opposite of what I am saying?

Obviously, the whole justification of Castro's dictatorship in the ideas of the Cuban people is to defend them against US capitalist imperialism and its Cuban capitalist lackeys, currently resident in Havana, and their agents and supporters within Cuba itself. Anybody who knows anything about Cuba knows that.

If Cuba really were a 100% proletarian island with no petty bourgeoisie whatsoever, would that change that in any way? I can't see how.

And, if the Castro bureaucracy were overthrown and you had democratic workers rule in Cuba--would there be any less need for a workers state to defend Cuba vs. US imperialism? If anything, the need would be stronger as Cuba would then be much more of a threat to imperialism.

-M.H.-

JAM

29th April 2012, 05:16

Well, as I really am mystified by what you are trying to say, I was really just trying to explain how things work rather than directly trying to counter your argument. Er, what argument?

I was debating with the other user about the existence of the working class (my argument is that the working class doesn't vanish once the bourgeoisie is repressed within the country, pretty much like Marx and Lenin opinions and the other user was refuting) after the takeover of the state by the workers and the cuban example was given by him. I guess that you didn't followed it and that's why you said "what argument?" otherwise you would know what I was referring to.

And how do the two statements from me you quote contradict each other in any way?

If you have a worker's state than you have a working class ruling and that means that the working class smashed the bourgeoisie presence in that country. This was my point from the very beginning and you denied it in one of your statements (the first that I mentioned) but confirmed in another( the second).

And how on earth did you get the idea that I want to not "bother with the international aspect," when that is almost the exact opposite of what I am saying?

When you said: "What is a state? It's an apparatus, whose core is "armed bodies of men," ruling over society within the geographical boundaries that delimitate it, defending the social interests of a particular class in society."

Ocean Seal

29th April 2012, 06:54

A Marxist Historian

29th April 2012, 09:55

I was debating with the other user about the existence of the working class (my argument is that the working class doesn't vanish once the bourgeoisie is repressed within the country, pretty much like Marx and Lenin opinions and the other user was refuting) after the takeover of the state by the workers and the cuban example was given by him. I guess that you didn't followed it and that's why you said "what argument?" otherwise you would know what I was referring to.

If you have a worker's state than you have a working class ruling and that means that the working class smashed the bourgeoisie presence in that country. This was my point from the very beginning and you denied it in one of your statements (the first that I mentioned) but confirmed in another( the second).

When you said: "What is a state? It's an apparatus, whose core is "armed bodies of men," ruling over society within the geographical boundaries that delimitate it, defending the social interests of a particular class in society."

I think our disagreements may be merely verbal here and based on misunderstanding, at least judging by this posting.

I certianly don't think that the working class ceases to exist in a particular country once the bourgeoisie is vanquished in that particular country.

I fail to see how the elementary truism you state above in any way contradicts that "first statement" that you have some sort of problem with.

-M.H.-

Anarcho-Brocialist

29th April 2012, 10:05

Does it matter the adjective placed in front of the state? The states intended purpose is to benefit from it's citizenry by owning production, protecting those who own production, exploit, and rule over her people. The Soviet Union did so by being heavily bureaucratic, the leaders dictated it's citizens path, and how they are to do things, if you disagree with it, there is a place in a gulag for you. That, my friend, is not worker' friendly, it's the contrary.

As for the countries you've posted, according to most Marxist, ML's, Trotskyist, etc., will not classify them in the demographic you've listed.

MagÃ³n

29th April 2012, 15:18

Yes, the level of the class struggle is different in each country as I said previously. My point from the very beginning was saying that classes have an international dimension and not a national one. I don't know how your argument counters this. Besides, you've already agreed with my statement.

Did you completely ignore the part of that, where I said the national level is different than the international level? To ignore the International aspect, because it wasn't apart of what I was talking about. All I was using for an example, was the Cuban Working Class on a national level, in Cuba domestically, not what the Cuban Working Class was doing internationally. I already said there was more to the Working Class than just Cuba, but it wasn't apart of this debate like you keep trying to make it. The whole focus, is Cuba, not what's outside of it.

If you want to talk internationally, then we're going to have to derail the thread like neither of us want, because that'll lead down too many roads.

You said it. You just confirmed my point. Is a workers state meaning that the state is ruled by the working class, therefore you still have a working class. The working class would be in power in Cuba.

I'll give you another one: if there is no classes at all why is the need for a state? (I presume that you know and agree with the Marxist interpretation of the state.)

If there's no other class in Cuba, but what was the Working Class when there was class division, then there's no class ruling over the other in Cuba. You can't have workers ruling over other workers. I simply used Worker's State, to clarify what I meant when I was talking about one class taking control over another. I didn't mean a literal Worker's State, where there's still class division and the Worker's are in power, but there's still a oppressed Ruling Class. Since there wouldn't be anymore class division nationally anymore, there would be no class distinction in CUba. Internationally, sure, but domestically, no there wouldn't.

Even in that case, Cuba would not be a socialist society. That would be impossible. You can't build socialism in one country, and you certainly can't build socialism in one island.

I don't disagree you can't have socialism in one country, island, or whatever. I don't disagree on that, but that wasn't the point I was making at all. There obviously has to be a continuing spread of Socialism/Communism, to other places in the world, or things are going to stagnate. We obviously saw that in history.

So yes, you would still have a dictatorship of the proletariat, as Cuba would still need to defend itself vs. capitalism from the outside, and from internal capitalist counterrevolution.

You can't have a DotP, if there's no other classes in Cuba, it would be a classless place. It would be workers dictating over workers if you had DotP, and that's not Socialism/Communism in the first place.

And, by the way, there most certainly still is a Cuban capitalist class. However, it's located in Miami not Havana these days.

Visit Cuba some time, and tell me if you still believe that when you come back. I guarantee you won't be singing that tune. Most who don't think there's a Ruling/Capitalist Class in Cuba today, or has been since Fidel and friends took over, would be singing a different tune.

That's absurd and insane, and shows that you know absolutely nothing about Cuba. The entire Cuban bourgeoisie fled for Miami, lock, stock and barrel. No Cuban capitalists remained. Not one, as far as I know.

Hahaha, look at you man? Seriously? All the Capitalist/Bourgeois of Cuba, fled to Miami? Seriously? You're going to try and seriously feed me that bullshit? Let me tell you man, there's plenty of Cuban Bourgeois in Cuba still today. They might say they're "For the Working Class," but if you really spent time in Cuba, you'd realize that's just bullshit. There's as much of a Ruling/Bourgeois Class, as there is anywhere else. Don't try and kid yourself man, or me.

And the workers took over industry, with the blessing of Fidel. After all, what else could he do? He couldn't just run the whole country from the back of his pickup truck. He was just a guerilla leader from the hills, with initially little or no apparatus to put in to run things, and little or no notion of how to run things.

Which is why he turned so quickly to the Soviet model, which gave him something to copy.

Are you trying to tell me here, that Fidel looking/copying the Soviet model, was a good thing? That other options were unavailable to him when kicking out Batista? Because if so, I can't take you seriously in this thread.

The Cuban bureaucracy was gradually created, and gradually edged out the rank and file workers from running the factories. The spokesmen for the workforce who emerged spontaneously were the foundations of his new bureaucracy. In the absence of much of a revolutionary alternative to Castroism, they gave their allegiance to Fidel--and turned into privileged bureaucrats.

No, the Cuban Bureaucracy, was not gradually created, it was simply filled with some "pro-Working Class" Bureaucrats who wanted power. Like I said, Fidel and his friends, simply took their place where Batista and his friends had been years previous. There was no actual worthwhile change in Cuba, when Fidel and his friends took power, not anything. It was one eager Ruling cClass, looking to take control from the other Ruling Class, who'd been just as eager when they took power years ago, from the last Ruling Class.

Cubans were shafted by Fidel, just as much as any other group to take power in Cuba. For another example of this, Mexico has been the same way. All the revolutions there, in the name of the people, have been wolves in sheep's clothing, just like Fidel and his friends were wolves in sheep's clothing.

A good way for you to begin to understand something about Cuba would be to watch Godfather I. The Cuban scenes might begin to let some air into your noggin.

And even better way to understand Cuba, is to actually visit the damn place. Visit it, like I have, spend some time learning things there and what the people there are about/doing, politically and otherwise. You'll see getting your information from solely books or movies, is a bad idea. It's a joke really. Actual experience in a place like Cuba, always triumphs over something someone read or watched. Seeing is believe, right?

Leo

29th April 2012, 15:36

Workers' state is an oxymoron.

Rusty Shackleford

29th April 2012, 17:06

Workers' state is an oxymoron.
how so, the existence of class necessitates the existence of the state, so long as the proletariat exists as a class, it can have its own state to represent the interests of itself against the bourgeoisie. as soon as the bourgeoisie can no longer viably exist as a class, then the proletariat ceases to be a class and therefore the state would begin to crumble.

JAM

29th April 2012, 17:29

Did you completely ignore the part of that, where I said the national level is different than the international level? To ignore the International aspect, because it wasn't apart of what I was talking about. All I was using for an example, was the Cuban Working Class on a national level, in Cuba domestically, not what the Cuban Working Class was doing internationally. I already said there was more to the Working Class than just Cuba, but it wasn't apart of this debate like you keep trying to make it. The whole focus, is Cuba, not what's outside of it.

If you want to talk internationally, then we're going to have to derail the thread like neither of us want, because that'll lead down too many roads.

If there's no other class in Cuba, but what was the Working Class when there was class division, then there's no class ruling over the other in Cuba. You can't have workers ruling over other workers. I simply used Worker's State, to clarify what I meant when I was talking about one class taking control over another. I didn't mean a literal Worker's State, where there's still class division and the Worker's are in power, but there's still a oppressed Ruling Class. Since there wouldn't be anymore class division nationally anymore, there would be no class distinction in CUba. Internationally, sure, but domestically, no there wouldn't.

I don't know how you can disconnect the national reality from the international one. You cannot really. So, there is a working class in Cuba internationally but there isn't nationally? Here is where lies the incoherence and you completely failed to explain this.

If there is a working class in Cuba that means working class in Cuba and outside of it. I don't see how you can say that they are something internationally and another thing nationally.

Classes don't end in Cuba borders, you know that don't you?

You really think that is serious to disconnect the national reality from the international one after all the historical examples that i gave it to you (and can give many more)?

I also noticed that you ignored my question about the state. If there is no class division or any kind of social antagonism why the state is needed for?

MagÃ³n

29th April 2012, 18:42

I don't know how you can disconnect the national reality from the international one. You cannot really. So, there is a working class in Cuba internationally but there isn't nationally? Here is where lies the incoherence and you completely failed to explain this.

Man, JAM, you're like talking to a wall, you know that? It's like every time I try and say something, you just turn it around or try to ignore it.

So I'm going to ask you, JAM: where did I ever say there was a Cuban Working Class internationally, but not nationally? That's completely the reverse of what I've been saying. I've tried to tell you again and again, ignore the damn international aspect, that's not even apart of this debate like I said before, you keep trying to make it. The whole debate, is Cuba itself, inside, domestically. Not internationally. You say I'm incoherent, but you're trying to turn around what I said, into something I didn't, or ever intended. In fact, I tried to avoid it, and keep it on a straight path. So for the last time JAM, if you don't get this, I don't really care because I'm not going to continue this if you don't. FORGET ABOUT INTERNATIONAL ANYTHING, ON CUBA. FOCUS ON THE NATIONAL END OF CUBA. Get me?

If there is a working class in Cuba that means working class in Cuba and outside of it. I don't see how you can say that they are something internationally and another thing nationally.

Because they're two different things. How the Cuban Working Class handles things in Cuba, nationally, isn't the same as how they would, internationally. It's the same for anywhere else. I'll say it again: the situations the Cuban Working Class deals with domestically, isn't the same as the Greek or US Working Class deals with, domestically. They're separate.

Classes don't end in Cuba borders, you know that don't you?

No, really? That's not what I care about at all in this debate, it's not even a part of this, so quit trying to make it apart of this. We're talking nationally, again, not internationally. Understand?

You really think that is serious to disconnect the national reality from the international one after all the historical examples that i gave it to you (and can give many more)?

I also noticed that you ignored my question about the state. If there is no class division or any kind of social antagonism why the state is needed for?

Seriously, like talking to a wall. I didn't ignore your question on the state, you ignored/looked over where I addressed it. I'll for the last time, say what I said about it: I simply used Worker's State, as a way of making it clear, exactly who I was talking about, taking over and controlling. When there is class division, there is Worker's control in Cuba, nationally. When the class division in Cuba, nationally, is erased, there is NO CLASS in Cuba. Class ceases to exist in Cuba, nationally. It's gone, erased.

And like Leo said, Worker's State is an oxymoron in the first place. The only reason I used it, was to try and be clearer with you, exactly who I was talking about, and trying to say. But with you, it's a brick wall I'm talking to. Nothing gets through.

JAM

29th April 2012, 19:34

Man, JAM, you're like talking to a wall, you know that? It's like every time I try and say something, you just turn it around or try to ignore it.

So I'm going to ask you, JAM: where did I ever say there was a Cuban Working Class internationally, but not nationally? That's completely the reverse of what I've been saying.

So, do you after all admit that there is a Cuban working class nationally. That has been my whole point during the entire discussion but you never accepted the fact until now.

You seem to be very nervous and you're start to contradict yourself. You said that they were a working class internationally but not nationally like a million times and that has been your point during this discussion. But now you already admit that they are a working class nationally.

I've tried to tell you again and again, ignore the damn international aspect, that's not even apart of this debate like I said before, you keep trying to make it. The whole debate, is Cuba itself, inside, domestically. Not internationally. You say I'm incoherent, but you're trying to turn around what I said, into something I didn't, or ever intended. In fact, I tried to avoid it, and keep it on a straight path. So for the last time JAM, if you don't get this, I don't really care because I'm not going to continue this if you don't. FORGET ABOUT INTERNATIONAL ANYTHING, ON CUBA. FOCUS ON THE NATIONAL END OF CUBA. Get me?Sorry, I'm Marxist. The international aspect of the class struggle is one of the main points of Marxism. Nevertheless, I never ignored any aspect, you are the one ignoring facts. For me there is a working class NATIONALLY and INTERNATIONALLY and I assume now that for you is the same taking in consideration what you asked and said above.

Because they're two different things. How the Cuban Working Class handles things in Cuba, nationally, isn't the same as how they would, internationally. It's the same for anywhere else. I'll say it again: the situations the Cuban Working Class deals with domestically, isn't the same as the Greek or US Working Class deals with, domestically. They're separate.You admitted again my point: "Cuban Working Class handles things in Cuba, nationally, isn't the same as how they would, internationally."

"situations the Cuban Working Class deals with domestically"

Of course the class struggles are different, but the Cuban working class remains WORKING CLASS, right? Once again, this has been my whole point.

Seriously, like talking to a wall. I didn't ignore your question on the state, you ignored/looked over where I addressed it. I'll for the last time, say what I said about it: I simply used Worker's State, as a way of making it clear, exactly who I was talking about, taking over and controlling. When there is class division, there is Worker's control in Cuba, nationally. When the class division in Cuba, nationally, is erased, there is NO CLASS in Cuba. Class ceases to exist in Cuba, nationally. It's gone, erased.There ceases to be class divisions in Cuba because one class remains in Cuba which is the working class, why is so difficult to you to understand this? Just because there are no more class divisions in Cuba that doesn't mean that Cuba's Working class ceased to be working class. They are the only class in Cuba but remains a working class. The class struggle is an international phenom not national.

And like Leo said, Worker's State is an oxymoron in the first place. The only reason I used it, was to try and be clearer with you, exactly who I was talking about, and trying to say. But with you, it's a brick wall I'm talking to. Nothing gets through.That seems a low excuse from someone who just realized how wrong was after all but don't want to admit it.

MagÃ³n

29th April 2012, 19:56

So, do you after all admit that there is a Cuban working class nationally. That has been my whole point during the entire discussion but you never accepted the fact until now.

This whole time, I was trying to explain to you the national side, not the international side. You were the one who was taking the discussion to the international side of things. In all my posts, if you go over them, which you obviously are trying to twist into something else entirely, I only ever talk about the Cuban national side. I tried for all it's worth, to keep it on the national subject, not the international one.

You like twisting people's posts to seem the other way, don't you JAM?

You seem to be very nervous and you're start to contradict yourself. You said that they were a working class internationally but not nationally like a million times and that has been your point during this discussion. But now you already admit that they are a working class nationally.

I never once said there wasn't a Cuban Working Class, nationally. I never once said that. Quit twisting my position, JAM. Show me in any one of my posts, where I say there's not a Working Class nationally, in Cuba? Show me.

Sorry, I'm Marxist. The international aspect of the class struggle is one of the main points of Marxism. Nevertheless, I never ignored any aspect, you are the one ignoring facts. For me there is a working class NATIONALLY and INTERNATIONALLY and I assume now that for you is the same taking in consideration what you asked and said above.

Internationalism is an aspect of all Communists, whether followers in the Marxist theory, or Anarchist theory, they both hold Internationalism to be a main point. But Working Class internationally, is NOT a main point, in this debate, like YOU tried to make it so, but I told you again and again to forget about that. It has nothing to do with what I was talking about, ever.

You admitted again my point: "Cuban Working Class handles things in Cuba, nationally, isn't the same as how they would, internationally."

"situations the Cuban Working Class deals with domestically"

Of course the class struggles are different, but the Cuban working class remains WORKING CLASS, right? Once again, this has been my whole point.

*Face palm x1,000,000* Yes, when there's class division, the Cuban Working Class stays Working Class, who ever disputed that, JAM? That wasn't what I was getting at, at all. I was trying to point out to you, that when class divisions are gone, nationally, there is no Working Class, nationally.

Let me ask you this very simple and simply answered question, JAM. If we achieved global Communism down the road, would you still say there's a global Working Class?

There ceases to be class divisions in Cuba because one class remains in Cuba which is the working class, why is so difficult to you to understand this? Just because there are no more class divisions in Cuba that doesn't mean that Cuba's Working class ceased to be working class. They are the only class in Cuba but remains a working class. The class struggle is an international phenom not national.

That seems a low excuse from someone who just realized how wrong was after all but don't want to admit it.

Again with the internationalism. FORGET ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL ASPECT, JAM. It's not apart of this discussion, I have no interest in talking about it with you, if you haven't realized already with the several other times I've told you to just put it aside and forget about it, it's not apart of what I'm talking about.

Nationally, in Cuba, if there was no class division, how can there be Class, nationally? How? If there's no more Ruling Class, all have been made equal and the same to one another, how can there be Class nationally, in Cuba?

Leo

29th April 2012, 20:18

how so, the existence of class necessitates the existence of the state, so long as the proletariat exists as a class, it can have its own state to represent the interests of itself against the bourgeoisie. as soon as the bourgeoisie can no longer viably exist as a class, then the proletariat ceases to be a class and therefore the state would begin to crumble. It is not that simple. I'll quote an older article (http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648):

"We’ve looked at the tremendous gulf which separates the transitional state -- which as Engels said is no longer a state in the old sense -- from all others; but Engels still called it “a scourge” inherited by the proletariat; he warned the proletariat of the need to be on guard against this “scourge”. What does this mean?
(...)
When, following Marx, Engels and Lenin, we list the distinctive characteristics of this state, we are talking about what it should be rather than what it actually, is. In it*self it carries a heavy burden of evils inherited from previous states. It is up to the proletariat to be extremely vigilant towards it. The proletariat can’t prevent it from emerging, nor avoid the necessity to use it, but in order to do so it must, as soon as it appears, amputate its most pernicious aspects, in order to be able to subordinate it to its own ends.

The state is neither the bearer nor the active agent of communism. Rather, it is a fetter against it. It reflects the present state of society and like any state it tends to maintain, to conserve the status quo. The proletariat, the subject of the social transformation, forces the state to act in the direction it wants to go. It can only do this by controlling it from within and dominating it from outside, by depriving it of as many of its functions as possible, thus actively ensuring the process of its withering away.

The state always tends to grow disproportionately. It is the ideal target of careerists and other parasites and easily recruits the residual elements of the old decomposing ruling class.
(...)
You cannot fight against such developments if you think they are accidental. In order to fight them effectively, you have to go to the heart of the matter, recognize that they have their root in this scourge, this inevitable survival, this superstructure, the state.
(...)
[W]hile we must recognize that the state is imposed on us as an “exigency of the situation” (Lenin), as a necessity, it is important not to make a virtue out of this necessity, to make an apology for the state and sing eulogies to it. Marxism recognizes the state as a necessity but also as a scourge, and poses to the proletariat the problem of taking measures to ensure that it will wither away.

Nothing can be gained by coupling the word state with word proletariat or worker. You cannot resolve the problem by changing the name -- you only gloss over it by aggravating the confusion. The proletarian state is a myth. Lenin rejected it, recalling that it was “a workers’ and peasants’ government with bureaucratic deformations.” It’s a contradiction in terms and a contradiction in reality. The great experience of the Russian Revolution is there to prove it. Every sign of fatigue, failure or error on the part of the proletariat has the immediate consequence of strengthening the state; conversely each victory, each reinforcement of the state weakens the proletariat a little bit more. The state feeds on the weakening of the proletariat and its class dictator*ship. Victory for one is defeat for the other.

Neither can anything be gained by wanting the unitary organs of the class, the workers’ councils, to be the state. To proclaim the central committee of the workers’ councils as the state shows the craftiness of the promoters of this idea, but also their ignorance of the real problems posed by reality. Why burden the name council with the name state, if they are synonymous and describe the same thing? Is it out of love for the pretty word ‘state’? Have these radical phrasemongerers ever heard of the workers’ councils being called a scourge, or of the need for them to wither away? By proclaiming the councils as the state they exclude and forbid any participation by the non-proletarian toiling classes in the life of society, a participation which, as we have seen, is the principle reason for the emergence of the state. This is both an impossibility and an absurdity. And if, in order to escape this absurdity, you try to get these classes and strata to participate in the workers’ councils, it will be the latter that will be altered and lose their nature as the autonomous, unitary organs of the proletariat.

We also have to reject the idea of structuring the state on the basis of different social categories (workers, peasants, liberal professions, artisans etc) organized separately. This would be to institutionalize their existence and take Mussolini’s corporate state as a model. It would be to lose sight of the fact that we are not talking about a society with a fixed mode of existence, but of a period of transition. It is not a question of organizing classes but of organizing their dissolution. The non-exploiting population will participate in social life as members of society, through the territorial soviets, and only the proletariat, as the bearer of communism, as well as ensuring its hegemonic participation in and direction of social life will be organized as a class through its workers’ councils.

Without entering into details, we can put forward the following principles for the structure of the transitional society:

1. The whole non-exploiting population is organized on the basis of territorial soviets or communes, centralized from the bottom up, and giving rise to the Commune-state.
2. The workers participate in this soviet organization, individually like all members of society, and collectively through their autonomous class organs, at all levels of the soviet organization.
3. The proletariat ensures that it has a preponderant representation at all levels, but especially the higher levels.
4. The proletariat retains and maintains complete freedom in relation to the state. On no pretext will the proletariat subordinate the decision-making power of its own organs, the workers’ councils, to that of the state; it must see that the opposite is the case.
5. In particular it won’t tolerate the interference of the state in the life and activity of the organized class; it will deprive the state of any right or possibility of repressing the working class.
6. The proletariat retains its arms outside of any control by the state."

JAM

29th April 2012, 20:30

This whole time, I was trying to explain to you the national side, not the international side. You were the one who was taking the discussion to the international side of things. In all my posts, if you go over them, which you obviously are trying to twist into something else entirely, I only ever talk about the Cuban national side. I tried for all it's worth, to keep it on the national subject, not the international one.

You like twisting people's posts to seem the other way, don't you JAM?

I never once said there wasn't a Cuban Working Class, nationally. I never once said that. Quit twisting my position, JAM. Show me in any one of my posts, where I say there's not a Working Class nationally, in Cuba? Show me.

You didn't get it. All this time when mentioning Cuba I was referring to that "hypothetical" Cuba and I assumed that you were doing the same since it was you who suggested it as an example. You even said it that Cuba inside would be classeless and internationally a workers state. That is why I assumed that you were talking about the "hypothetical" Cuba and that is why I asked you how can you say that they are working class internationally and not nationally. You responded me with that question: "where did I ever say there was a Cuban Working Class internationally, but not nationally?". Got it?

.

*Face palm x1,000,000* Yes, when there's class division, the Cuban Working Class stays Working Class, who ever disputed that, JAM? That wasn't what I was getting at, at all. I was trying to point out to you, that when class divisions are gone, nationally, there is no Working Class, nationally.

No, I was referring to that hypothetical Cuba that you mentioned in the very beginning of our conversation. Remember?

Yes, there is still a working class once the divisions are gone only nationally.

Let me ask you this very simple and simply answered question, JAM. If we achieved global Communism down the road, would you still say there's a global Working Class?

No, because as I said in the beginning of our discussion the class antagonisms and divisions only end with the global triumph and predominance of one class.That is why you cannot say that Cuba's working class ceases to be working class just because in CUBA there are no more class divisions.

Nationally, in Cuba, if there was no class division, how can there be Class, nationally? How? If there's no more Ruling Class, all have been made equal and the same to one another, how can there be Class nationally, in Cuba?

But there is a Ruling Class, the Working class. By your logic working class can't never be a ruling one but only an oppressed one, which is distorting completely the Marxist Theory. The class division nationally ceases to exist because the bourgeoisie was smashed but the working class in Cuba or anywhere else doesn't ceases to be working class until the bourgeoisie is defeated globally.

A Marxist Historian

29th April 2012, 22:50

This whole time, I was trying to explain to you the national side, not the international side. You were the one who was taking the discussion to the international side of things. In all my posts, if you go over them, which you obviously are trying to twist into something else entirely, I only ever talk about the Cuban national side. I tried for all it's worth, to keep it on the national subject, not the international one.

You like twisting people's posts to seem the other way, don't you JAM?

I never once said there wasn't a Cuban Working Class, nationally. I never once said that. Quit twisting my position, JAM. Show me in any one of my posts, where I say there's not a Working Class nationally, in Cuba? Show me.

Internationalism is an aspect of all Communists, whether followers in the Marxist theory, or Anarchist theory, they both hold Internationalism to be a main point. But Working Class internationally, is NOT a main point, in this debate, like YOU tried to make it so, but I told you again and again to forget about that. It has nothing to do with what I was talking about, ever.

*Face palm x1,000,000* Yes, when there's class division, the Cuban Working Class stays Working Class, who ever disputed that, JAM? That wasn't what I was getting at, at all. I was trying to point out to you, that when class divisions are gone, nationally, there is no Working Class, nationally.

Let me ask you this very simple and simply answered question, JAM. If we achieved global Communism down the road, would you still say there's a global Working Class?

Again with the internationalism. FORGET ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL ASPECT, JAM. It's not apart of this discussion, I have no interest in talking about it with you, if you haven't realized already with the several other times I've told you to just put it aside and forget about it, it's not apart of what I'm talking about.

Nationally, in Cuba, if there was no class division, how can there be Class, nationally? How? If there's no more Ruling Class, all have been made equal and the same to one another, how can there be Class nationally, in Cuba?

The correct answer to your question to Jam is that, yes of course in an international communist society, there would be no such thing as a working class.

But you confuse the discussion totally when you talk about "forgetting about the international aspect." You can't do that, because it isn't an "aspect," but the heart of the issue.

That's like trying to discuss arithmetic while forgetting about the idea that two plus two equals four. A pointless effort that can only lead to confusion and miscommunication.

-M.H.-

Tim Cornelis

30th April 2012, 11:04

why are all of those bolded countries even on the list?

I wanted to juxtapose various countries in order to make clear where a workers' state begins and where one ends. For example, many continue to claim that Cuba is a workers' state despite it moving towards 50% non-state sector. Belarus, similarly, is a semi-planned economy with 50% state sector, 50% non-state sector, so logically Belarus is a workers' state by extension of the logic of some.

I wanted to see if there is, in the eyes of Leninists, a clear demarcation between a workers' state.

Maoists rule Nepal; Sweden has co-determination; Norway has a lot of state property; Portugal has socialism in its constitution; India is also socialist; Sri Lanka is socialist on paper; Guyana is cooperative socialist on paper; etc.

A Marxist Historian

1st May 2012, 04:15

I wanted to juxtapose various countries in order to make clear where a workers' state begins and where one ends. For example, many continue to claim that Cuba is a workers' state despite it moving towards 50% non-state sector. Belarus, similarly, is a semi-planned economy with 50% state sector, 50% non-state sector, so logically Belarus is a workers' state by extension of the logic of some.

I wanted to see if there is, in the eyes of Leninists, a clear demarcation between a workers' state.

Maoists rule Nepal; Sweden has co-determination; Norway has a lot of state property; Portugal has socialism in its constitution; India is also socialist; Sri Lanka is socialist on paper; Guyana is cooperative socialist on paper; etc.

State is a political category not an economic category, so percentage of nationalization is not the criterion. The criterion is what social class the state defends.

Belarus is an actual example of "state capitalism." Yes, there's a big public sector, but this is simply for the benefit of the new Belarus capitalist class, Lukashenko's oligarchs.

Cuba OTOH is still a workers state, whose private sector is growing because due to Cuba's isolation, the state is increasingly simply incapable of running the economy these days, which is going to pot, so the Castro brothers regime is desperately allowing more and more private capitalism to prevent total economic collapse. Cuba is less and less daily able to afford the wide social benefits for the common people which are the hallmark of Cuban society.

So the state property percentages might be about the same, but the social significance of the Cuban state and the Belarus state are very different. Belarus has plenty of millionaires in Lukashenko's coterie, and the state protects and promotes their interests. In Castro, if there are any millionaires at all, they are black market profiteers one step away from jail sentences.

The prime political difference is simple and obvious. Cuba is run by the Cuban Communist Party. Communist parties in Belarus tend to end up in prison.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

1st May 2012, 04:18

robbo203

1st May 2012, 07:50

QUOTE

how so, the existence of class necessitates the existence of the state, so long as the proletariat exists as a class, it can have its own state to represent the interests of itself against the bourgeoisie. as soon as the bourgeoisie can no longer viably exist as a class, then the proletariat ceases to be a class and therefore the state would begin to crumble.
UNQUOTE

This is the problem:

The very existence of the proletariat signifies its existence as an exploited class, an economic category of capitalism.

To talk of the proletariat "having its own state to represent its interests" against the bourgeoisie must therefore logically entail that state permittting the bourgeoisie to exist as a class, without which it makes no sense whatsoever to talk of that state being a "workers state" since the working class as a class can only exist as a class in relation to the capitalist class. As Marx said wage labour presupposes capital and vice versa. They mutually condition each other. An exploited class must imply an exploiting class and what defines the proletariat is the fact it is the exploited class in capitalism

So it follows logically that the "workers state" insofar as it can exist must, in the final analysis, defer to the interests of the bourgeoisie in the sense that it must allow the bourgeosie, in continuing to exist as a class, to continue to exploit the working class. It may attempt to moderate that exploitation and temper it in some way through legislation but it cannot remove the fact of working class exploitation without rendering the whole idea of a "workers state" completely incoherent and untenable. If there is no working class exploitation there can be no working class and therefore there can be no so called "workers state"

There are only two possible outcomes of the whole bogus idea of the workers state

1) A Labour , or what is now called a social democratic type government. This explicitly acnowleges and permit a bourgeosie to exist and, over time, since the rules of the capitalist game are fundamenally loaded in favour of this class, such a government in having to defer to the needs of this class , will itself become more and more obviously a boUrgeois government indistinguishable from any other. It will not change the system as promised at the outset. Rather the system will change it

2) A leninist type vanguard government . This seeks to do away with the individual capitalists, to strip them them of their individual ownership of the means of production but without abolishing the underlying relationship of wage labour and capital itself. Since these social functiuons remain fully intact, all this can ever amount to is the substitution of the vanguard for the old bourgeoisie. In effect and inevitably, this vanguard will step into the shoes vacated by the old bourgeosie and will itself become a new bourgeosie, a new capitalist class - a state capitalist class. In the name of the proletariat and under the pretense of seeking to protect the interests of the proletariat, this vanguard will represss the proletariat and impose its own dictatorship over the proletariat. Since capitalism can only really be run in the interests of capital this type of government will similarly become more and more obviously a bourgeois government indistinguishable from any other. It too will talk ceaselessly about the need to "tighten our belts", to become competitive, to raise productivity and improve profit margins etc etc

What conclusions can we draw from this? There are two I can think of

1) The capture of political power by a revolutionary proletariat must signify and entail the immediate abolition of the wage labour and capital relation. There can be no fudging this issue. To prolong that relationship is to allow capitalism to continue and, in consequence, to accede to the needs and interests of capital as against wage labour. There is no other way in which capitalisam can be run in but in the interests of capital

2) The whole concept of the transition needs to be radically rethought. I have always maintained that Leftists who resort to such facile and trite arguments such as "you cant get rid of money overnight" do not really understand the nature of the system they are talking about. There is, literally speaking, no other way in which money or all the other paraphenalia of capitalism can be got rid EXCEPT iimmediately or instantaneously. Marx understood this point well enough but so many Leftists do not. What, one might ask, do they have in mind - that money should be phased out one dollar note at a time? Or do they think more and more free services can be introduced within capitalism by means of the use of subsidies - as if there was such a thing as a "free lunch" under capitalism and that such subsidies are not paid for by other means?

Those who argue for some kind of "transitional society" between capitalism and communism have got it all it all wrong. There cannot be such a thing and incidentally this is not what Marx argued for either (see http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/myth-transitional-society)

If there is to be a "transition" it needs to happen this side of the socialist revolution and not on the other. It needs to happen before the working class captures power and not afterwards. But that, of course, renders the whole idea of a workers state completely superfluous since the revolution that we are talking about must, and will abolish, the working class completely and with it the need for any such state