Hey all, hoping to learn a little bit more about the "other side."

[tooAlive]

Hello everyone,

My name is Andrew, and I'm here to learn a bit more about the left. If my avatar hasn't given it away yet, I tend to lean a bit to the Right.

Not looking to pick any fights; just want to learn.

My family comes from Cuba, and although my parents were fortunate enough to reach the US many years ago, I still have quite a bit of family that is still on the island. I've been there about 5 times over the years, and just got back from my most recent visit about 6 months ago.

I've been able to see first-hand what life is like under socialism (although you'll argue that Cuba is more of a totalitarian dictatorship/communism), which is a big contributing factor to my political beliefs.

I'd love to share my experiences to those that are willing to listen.

Hopefully we can all learn something.

Kind regards.

[Sasha]

OP restricted, thread moved to OI

[Manic Impressive]

Cuba is a capitalist nation and always has been. Socialism/communism has never existed anywhere.

[Thirsty Crow]

I've been able to see first-hand what life is like under socialism (although you'll argue that Cuba is more of a totalitarian dictatorship/communism), which is a big contributing factor to my political beliefs.

There are numerous problems with definition of terms and its use here, but the underlying problem is that you cannot generalize from a specific case like this. In other words, if we accepted that for instance both Cuba and Scandinavian welfare states represent "socialism", your conclusion would fall apart.

[Blake's Baby]

... and welcome to RevLeft.

To back up Ratty Monster - some of us here will argue that Cuba, though it may be a 'totalitarian dictatorship', is about as far from socialism or communism as you could ever get, because it's a capitalist country just like Sweden or China or the US or anywhere else.

Others will argue that Cuba is a socialist nation. They're wrong (because their definition of 'socialism' is different to ours), such a thing as Ratty says has never existed, and nor could it. A socialist society will only exist after capitalism, and as capitalism exists worldwide, 'after capitalism' hasn't happened yet.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Left Communists say that Cuba wasn't a socialist nation but they have their definitions of socialism and communism mixed up as the two aren't the same and are, in fact, very different.

But more on that later, more to the point, if you are here to learn than you might be interested in reading some classic Leftist works; if you do so than check out our study guides...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rev-left-study-t172829/index.html

Anyways, see you around!

[Blake's Baby]

Left Communists say that Cuba wasn't a socialist nation but they have their definitions of socialism and communism mixed up as the two aren't the same and are, in fact, very different...

Yeah, because we're Marxists, and you're not. And Ratty Monster isn't a Left Communist, and neither are the Anarchists who agree with us. In fact it's just the Stalinists and the Trotskyists who have this arbitrary distinction.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Yeah, because we're Marxists, and you're not. And Ratty Monster isn't a Left Communist, and neither are the Anarchists who agree with us. In fact it's just the Stalinists and the Trotskyists who have this arbitrary distinction.

A classic ultra-left game: once challenged simply denounce the other person, on the grounds of lacking Marxism, and start a tendency conflict. Whatever the case I am not here to argue with you about your absurdities in theory but to merely a counter-narrative to the all too common thread on Rev-Left these days.

[Blake's Baby]

Why you chose to decide that 'socialist' doesn't mean th same as 'communist' isn't my concern, but I don't see any reason to say otherwie than that it's not a Marxist position. I don't care if you're not a Marxist, or if you consider that you are but that particular Marxist position isn't one you consider to be important (as I don't consider Marx's position that Germany needs to be supported in a war with France to be important enough to 'split' with Marx over); but your claim that only Left Comms don't make a distinction between socialism and communism is wrong, and needs to be challenged, and your claim that they're different is challengeable from a Marxist perspective, because it isn't Marxist, so I did. Get over it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Whatever the case I am not here to argue with you about your absurdities in theory but to merely a counter-narrative to the all too common thread on Rev-Left these days.
How's this for an absurdity: a society comprised of non-antagonistic classes, yet not a classless society, that we conveniently call socialism? Would you like some baloney with your non-antagonistic classes?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I never said that only Left-Comms hold [such and such] view. I wasn't specific but I hardly need to be to get my point across.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

How's this for an absurdity: a society comprised of non-antagonistic classes, yet not a classless society, that we conveniently call socialism? Would you like some baloney with your non-antagonistic classes?

Who is saying that this hypothetical society is comprised of non-antagonistic classes? Certainly not me. In any case this isn't for the topic at hand so if you wish to discuss this than talk it to any of the other threads which has this very same topic as the primary point? I only posted here to give my few cents and to introduce the OP to the study guide project.

[Thelonious]

Hello everyone,

My name is Andrew, and I'm here to learn a bit more about the left. If my avatar hasn't given it away yet, I tend to lean a bit to the Right.

Not looking to pick any fights; just want to learn.

My family comes from Cuba, and although my parents were fortunate enough to reach the US many years ago, I still have quite a bit of family that is still on the island. I've been there about 5 times over the years, and just got back from my most recent visit about 6 months ago.

I've been able to see first-hand what life is like under socialism (although you'll argue that Cuba is more of a totalitarian dictatorship/communism), which is a big contributing factor to my political beliefs.

I'd love to share my experiences to those that are willing to listen.

Hopefully we can all learn something.

Kind regards.

I left Cuba with my father when I was 8 years old. My father was in prison in Cuba and was released in 1980 and forced to leave the country. We arrived in Miami and eventually settled in New Jersey. My mother and three of my siblings are still in Havana, along with my extremely numerous extended family.

I have no problem talking about Cuba with you, as long as we can have an intelligent and respectful debate. I say this because whenever the subject of Cuba comes up while I am around Cuban expatriates here in the USA the discussion almost always quickly dissolves into a shouting match followed by an overturned table.

I agree that Cuba is not a communist country, and according to the true definition of communism, such a country never existed. However, I do believe that Cuba was at one time on the correct path toward communism. I believe that the American economic blockade destroyed any hopes that Cuba had in achieving that goal.

A good place to start a debate would be to talk about what many people consider the most important thing in their lives, which is healthcare and education (at least they are for me, I am a single father raising 3 children alone).

Healthcare is free in Cuba. According to Article 50 of the Cuban constitution, free healthcare is a right guaranteed to all Cuban citizens. There are 5.91 physicians per 1,000 people in Cuba compared to 2.56 per 1,000 in the USA. There are 0 (zero) uninsured people in Cuba. There are anywhere between 45 and 50 million uninsured people in the USA. The infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births in Cuba is 4.83. In the USA it is 6.0.

Education is free in Cuba at all levels; in 1959 Castro nationalized all educational institutions. Uniforms and meals are free for all Cuban children in primary schools. Schools open at 6:30 AM and stay open for 12 hours to provide free childcare for all working parents.

I visit Cuba twice a year. I am not claiming that Cuba is a utopian paradise, but it is certainly not some dreary, hopeless place with a population that is suffering. Havana is a vibrant and colorful place. Actually, I find the atmosphere in most of the places in Cuba to be such.

Citizens in Cuba do not have to worry about their basic human rights going uncared for; I happen to consider healthcare and an adequate dwelling basic human rights.

I have a job now where my healthcare plan is better than what the average American worker has. It still is not free. I remember years ago when I had a job where I spent 10 hours a day. No healthcare. Made barely enough to pay my rent and feed my children. Could not get food stamps because I made too much money to qualify. Had to drop my 3 children off at my cousin's house and burden her because she already had 4 of her own to watch. Those were some of the most depressing and dreary years of my life. I used to pray every night to a god that I did not believe in that my children would not get sick. I am grateful every morning when I wake up that I made it out of that hopeless situation. And make no mistake, that situation is a direct result of the capitalist society I live in.

My point is that the citizens of Cuba are free of these aforementioned burdens. Cuba is not a perfect place but it is a step ahead of the USA in terms of basic human rights.

Mi nombre es Andrew tambien (es Andres pero aqui mi llaman Andrew). Me gustaria placticar contigo sobre tus opiniones de Cuba o qualquier otra cosa que tu deseas. Yo no voy a ataquar te porque no estamos de acuerdo en temas politicas.

[RedAtheist]

I've been able to see first-hand what life is like under socialism (although you'll argue that Cuba is more of a totalitarian dictatorship/communism), which is a big contributing factor to my political beliefs.

I apologise if we've confused you by engaging in internal debates. Allow me to put a positive spin on it and say that we engage in such debates because we are all capable of thinking for ourselves and are not merely the zombie-like followers.

On the topic of Cuba, some socialists support it as an example of socialism, others don't. I'm personally in the 'don't' category. I don't think Cuba is totalitarian (I reserve that lable for places like North Korea and Stalinist Russia) but it is a dictatorship, currently run by a man whom the people did not elect.

The important thing to keep in mind is that none of us use the word 'communism' to mean totalitarianism. We regard it as a positive thing (put simply, I think most revolutionary socialists would agree that communism is a better, more developed, form of socialism.)

I understand why people would be tempted to base their political beliefs around personal experience, but I don't think this is a rational way of deciding what to believe. First off, Cuba is a third world country, so if you're used to living in a first world country you'll probably view it as a terrible place. I don't think you would find non-socialist third world countries any better.

Secondly, your personal experience represents only a small subset of the total experiences of all people in the US and Cuba. Plenty of other people in the US are struggling economically, especially now that there's been a crisis. My family's experience of capitalism is rather negative. Both my mother and father are qualified people and were guaranteed jobs when they lived in the Soviet Union. Now we live in a capitalist country (Australia) and both my parents and one of my older brothers (who has a PhD) have been unemployed for many years.

Also, too many people (including those who identify as socialists) are defining socialism as a system where people have free healthcare. Even though this a something that a socialist society is likely to have it is not the defining characteristic of socialism. Socialism is when the means of production and distribution are placed in the hands of those who operate them and the economy is run under the collective control of what we called the working class (which consists not only of manual labourers, but of anyone who sells their labour to someone else for a wage, as opposed to those whose income comes mainly from the creation of profits.)

Countries which merely have healthcare, like Cuba and Sweden, are not socialist because their economies are not in the hands of the people. In Cuba production is managed by a small group of powerful and wealthy (relative the rest of the people in the country) individuals. In Sweden it is coordinated via the market, and therefore via blind forces (Marx called this the Law of Value) which do not care about people (in the same way that gravity doesn't care if it kills people.) Thus Swedish companies, which must act in accordance with such forces if they wish to generate profit, are quite happy to chop down forests without regard for the environmental impact.

[The Jay]

Hello everyone,

My name is Andrew, and I'm here to learn a bit more about the left. If my avatar hasn't given it away yet, I tend to lean a bit to the Right.

Not looking to pick any fights; just want to learn.

My family comes from Cuba, and although my parents were fortunate enough to reach the US many years ago, I still have quite a bit of family that is still on the island. I've been there about 5 times over the years, and just got back from my most recent visit about 6 months ago.

I've been able to see first-hand what life is like under socialism (although you'll argue that Cuba is more of a totalitarian dictatorship/communism), which is a big contributing factor to my political beliefs.

I'd love to share my experiences to those that are willing to listen.

Hopefully we can all learn something.

Kind regards.

Welcome to the forum. If you have any ideas for a thread or any questions, let me know and I will try to help.

[tooAlive]

Thank you all for the informative replies, you're all definitely much nicer than the other "communists" I'm used to debating with. :lol:

Anyways, I've already corrected many of my previous definitions of words, so thanks again to all that have contributed.

[Jason]

Hello everyone,

My name is Andrew, and I'm here to learn a bit more about the left. If my avatar hasn't given it away yet, I tend to lean a bit to the Right.

Not looking to pick any fights; just want to learn.

My family comes from Cuba, and although my parents were fortunate enough to reach the US many years ago, I still have quite a bit of family that is still on the island. I've been there about 5 times over the years, and just got back from my most recent visit about 6 months ago.

I've been able to see first-hand what life is like under socialism (although you'll argue that Cuba is more of a totalitarian dictatorship/communism), which is a big contributing factor to my political beliefs.

I'd love to share my experiences to those that are willing to listen.

Hopefully we can all learn something.

Kind regards.


Cuba is oppressive to a minority of Cubans, but America is oppressive to a minority of Americans. Let's look at another example: Mubarak's Egypt wasn't communist, yet a majority of Egyptians viewed Mubarak as a US puppet.

Anyhow, any society is going to have a majority or minority that hates the government. In the US case, Americans have generally favored the status quo because they bought off by imperalism. In the case of Cuba, a small minority doesn't want to "sacrifice for the good of all" so they rebel. In Egypt's case, a small rich minority benifited from Mubarak's government.

Anyhow, since the government can't please everyone, then it should strive to satisfy the majority. However, the majority case in the US is a complex issue (which would require another thread). However, we see in most of the world, that the "majority" doesn't like or benefit from free markets.

[Thelonious]

[QUOTE]I'd love to share my experiences to those that are willing to listen.

I am still waiting to hear about your experiences.

[NGNM85]

My point is that the citizens of Cuba are free of these aforementioned burdens. Cuba is not a perfect place but it is a step ahead of the USA in terms of basic human rights.

....With the notable exception of freedom of speech.

[Decolonize The Left]

....With the notable exception of freedom of speech.

Not like that exists in any real form here though....

[Sentinel]

Welcome to Revleft, tooAlive. It is always nice to see a respectful opposer register here, I wish there were more. I personally, and my organisation, wholeheartedly support some aspects of the Cuban model, but oppose others.

We support the enormous advantages brought by the planned economy in Cuba and other similar countries, but oppose the absolute and bureaucratic power of the CP. I think it was Marx himself who coined the phrase: socialism needs democracy as the body needs oxygene.

Cuba is one of the countries that clearest demonstrate how superior a planned economy is compared to a market one, when it comes to providing the majority with their basic needs. The workers in Cuba have many material benefits, and a much higher educational level, compared to the majority of workers in most of the Western hemisphere. But we believe they could have much more if a true, democratically planned economy was implemented, if dissenting views were allowed, and so forth.

I disagree with those who call Cuba 'capitalist', and I'm quite sure the Castros think they are doing the right thing and thus are sincere socialists in their own way. A lot of Cuba's problems are also rooted in the fact that it's an ideologically (and thus also economically) isolated country. But, nevertheless, unless actual democratic workers control over both the means of production and the discourse in society - without supervision from a bureacracy - is implemented I wouldn't call it a 'socialist country' however popular and romantic a revolution it had, really.

However, I also believe that the reason that there so far hasn't been a counter-revolution, backed by the US Army, in Cuba isn't as much the harshness of the dictatorship as the popularity of the Castro regime. It's simple math really, if a clear majority of the Cuban people weren't proud of the revolution and wish to preserve it's gains, the US would have attacked it immediately after the Warzaw pact collapsed, if not before.

I mean, why wouldn't they invade, if they really were expecting to be welcomed as liberators? What is stopping them, except the condemnation by the Cuban population, of such an action? There might be discontent with the bureacracy, but the people choose even stalinism over neoliberalism, especially after having seen how Russia and other countries that went for that option ended up.

Economically speaking, things looked grim indeed for a while, but now with the aid of Venezuela and other countries Cuba has a chance of 'making it' again. Hopefully international developments and the strenght of the Cuban people will lead not only to the preservation of the planned economy, but to the implementation of democracy as well, in the future.

[NGNM85]

Not like that exists in any real form here though....

Is; 'here' the United States? If it is; you should know that the United States has the broadest perameters for legally protected speech, on earth, (Which, I happen to think, is a very good thing.) with the possible exception of some failed state, or some obscure island, or something. So; if you are, in fact, an American, this statement makes no sense.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Sentinel;2559330]Welcome to Revleft, tooAlive. It is always nice to see a respectful opposer register here, I wish there were more. I personally, and my organisation, wholeheartedly support some aspects of the Cuban model, but oppose others.

I think this is something I would agree with. Cuba has some very progressive elements in its model, and some very backwards, un-democratic and anti-worker aspects.


We support the enormous advantages brought by the planned economy in Cuba and other similar countries, but oppose the absolute and bureaucratic power of the CP. I think it was Marx himself who coined the phrase: socialism needs democracy as the body needs oxygene.

The bureaucracy in Cuba is nowhere near as bad as in the former 20th century 'Socialist States'. I know that Trotskyists tend to export their anti-Stalin analysis (which was partially correct) of the USSR to most Socialist nations, such as Cuba, but I feel as though with Cuba, it is like putting a square peg in a round hole. Though Cuba isn't exactly a fully democratic system, it does have great elements of participatory democracy, in the former of street-to-street and neighbourhood committees (the Commites por la defensa de la revolucion, CDRs), and this is something to bear in mind, in terms of the political side of their model.


Cuba is one of the countries that clearest demonstrate how superior a planned economy is compared to a market one, when it comes to providing the majority with their basic needs. The workers in Cuba have many material benefits, and a much higher educational level, compared to the majority of workers in most of the Western hemisphere. But we believe they could have much more if a true, democratically planned economy was implemented, if dissenting views were allowed, and so forth.

I'm not sure that I fully agree with this. In the developed countries, we think of world-class, free education and healthcare as a basic need, but in the developing countries - within which category Cuba falls - i'm not sure this is the case. For example, before the recent capitalist reforms, Cubans had access to world class education and some level of good, publicly-provided healthcare, but only access to poor quality food, a huge lack of basic consumer needs/goods, and very limited other basic goods (for example only 1 bar of soap per person per month). Whilst public education and healthcare are laudable, they don't really have any impact on whether a country is Socialist or Capitalist, they are at best a welfare measure.


I disagree with those who call Cuba 'capitalist', and I'm quite sure the Castros think they are doing the right thing and thus are sincere socialists in their own way.

I have no intention of turning this into a flame war or anything personal, but this is nonsense. 'Believing' you are something, doesn't make your entire country that same thing. I have no doubt that Fidel Castro has always been a sincere and passionately dedicated Socialist. That doesn't mean that the product of this passion is a Socialist country.


A lot of Cuba's problems are also rooted in the fact that it's an ideologically (and thus also economically) isolated country. But, nevertheless, unless actual democratic workers control over both the means of production and the discourse in society - without supervision from a bureacracy - is implemented I wouldn't call it a 'socialist country' however popular and romantic a revolution it had, really.

This is correct and so, if it's not Socialist, it is Capitalist. Socialism and Capitalism are modes of production, NOT ideologies. Just like you either had a feudal or a capitalist world, so we now have a capitalist world with composite capitalist nations/countries.


However, I also believe that the reason that there so far hasn't been a counter-revolution, backed by the US Army, in Cuba isn't as much the harshness of the dictatorship as the popularity of the Castro regime.

I would probably correct this not by saying that the Cuban model is endearingly popular amongst the population, since I can assure you that it is not, but that it is not so unpopular as to warrant revolution. In my experience there (and I don't know if you/anybody else has had other/similar experiences?), people grumbled at certain things, revered Fidel Castro, and generally got on with things.


Economically speaking, things looked grim indeed for a while, but now with the aid of Venezuela and other countries Cuba has a chance of 'making it' again.

As a capitalist nation with welfare features and a ruling communist party. It has no chance, without a revolution and strong regional backing, of now turning in any way Socialist. The economy has strong and irreversible private sector direction, currency, a state, private property, and a growing divide between the haves and have-nots. I've seen people struggling to do anything but sit on the sidewalk sipping a cola during the day, and others with two houses, wide-screen TVs and access to all sorts of goods. And that was before the current reforms that entrenched private property and all sorts of petty business ownership. Not to mention that for nearly two decades, part of the country (p.e. Varadero) has essentially been prostituted to rich tourists and is un-noticeable from any other capitalist tourist resort.

Hopefully this can lead to a fruitful discussion and exchange of views :)

[Sentinel]

Cuba has some very progressive elements in its model, and some very backwards, un-democratic and anti-worker aspects.

That was the very essence of my post really. I get the feeling that you know a bit more than I about the situation, and I always welcome learning new things. But I'm a bit confused - we seem to agree over the basics here, so I'm not sure what we are arguing over other than details and semantics (in a rather 'basics' thread)?

Or are we just not hearing each other? :unsure:


The bureaucracy in Cuba is nowhere near as bad as in the former 20th century 'Socialist States'. I know that Trotskyists tend to export their anti-Stalin analysis (which was partially correct) of the USSR to most Socialist nations, such as Cuba, but I feel as though with Cuba, it is like putting a square peg in a round hole.

It's indeed true that it isn't nearly as bad as in the other 'socialist' countries, in eastern europe etc. Which I think is one big reason to why the regime is so much more popular than those.

I'm not exporting any analysis over one country to another, I simply recognise the same problems (bureaucracy) present in all stalinist regimes. But this doesn't mean I'm arguing these regimes cannot have very different characteristics, that workers don't (or didn't) have more power/rights in some 'stalinist' countries than others.


Though Cuba isn't exactly a fully democratic system, it does have great elements of participatory democracy, in the former of street-to-street and neighbourhood committees (the Commites por la defensa de la revolucion, CDRs), and this is something to bear in mind, in terms of the political side of their model.

I'm aware of these things. I've never been to Cuba, but I've met some Cubans - some were CP members, some weren't - and asked them questions. But all these positive things aside Cuba is still imo a bureaucratic, deformed workers state rather than socialist. Ie, not socialist, not capitalist.


I'm not sure that I fully agree with this. In the developed countries, we think of world-class, free education and healthcare as a basic need, but in the developing countries - within which category Cuba falls - i'm not sure this is the case.

I'm not disagreeing with you here really, but then again I was never arguing that Cuban workers have as good material conditions as workers in all developed countries - but that they are better than in most countries in the western hemisphere, ie better than for the majority of the workers in the rest of Latin America, and also better than for the poorest workers in the US.


For example, before the recent capitalist reforms, Cubans had access to world class education and some level of good, publicly-provided healthcare, but only access to poor quality food, a huge lack of basic consumer needs/goods, and very limited other basic goods (for example only 1 bar of soap per person per month).

Yes, goods are limited and it's not working as well as it should. This is due to the reasons I outlined earlier: lack of democratic impact in the means of production, and isolation.


As a capitalist nation with welfare features and a ruling communist party. It has no chance, without a revolution and strong regional backing, of now turning in any way Socialist.

I disagree it's capitalist (it's a deformed workers state) but I agree it needs a revolution, not a social one but a political one where the workers wrest all power from the bureaucracy instead of settling with the current limited democratic rights.


The economy has strong and irreversible private sector direction, currency, a state, private property, and a growing divide between the haves and have-nots. I've seen people struggling to do anything but sit on the sidewalk sipping a cola during the day, and others with two houses, wide-screen TVs and access to all sorts of goods. And that was before the current reforms that entrenched private property and all sorts of petty business ownership. Not to mention that for nearly two decades, part of the country (p.e. Varadero) has essentially been prostituted to rich tourists and is un-noticeable from any other capitalist tourist resort.

And that is shit. We in the CWI are worried about these recent developments, even though we may hesitate to declare that Raul is outright going the Chinese road or anything.


Hopefully this can lead to a fruitful discussion and exchange of views

I think the exchange of views was interesting but I'm not sure what the two of us have to discuss further, in this thread. As said, we are basically in agreement when it comes to the important things, as I see it.

[Jason]

Education has improved in the 1st world though, as a result of the internet. For instance, you can get high quality math lectures from two sites I know for free (any subject). In the past, you'd have to read library textbooks or maybe purchase videos or something. Many employers might not respect that education, but some might. One of the sites offers a type of online credit (but not college credit).

However, in the past they may have had math lecture videos for checkout at the library. But I'm sure not at most libraries.

Nonetheless, I think the revolutionary atmosphere of Cuba helps education, despite the fact that (non-college-credit) free education exists in America.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Sentinel: I don't understand - and perhaps you can explain - how the CWI arrives at this 'not Socialist, not Capitalist' conclusion. If we view the ancient, asiatic, feudal, capitalist and potentially Socialist systems as means of production, then surely either Cuba is capitalist or it is Socialist, since feudalism is long dead. I don't understand how a country can be between modes of production, it seems a bizarre analysis to me. Cuba has money, it has a state, as I stated it has rather distinguishable classes (some people own more than one home and rent it out, some people own businesses, and some people struggle by on wage labour) and it trades on the world capitalist market. So what about it is not capitalist?

We agree on the minor details I agree, but I seriously don't understand how well-meaning and seemingly quite well-read people like most i've come across from the CWI can come up with a conclusion that is so out-of-step with any sort of sensical Marxist/historical materialist understanding of how economies, societies and modes of production operate.

[Jason]

Whether or not you think Cuba is state capitalist, communist, or whatever, it's a gigantic improvement over the Batista regime as far as providing services for the people, ending the imperalist monopoly, and promoting a revolutionary spirit among the people (as opposed to the opposite one in 1st world nations).

[Sentinel]

Cuba has money, it has a state,

But (even though Cuba isn't that) even a socialist society may have those no? They are abolished when the society enters the communist stage of development.


as I stated it has rather distinguishable classes (some people own more than one home and rent it out, some people own businesses, and some people struggle by on wage labour) and it trades on the world capitalist market. So what about it is not capitalist?

Those are capitalist features, but it's still the deformed workers state acting capitalistic, not capitalism where there is an owning class without any social merits whatsoever ruling. The Castros and the other top members of the bureacracy in the CP of Cuba actually led the revolution when it occurred, as opposed to Stalin or his henchmen who were all middle men in 1917.

Btw, this is why I don't find it just to define it outright capitalist, not sure what the CWI:s official declaration is.

[Blake's Baby]

So what? Lech Walesa was an electrician, does that mean Poland was a "workers' state" when he was president between 1990-95?

Erich Honnecker was a roofer, does that mean East Germany was communist society between 1976-89?

The class background of the elite doesn't matter. Stalin rained as a priest, does that make the Soviet Union 1925-53 a feudal theocracy?

You can't have a 'socialist state that acts capitalist'. If it acts capitalist, it's capitalist.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But (even though Cuba isn't that) even a socialist society may have those no? They are abolished when the society enters the communist stage of development.

Well, even if you were to accept this, then you would still have a situation where we live in a world where almost every economic and social relation is governed by capitalist laws, where every class relation is that of capitalism, and you have Cuba, a tiny island under an embargo that has little capital to invest. How can this country either be, or become, Socialist without at least regional revolution? To me it seems a logical impossibility, no? I'm no anarchist, so I don't believe that we'll just wake up one day in a communist world. I understand that the transition from a full-on capitalist region/world, to a full-on communist region/world, will take some time, but still, there is no justification for saying that a tiny nation without the capital to sustain its own crumbling cities, let alone export revolution, that has a strong state, that has money (two currencies, in fact - one implicitly pegged to the dollar) and capitalistic socio-economic relations (haves and have-nots, with the gap increasing currently) is in any way Socialistic.

Cuba has done very well to increase the living standards of its population, and for so long, and is a marked improvement on what came before, and no doubt on what the US has planned for it, but it's not Socialist. Not by our standards. This isn't sectarian, or an insult to Cuba, but we can't just change our theory to fit what is, essentially, an anomolous situation.



Those are capitalist features, but it's still the deformed workers state acting capitalistic, not capitalism where there is an owning class without any social merits whatsoever ruling. The Castros and the other top members of the bureacracy in the CP of Cuba actually led the revolution when it occurred, as opposed to Stalin or his henchmen who were all middle men in 1917.

The deformed workers' state doesn't really consider economic relations, though. It is a description of the manifest political model. In reality, whether bureaucracy exists or not, whether a nationalist or a red flag flies above el capitolio and whether or no Fidel or anyone else self-identifies as a Marxist or a Ron Paul-ist, we have to judge the nation objectively in terms of its policies, and in terms of its position in the world. It has a strong welfare-ist, statist element, but it is firmly entrenched - regionally and globally - in the capitalist markets. This is just how it is. It'd probably not survive if it did a North Korea!

[/QUOTE]

[Sentinel]

One more time, I agree with you that Cuba isn't socialist. I also don't think that it possibly can become that without substantial international aid.

I'm not sure how to explain this position of mine any clearer than this, so I hope we can just move on now.