Failed communist states

[Karl Renegade]

Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos....Do any of these failed "communist" countries deserve our support?

[Delenda Carthago]

How is Cuba "failed"?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

No. I support the proletariat of those countries, just as much as I defend the proletariat of any other country. But I don't support a capitalist state.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

As far as the information goes, Cuba do.

[Fourth Internationalist]

No, they do not deserve our support. They have neither socialism nor are they on their way towards socialism.

[Art Vandelay]

'Communist state' is a contradiction.

[vanukar]

Do any states deserve our support? There's your answer.

[Aurora]

The gains in them do, the faults don't. I don't think the proletariat rules in any of those countries so it's necessary to bring the working class to power but it's clear that the form of state is different than the normal capitalist state otherwise it wouldn't be necessary for the overthrow of the state to reintroduce normalised capitalist relations. The state in the SU had to be dissolved to reintroduce the capitalist rule that exists in Russia today just like the state in the PRC is reintroducing as much capitalist rule as it can leading to the overturn of the PRC.

In other areas the gains of the revolutions in these countries had to be destroyed to reintroduce normalised capitalist relations, the state planned economy(which eliminated crises of overproduction) had to be broken up and the means of production turned back into commodities, a reserve labour-army(unemployment) had to be created, the people had to be disarmed etc

I think that in the case where the capitalists have lost political power through revolution but the working class is unable to rule or loses it's supremacy that the state rulership is temporarily taken over by a privileged strata of intellectuals and bureaucrats, where this happens during the bourgeois revolutions this is called Bonapartism where this happens with the proletarian revolutions this type of Bonapartism is called Stalinism. Bonapartism is a regime of crisis where the outcome depends on the balance of class forces, because of this it is temporary and will inevitably lead to the triumph of one class.

So my position on states such as these is: Organise the proletariat to take the power, oppose any attempts by the bourgeois to take the power.

[tuwix]

Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos....Do any of these failed "communist" countries deserve our support?

Definitely not. IMHO they deserve less support than social-democratic countries as Scandinavian ones. Those states killed many hopes for communism in minds of many men and women there. In terms of personal freedom they offer regime worse regime than the most of classic capitalist states. They must be condemned by each true communist as pathetic communist pretenders.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I know someone that went on a vacation to Laos as well who ended up helping the 'supreme party leaders' with setting up the country's internet service. :grin:


None of them should be supported. I'd go so far as to say that China is probably the most class-conscious place on earth right now, considering the amount of blatant and open exploitation that over 50% of the population (which is guaranteed proletariat - that's 670 million people, not counting rural workers!) has to endure every day. If any Proletarian movement's going to happen, I'd bet that it would likely stem from the world's last major 'communist' country.

[ind_com]

Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos....Do any of these failed "communist" countries deserve our support?

They must be supported against imperialist aggression. But the proletariat of those places must also be supported in their struggle against the pseudo-communist rulers.

[F9]

How is Cuba "failed"?

how is it not?as 9mm greatly observed, communist state is an oxymoron on its own.None of the so called "communist states" have come anywhere near communism and do not seem to walk on that path any time soon or having that "desire" either.Yet more examples of "dictatorship" and state capitalisms. So frankly no they do not worth our support but then again you will get contradictory opinions on this basically coming from the tendency of the person giving it.Better or not from other "proper capitalist" states makes no difference really if we should support them or not, as revolutionary leftists our goal is communism and what it is acceptable by me at least to support is something that at least gives any possibility of making that change to communism.Bottom line is, try to research on this subject on your own and develop your own ideas because there is no chance to get one answer out from all of us.

Fuserg9:star:

[Zostrianos]

how is it not?

While I don't support Cuba's dictatorial system, out of all the self proclaimed "communist" states it's arguably the best: the best free healthcare in the world, everyone has a home and enough to survive (though very little, I'll admit), and no crime. Compare that to the surrounding democracies in the region, which are practically run by savage gangs who murder, torture, rape and terrorize their people (a good part of whom are suffering in inhuman misery and poverty) - probably the same fate that will befall Cuba when "democracy" comes knocking.

[Karl Renegade]

I forgot to include Belarus in my question.

[Tim Cornelis]

While I don't support Cuba's dictatorial system, out of all the self proclaimed "communist" states it's arguably the best: the best free healthcare in the world, everyone has a home and enough to survive (though very little, I'll admit), and no crime. Compare that to the surrounding democracies in the region, which are practically run by savage gangs who murder, torture, rape and terrorize their people (a good part of whom are suffering in inhuman misery and poverty) - probably the same fate that will befall Cuba when "democracy" comes knocking.

The state of Cuba:
The WHO rates its healthcare 39 (US 36), so by far not "the best."
Shortage of commodities.
Higher homicide rate than the US.
HDI rank 51.
Increasingly privatising and liberalising its economy.

So Cuba is decent, not much more. Certainly "failed" from a communist perspective.

[Lokomotive293]

Where does this stuff about the "Cuban dictatorial system" come from? The Cuban political system is one of the most democratic in the world.

[tuwix]

Where does this stuff about the "Cuban dictatorial system" come from? The Cuban political system is one of the most democratic in the world.

From the reality. Do you think that system where brother gives power to another brother is a democratic one?


I forgot to include Belarus in my question.

Belarus is completely different case. They quiet classic capitalist state. The only difference is a dictator who isn't dependent from bourgeoisie.

[Lokomotive293]

From the reality. Do you think that system where brother gives power to another brother is a democratic one?

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/democracy.htm

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/faqdocs/Cuban-political-system-facts.pdf

[Luís Henrique]

Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos....Do any of these failed "communist" countries deserve our support?

Our support against what, exactly?

Luís Henrique

[Delenda Carthago]

how is it not?as 9mm greatly observed, communist state is an oxymoron on its own.None of the so called "communist states" have come anywhere near communism and do not seem to walk on that path any time soon or having that "desire" either.Yet more examples of "dictatorship" and state capitalisms. So frankly no they do not worth our support but then again you will get contradictory opinions on this basically coming from the tendency of the person giving it.Better or not from other "proper capitalist" states makes no difference really if we should support them or not, as revolutionary leftists our goal is communism and what it is acceptable by me at least to support is something that at least gives any possibility of making that change to communism.Bottom line is, try to research on this subject on your own and develop your own ideas because there is no chance to get one answer out from all of us.

Fuserg9:star:


Funny thing, I read an article lately on how the anarchists worldwide stood by the side of Cuba, even when they opposed the soviet paradigm, with the exception of one, CIA founded organisation of "anarchists" that existed in MIA, I think their name was MSL.

Good to see they still have some influence around.


You still havent asnwered on what level is Cuba failed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You still havent asnwered on what level is Cuba failed.National independance from Spain and the US has been achieved to a certain extent - though Cuba is not immune to the world economy and has had to turn to Russia or Europe or other regimes for support and trade. But there has been no "self-emancipation" of the working class in Cuba. The revolution wasn't even motivated by "socalist aims", only anti-imperialist struggle.

[Tim Cornelis]

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/democracy.htm

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/faqdocs/Cuban-political-system-facts.pdf

Comrade, I fear that your longing for an alternative to capitalism has clouded your judgment. The CDRs aren't organs of popular democratic control, they possess no real decision-making power. Joining is hardly 'voluntary' as you are automatically enrolled into it, and given the nature of the CDRs (spying on dissent or 'counter-revolutionary activity') opting out of the CDR isn't particularly favourable.


All workers, whether members of a union or not, have the right to participate in monthly worker assemblies, discussions and in the shaping of their workplace’s collective bargaining agreement.

With whom do the workers collective bargain if, as some Marxist-Leninists claim, workplaces are run democratically? This is no different than co-management as exists in most of Western Europe.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a nation-state, it's a semi-state that more resembles the freely associated collective self-administration of a future stateless society than it does the "bourgeois state." Yet the Cuban state resembles a bourgeois state: presidents, cabinets (administrations/governments), etc. A workers' state has no president as it is under the collective leadership of the workers.

If Cuba is socialist, I see no reason why Sweden isn't. In Cuba 80% is member of mass movements and trade unions, likewise in Sweden. (1) In Cuba workers have a right to workplace co-determination, as do Swedish workers (2). Cuba has free healthcare and education, as does Sweden. Cuba has commodity production, so does Sweden. Cuba has cooperatives, 99% of Sweden's dairy production is controlled by cooperatives. (3) Cooperatives are also active in different fields, such as consumers (3 million members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kooperativa_Förbundet)), housing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSB_(Sweden)), and insurance.

(1) 82% of Swedish population is a member of a trade union: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_tra_uni_mem-labor-trade-union-membership

(2)
In Sweden there are no workplace-based arrangements for the representation of employees independent of trade unions. There is no second channel providing voice for employees outside the traditional union-employer bipartite system, as this would not be compatible with the "Swedish model" based on collective bargaining. This model implies strong trade unions at both the local and central levels
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11560.pdf

(3) see page 2: http://pia.org.au/karlyle/ACooperativeEconomyKarlyle.pdf


In a broader context, the trades unions and their central organisation, the Cuban Workers’ Central (CTC) are routinely consulted by central government when new laws are being considered.

This again proves that decision-making power lies with the central government, not the workers. The government may consult the workers and people, but there is no legal obligation to do exactly as they demand.

Conclusion: Cuba is not a socialist democracy it has state management of capital and top-down consultative governance with authoritarian tendencies (you can criticise certain policies but not the system itself).



You still havent asnwered on what level is Cuba failed.

I have though. If the objective was socialism, then it has failed.

[Red Enemy]

No, none of these capitalist state deserves the support of the anti-capitalists. We acknowledge that they are not "failed state" or "failed socialist states". As communists, our position is to support of the interests of the international proletariat, and those interests are not those of any capitalist state.

[Delenda Carthago]

National independance from Spain and the US has been achieved to a certain extent - though Cuba is not immune to the world economy and has had to turn to Russia or Europe or other regimes for support and trade. But there has been no "self-emancipation" of the working class in Cuba. The revolution wasn't even motivated by "socalist aims", only anti-imperialist struggle.
So it succeded.

[Art Vandelay]

So it succeded.

I guess if your goal is to establish a bourgeois state, then yeah it 'succeeded'...but if that's your goal then why are you on this forum?

[Delenda Carthago]

I have though. If the objective was socialism, then it has failed.
I massively disagree with your analysis, but I ll take it for now.

Could Cuba be any different? Better different that is. Could a tropical island, specially that isolated from the world's economy, have socialism?

[Jimmie Higgins]

So it succeded.As a national liberation struggle, sure and I think it should be supported (from imperialist saber rattling against Cuba) on that basis and critiqued from a radical viewpoint on that basis in my opinion.


Could Cuba be any different? Better different that is. Could a tropical island, specially that isolated from the world's economy, have socialism?Objectively no. But it also doesn't follow that subjectively this is the "best that could have happened" or the only outcome... or why we should support it's "Socialism" if an isolated island couldn't create socialism anyway!

But subjectivly what have been the means and aims of the government. Was it that they tried and failed to achieve Socialism, that they are moving towards Socialism, trying to maintain for international revolution? I think when we look at the subjective choices (generally under difficult and limited conditions, but nonetheless...) they have sought measures that are not aimed at creating better conditions for socialism (as in worker's power) but at attempting to block up with other leaders who can provide some safety from the US as well as trade.

While Castro has championed class struggle in other areas, it always seems more to be a way to point out the lack of support for the US or other regimes hostile to the Cuban government. In other words it tends to be some rhetoric for political purposes rather than be seen as the key to liberation. The old Libyan government and Iran and Venezuela all do the same sorts of things, and then only one of them claims to have much to do with Socialism at all. But some rhetoric and sending some money to revolutionary groups "in solidarity" doesn't seem to be a serious attempt to build towards working-class self-emancipation to me at all. On the other hand who the Cuban government does actively support in more than just words and symbolic solidarity are Populist governments who Cuba might be able to block up with and have trade with.

[Lokomotive293]

Comrade, I fear that your longing for an alternative to capitalism has clouded your judgment. The CDRs aren't organs of popular democratic control, they possess no real decision-making power. Joining is hardly 'voluntary' as you are automatically enrolled into it, and given the nature of the CDRs (spying on dissent or 'counter-revolutionary activity') opting out of the CDR isn't particularly favourable.

All proposals for laws are taken back to the CDRs and are discussed there. The CDRs are the basic organization of Cuban people, they nominate candidates for and elect the regional assemblies, who then nominate candidates for and elect the national assembly. All members of those assemblies can be recalled at any time by voters. Apart from that, Cuban mass organizations like the FMC or the CTC also have a lot of influence on the nomination of candidates, and on laws and policies.
I also don't have a problem with keeping an eye on counter-revolutionaries, I don't know why you do.


The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a nation-state, it's a semi-state that more resembles the freely associated collective self-administration of a future stateless society than it does the "bourgeois state." Yet the Cuban state resembles a bourgeois state: presidents, cabinets (administrations/governments), etc. A workers' state has no president as it is under the collective leadership of the workers.

Marx himself wrote that, in the beginning, socialism will be, in every regard, stamped with the birthmarks of bourgeois society. You say the Cuban state resembles the bourgeois state, and compared to what may be in the future, you are probably right. Yet, it is also completely different from any bourgeois state.
You should also note, that, the Cubans still see themselves in the phase of building socialism.


If Cuba is socialist, I see no reason why Sweden isn't. In Cuba 80% is member of mass movements and trade unions, likewise in Sweden. (1) In Cuba workers have a right to workplace co-determination, as do Swedish workers (2). Cuba has free healthcare and education, as does Sweden. Cuba has commodity production, so does Sweden. Cuba has cooperatives, 99% of Sweden's dairy production is controlled by cooperatives. (3) Cooperatives are also active in different fields, such as consumers (3 million members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kooperativa_Förbundet)), housing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSB_(Sweden)), and insurance.

(1) 82% of Swedish population is a member of a trade union: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_tra_uni_mem-labor-trade-union-membership

(2)

(3) see page 2: http://pia.org.au/karlyle/ACooperativeEconomyKarlyle.pdf

Oh, come on, you know yourself that this is a strawman at best. Cuba is socialist because all the core industries are under public control and the working class exercises political power, not because 80% of Cubans are members of a trade union, or because it has free healthcare.


This again proves that decision-making power lies with the central government, not the workers. The government may consult the workers and people, but there is no legal obligation to do exactly as they demand.

Conclusion: Cuba is not a socialist democracy it has state management of capital and top-down consultative governance with authoritarian tendencies (you can criticise certain policies but not the system itself).

You do realize I was arguing that Cuba is the most democratic state AT PRESENT, not that it's a perfect socialist democracy, or full communism, or whatever you seem to believe I was claiming. Anyone living in a bourgeois state can only dream of the Cuban political system.
Also, there is not only "top-down consultative governance", have you forgotten the elections, the process of nomination, the right to recall representatives at any time? I think they're pretty well on their way towards socialist democracy.
You can criticize socialism in Cuba, btw, or have I missed Yoani Sanchez disappearing in some labor camp or prison cell? You just can't work together with foreign governments to overthrow the Cuban system. And, I want to see the country that lets you do that. There's a point to the dictatorship of the proletariat, you know.

[F9]

heh you nailed it, i am a cia agent.After all those years the truth has come forward!!!What a brilliant mind you have to be to spot me in the crowd.:laugh:

It is still state capitalism, do i really need to keep going on why as an anarchist i do not support this?I do not think so, its obvious...

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos....Do any of these failed "communist" countries deserve our support?

These "Communist" states fail to even benefit the proletariat. Even Cuba, the most socialist of the group, can hardly be considered a shining example of a future communist state. "Communism" is now associated by most people as shitty authoritarian governments and not by its original definition - a classless,stateless society.

[ind_com]

These "Communist" states fail to even benefit the proletariat. Even Cuba, the most socialist of the group, can hardly be considered a shining example of a future communist state. "Communism" is now associated by most people as shitty authoritarian governments and not by its original definition - a classless,stateless society.

Most people who are completely fooled by imperialist propaganda, that is. Though these regimes are not communist, they are far better than most other bourgeois governments supported by imperialism and are beneficial for the proletariat in that sense.

[Thirsty Crow]

You still havent asnwered on what level is Cuba failed.
From the perspective of communism, or if you prefer it, from the perspective of futher and further going revolutionary transformation of society. Of course that an island country would be a failure, encircled by the sea of capital, in this sense.

From the standpoint dear to socialdemocrats, it could be argued that Cuba isn't a failed state.

[Red Commissar]

I forgot to include Belarus in my question.

Belarus can't be included in the same category as the other self-declared communist states in your OP. It invokes a lot of the soviet-era nostalgia and includes a lot of the state-controlled economies, but all-in-all it has moved beyond the communist structures that people associate with Cuba, North Korea, southeast asia, etc. It's an authoritarian state operating on vague populism is the best I can describe it as. The Communist Party there that supports the government is much like their bankrupt counterpart in Russia.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Most people who are completely fooled by imperialist propaganda, that is. Though these regimes are not communist, they are far better than most other bourgeois governments supported by imperialism and are beneficial for the proletariat in that sense.

Are you referring to any countries outside of Cuba, by any chance?

[Myrdin]

All states are failed states, dare I say.

[ind_com]

Are you referring to any countries outside of Cuba, by any chance?

Social welfare in Cuba is comparable to that in the western imperialist countries. The others like DPRK and PRC still do better than the rest of the third world, which has the majority of governments supported by imperialism.

[Zostrianos]

Social welfare in Cuba is comparable to that in the western imperialist countries. The others like DPRK and PRC still do better than the rest of the third world, which has the majority of governments supported by imperialism.

The DPRK? The most oppressive dictatorship to exist today? Please explain

[ind_com]

The DPRK? The most oppressive dictatorship to exist today? Please explain

Please prove first that the DPRK is the most oppressive dictatorship to exist today.

[Zostrianos]

Please prove first that the DPRK is the most oppressive dictatorship to exist today.

Here's a documentary about the concentration camps:
R6JOMvOwECo

Here's footage of a public execution of NK defectors (if you're not familiar with what they do there, if you try to leave the country that's what happens to you. Also, your entire family gets sent into forced labour regardless of whether they did anything or not):
SAQE7kDwPZY

Some more footage, showing kids dying of hunger, while soldiers watch and eat ice cream:
zgNr5FIqILE

As for the cult of personality and dictator worship, there's several documentaries out there. This is a good one:
FJ6E3cShcVU

Now if you still don't believe all this, my suggestion is to go to North Korea and publicly criticize the government and see what happens to you.

[tuwix]

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/democracy.htm

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/faqdocs/Cuban-political-system-facts.pdf

And this pro-Cuban State propaganda still doesn't answer my equestion which is: Do you think that system where brother gives power to another brother is a democratic one?

[Lokomotive293]

And this pro-Cuban State propaganda still doesn't answer my equestion which is: Do you think that system where brother gives power to another brother is a democratic one?

1) The President is not a dictator but, well, a President (as you could have seen from the articles I posted)
2) Raúl didn't become President because he is Fidel's brother, but because of his contribution to the Cuban revolution

[ind_com]

Here's a documentary about the concentration camps:
R6JOMvOwECo

Here's footage of a public execution of NK defectors (if you're not familiar with what they do there, if you try to leave the country that's what happens to you. Also, your entire family gets sent into forced labour regardless of whether they did anything or not):
SAQE7kDwPZY

Some more footage, showing kids dying of hunger, while soldiers watch and eat ice cream:
zgNr5FIqILE

As for the cult of personality and dictator worship, there's several documentaries out there. This is a good one:
FJ6E3cShcVU
I watched a couple of those videos and it isn't nearly as bad as most other third world country. The only thing that strikes out is the deification of the leaders, though there are somewhat lesser equivalents of that elsewhere too. Here are some pictures from the third world.


http://spiritlessons.com/dreams_and_visions/starving.jpg
http://trendsupdates.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Poverty-in-India.jpg
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/myfiles/Images/2012/09/07/wr05.jpg
http://www.callandresponse.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/dalit-woman-beaten-up-by-police-officer-in-up-in-p-16825737624b7d2bd3d1eda1.63918165.jpg



Now if you still don't believe all this, my suggestion is to go to North Korea and publicly criticize the government and see what happens to you.

It would be a pleasure to visit the DPRK if I can ever afford it. Over here they frequently use two acts called the UAPA and AFSPA which justify locking up and killing people, respectively, without any proof or the state forces having to answer for their actions. But most of the killings are extra-judicial anyways.

[ellipsis]

nobody has mentioned the socialist state of Vermont...

[tuwix]

1) The President is not a dictator but, well, a President (as you could have seen from the articles I posted)


In fact, the Political Bureau of the party is a collective dictator in Cuba.



2) Raúl didn't become President because he is Fidel's brother, but because of his contribution to the Cuban revolution

I doubt. But it is irrelevant. When a brother's leader becomes an another leader it is not a democracy at all.

[Lokomotive293]

In fact, the Political Bureau of the party is a collective dictator in Cuba.

Wrong. The PCC has no legislative power, and candidates for any legislative body are not required to be members of the PCC.


I doubt. But it is irrelevant. When a brother's leader becomes an another leader it is not a democracy at all.

So, no matter how high someone's qualifications, and no matter how many people voted for them, if they happen to be the brother of the former President, it's automatically undemocratic?

[Brutus]

Cuban democracy is more democratic than our western democracy.

[Hiero]

I know someone that went on a vacation to Laos as well who ended up helping the 'supreme party leaders' with setting up the country's internet service. :grin:

Why is that funny?

[tuwix]

Wrong. The PCC has no legislative power, and candidates for any legislative body are not required to be members of the PCC.


I don't know where are you from, but I live in a country that had almost exactly the same party in term of how it works. And political bureau had the greatest power. uban equivalent is exact the same copy form the same source: the stalinist Soviet Union. And you mislead power in fact, and power in theory.



So, no matter how high someone's qualifications, and no matter how many people voted for them, if they happen to be the brother of the former President, it's automatically undemocratic?

I don't care what are his qualifications because when he is o brother of former leader, then it is a nepotism and not a democracy. In democracy that means from Greek “the people's authority” there is no leaders at all.


Cuban democracy is more democratic than our western democracy.

No. In Cuba, all candidates to the parliament must be approved by the party. Besides such expressions as 'cuban democracy' or 'western democracy' are just oxymorons. In both cases there is no democracy at all.

[Lokomotive293]

I don't know where are you from, but I live in a country that had almost exactly the same party in term of how it works. And political bureau had the greatest power. uban equivalent is exact the same copy form the same source: the stalinist Soviet Union. And you mislead power in fact, and power in theory.

There's a huge difference between the way the political system was organized in Poland and how it is organized in Cuba. I really recommend you to read the articles I posted, instead of just claiming that things in Cuba are exactly the same as they were in Poland. I don't believe Poland was an "evil dictatorship" either, but I would argue that Cuba is the country that has made the most progress towards socialist democracy.


I don't care what are his qualifications because when he is o brother of former leader, then it is a nepotism and not a democracy. In democracy that means from Greek “the people's authority” there is no leaders at all.

How is there going to be a state if there are "no leaders at all"? The idea behind socialist democracy is that the leaders are merely the executive body of the people, who are fully responsible for their actions at all times, and can be recalled at any time, and that policies are developed through collective discussion within the whole society. Best example for that is how the recent economic reforms were discussed in all CDRs, how hundreds of propositions for change were considered, before the law was passed.
You cling to this argument that Raúl became President after Fidel without even thinking about how the Cuban political system even works.


No. In Cuba, all candidates to the parliament must be approved by the party.

That's simply not true.

[tuwix]

I really recommend you to read the articles I posted, instead of just claiming that things in Cuba are exactly the same as they were in Poland.


If you don't know what is role of Political Bureau in Soviet style country, the it is just loss of time for me.




How is there going to be a state if there are "no leaders at all"?


You just don't understand can't be anything such as democratic state.



You cling to this argument that Raúl became President after Fidel without even thinking about how the Cuban political system even works.


I know exactly how soviet style system work and I lived under such system and you did not. The Cuban nepotism is just another factor.



That's simply not true.

Then I think you are just wrong.

[Let's Get Free]

Where does this stuff about the "Cuban dictatorial system" come from? The Cuban political system is one of the most democratic in the world.

Democratic my ass. The CCP is a closed structure over which the “masses” have no real control. Political power is exercise from the top down. The "communist" party is made up mostly of intermediate and upper-level bureaucrats, and few workers belong to it. Those workers that join the CCP enter it through a process that resembles Catholic beatification. workers must embody the qualities desired by the bureaucracy from a worker: unquestioning loyalty, high productivity and the ability and willingness to improve their technical skills. Once these workers join the CCP, they can attempt to move up the ladder of the state bureaucracy—of course, losing their connection to the working class. Of course, Cuba is not the tyranny the right wing makes it out to be, but I really hate when Cuba's romantic supporters try to portray it as some kind of beacon for socialists democracy that socialists should try to emulate.

[Brutus]

Recallable and accountable representatives are undemocratic? I am not portraying it as socialist, but just defending it as a sort of deformed DOTP.

[tuwix]

But those candidates must be approved by the party. Besides the parliament it is just a voting machine for the party.

It is not like in the so-called West where there are oppostions parties and ruling coalition. In Cuba, there is no opposition party and always the same party rules.

[Brutus]

Yes, but we can't say "Cameron, we want you out!"

[Let's Get Free]

Recallable and accountable representatives are undemocratic? I am not portraying it as socialist, but just defending it as a sort of deformed DOTP.

In what way is it a "DOTP?" The Cuban state is run by a bureaucracy that internally has taken upon a bourgeois class character. There exists money, wage-labor, capital, exchange-oriented production, etc. The ruling class in Cuba, like in all capitalist states, has placed its interests antithetical to the interests of the proletariat. Cuba is no more of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" than the western so called liberal democracies are.

[Lokomotive293]

But those candidates must be approved by the party. Besides the parliament it is just a voting machine for the party.

It is not like in the so-called West where there are oppostions parties and ruling coalition. In Cuba, there is no opposition party and always the same party rules.

Candidates do not have to be members of the party, nor do they have to be approved by the party, I don't know where you get this from. The PCC is not a party like the ones we know in the West, they don't nominate candidates for elections, nor do they campaign for anyone. Their role is to act as a vanguard of the revolution, to combine the most progressive elements of the working class, to spread class consciousness, and to develop, in close interaction with the masses, socialist theory and practice. Their role is NOT, however, to run the Cuban state, which is done by different bodies. Of course there are personal overlaps, but the party and the state are two different things.
Given this, I don't know why you would need an "opposition party". Opposition to what? To socialism? I honestly don't think counter-revolutionaries should be permitted to organize themselves as a party.
Opposition to certain Cuban policies? But, why do you need another party for that, when Cuban democracy is organized in such a completely different way from any Western "democracy"?
I don't think the multi-party system is very democratic at all. Candidates are nominated by the leadership of the respective parties, then all the parties try to present themselves as the best, spending tons of money on campaigning, people vote for one of them, usually the one with the "best" campaign and/or most charismatic candidate, and in the end, all those people elected sit in parliament for four years, and voters have no control over what they do until the next election. Plus, whatever party has the most seats, government policies don't change according to what voters want, or even party platforms, but according to what is "necessary" for "the economy".

[Delenda Carthago]

From the perspective of communism, or if you prefer it, from the perspective of futher and further going revolutionary transformation of society. Of course that an island country would be a failure, encircled by the sea of capital, in this sense.

From the standpoint dear to socialdemocrats, it could be argued that Cuba isn't a failed state.
Wait. You are agreeing that Cuba objectively could not go further and deepenth more the revolutionary proccess, still you think that in order for someone not to see Cuba as a failed project, has to be socialdemocrat? I dont understand this.


For me, Cuba, for everything it has to go through just to survive, its a huge victory every day that its still like it is. Its a middle finger in the face of every enemy of communism. Even if it crashed tommorow, thats 60 years of victory. Thats why so many people and institutions are struggling to make it look like failed. It hurts me to see that their propaganda has inflitrated people considering themselves communists.

[Thirsty Crow]

Wait. You are agreeing that Cuba objectively could not go further and deepenth more the revolutionary proccess, still you think that in order for someone not to see Cuba as a failed project, has to be socialdemocrat? I dont understand this.Not only that, but objectively Cuba is facing the tendency to capitalist restructuring.

And yes, if communism is the perspective of the insurgent working class, only a socialdemocrat, one of a peculiar sort no doubt, would argue Cuba is not a failed state.



For me, Cuba, for everything it has to go through just to survive, its a huge victory every day that its still like it is.
That's some victory right here. Everything that is not a catastrophic defeat becomes a "victory".



Even if it crashed tommorow, thats 60 years of victory.Even better. Catastrophe today, but hey we had a good run. Seriously, do you believe this shit you write?


Thats why so many people and institutions are struggling to make it look like failed.

It must be that I'm on IMF's payroll.


It hurts me to see that their propaganda has inflitrated people considering themselves communists.Oh poor boy, your feelings are hurt (but the good gods of communism have left your empty head safe and sound, praise them). There should be something like a support group for emotionally struggling communists out there.

[vanukar]

For me, Cuba, for everything it has to go through just to survive, its a huge victory every day that its still like it is. Its a middle finger in the face of every enemy of communism. Even if it crashed tommorow, thats 60 years of victory. Thats why so many people and institutions are struggling to make it look like failed. It hurts me to see that their propaganda has inflitrated people considering themselves communists.

Just because Cuba is run by a Communist party doesn't mean that it represents communism. Maybe you should actually learn what the term means.

[Delenda Carthago]

And yes, if communism is the perspective of the insurgent working class, only a socialdemocrat, one of a peculiar sort no doubt, would argue Cuba is not a failed state.
Too bad you are not there with your magical stick to spray communism to the country. That would be a solution, wont it? The only one perhaps.

[Delenda Carthago]

Just because Cuba is run by a Communist party doesn't mean that it represents communism. Maybe you should actually learn what the term means.
Perhaps. But it damn sure ain gonna be someone that considers posting on revleft its revolutionary peak of the week that its gonna teach me.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Too bad you are not there with your magical stick to spray communism to the country. That would be a solution, wont it? The only one perhaps.

do you misread his opinions on purpose or do you just pretend to?

[vanukar]

Perhaps. But it damn sure ain gonna be someone that considers posting on revleft its revolutionary peak of the week that its gonna teach me.

So what else do you do. I wasn't aware that we were in a state of revolution.

[Delenda Carthago]

do you misread his opinions on purpose or do you just pretend to?
Do you see another way for Cuba that could deepenth the revolution boy? A small tropical island, under the nose of the USA, isolated for so many years.


Bring your propositions, lets have a laugh all together. Your armchair ultraleftist ideas, straight out of the boxes.:D

[Delenda Carthago]

So what else do you do. I wasn't aware that we were in a state of revolution.
What do I do? Hm, lets see. Yesterday I did this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/general-strike-20-t178880/index.html?t=178880).

You can call it "things in between full blown revolution and posting on revleft".

[tuwix]

Candidates do not have to be members of the party, nor do they have to be approved by the party

They don't have to be party members, but they have to be approved by the party. If you don't know it and don't know what is role of the party's Politburo, then you know almost nothing about Cuban political system.



In what way is it a "DOTP?" The Cuban state is run by a bureaucracy that internally has taken upon a bourgeois class character. There exists money, wage-labor, capital, exchange-oriented production, etc. The ruling class in Cuba, like in all capitalist states, has placed its interests antithetical to the interests of the proletariat. Cuba is no more of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" than the western so called liberal democracies are.


I completely agree. Their bureaucracy has the same role as a bourgeoisie in classic capitalist state.

[Thirsty Crow]

Too bad you are not there with your magical stick to spray communism to the country. That would be a solution, wont it? The only one perhaps.
No, I do not uphold the tactic of magic sticks spraying communism to the country.

I think the best possible course of action would be to "posion" the water supply with out super secret communist elixir of eternal classlessnes, cooked up in Uncle Joe's alchemical lab and passed on generation to generation.


Do you see another way for Cuba that could deepenth the revolution boy? A small tropical island, under the nose of the USA, isolated for so many years.

The point would be that this actually demonstrates that this is a failed state, and not engage in pathetic moralizing and counting the "gains" for the working. It all depends on the perspective. And this does not entail making a list of propositions, as any of them would be meaningless in fact.

[Delenda Carthago]

The point would be that this actually demonstrates that this is a failed state, and not engage in pathetic moralizing and counting the "gains" for the working. It all depends on the perspective. And this does not entail making a list of propositions, as any of them would be meaningless in fact.
OK man. Next time someone will try to start something like it on such a small country, with more or less same objective conditions, we should tell them to stop. Cause if it doesnt reach to communist society, then its a failed try.

"Why are you trying to have a revolution? You dont even have a heavy indusrty! Stand perfectly still!"

No wonder ideas like these are historicly so isolated from the working class.:lol:

[Thirsty Crow]

OK man. Next time someone will try to start something like it on such a small country, with more or less same objective conditions, we should tell them to stop. Cause if it doesnt reach to communist society, then its a failed try.

"Why are you trying to have a revolution? You dont even have a heavy indusrty! Stand perfectly still!"

No wonder ideas like these are historicly so isolated from the working class.:lol:
Oh that's precious.

You're a really smart guy, you see right through my anti-communism. It's really as you say, I would say, "STOP!", I wouldn't actually advocate for international revolution since my bosses at Langley wouldn't like that.

This is really pathetic, but no wonder that the likes of you would graps at this idiotic straw man.

[Delenda Carthago]

Oh that's precious.

You're a really smart guy, you see right through my anti-communism. It's really as you say, I would say, "STOP!", I wouldn't actually advocate for international revolution since my bosses at Langley wouldn't like that.

This is really pathetic, but no wonder that the likes of you would graps at this idiotic straw man.
So, what you are saying is, at 1953 that Granma sailed and the revolution begun, what should happen was, Fidel and the crew to call for an international revolution and wait for it for them to begin.


And that is different to say "stop" because..?

[KurtFF8]

National independance from Spain and the US has been achieved to a certain extent - though Cuba is not immune to the world economy and has had to turn to Russia or Europe or other regimes for support and trade. But there has been no "self-emancipation" of the working class in Cuba. The revolution wasn't even motivated by "socalist aims", only anti-imperialist struggle.

I've never really understood this argument. The user "Daft Punk" used to make this claim constantly: trying to dig up evidence that Fidel was never a socialist in the early days of the revolution. Even if that argument were factual (although there are some serious empirical flaws with it): I just don't understand how "therefore Cuba isn't socialist" follows.

Sure much of what motivated the Cuban Revolution was national liberation, and there were plenty of elements involved that weren't working class, and didn't want socialism. But to then argue that it therefore couldn't build socialism just doesn't make any sense. Cuba clearly outlined that it was going to go down a socialist path. Many saw this as "appeasing the USSR" (which is itself silly in my opinion), but has since continued to attempt to build socialism amongst even harder conditions. Granted many claim that this "ideology" is just entrenched, but that takes away credit of the actual popularity of socialism in Cuba and Latin America in general.

I also remain infinitely unconvinced that Cuba is somehow a "bourgeois state." Most of these arguments rest on some positivistic arguments that tend to not even be cogent.

[vanukar]

No wonder ideas like these are historicly so isolated from the working class.:lol:

There are no "working class" ideas, as the working class is an economic entity and not some kind of malleable, subjective lump. No one gives a fuck about your nationalistic KKE bullshit.

[Delenda Carthago]

There are no "working class" ideas, as the working class is an economic entity and not some kind of malleable, subjective lump. No one gives a fuck about your nationalistic KKE bullshit.
Dawg, relax. All this revolutionary action on revleft has blured your thinking. Read again what I wrote and try again.:lol::laugh:

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've never really understood this argument. The user "Daft Punk" used to make this claim constantly: trying to dig up evidence that Fidel was never a socialist in the early days of the revolution. Even if that argument were factual (although there are some serious empirical flaws with it): I just don't understand how "therefore Cuba isn't socialist" follows.What empirical counter-evidence do you have? Fidel repeatedly and explicitly said it was not a "socialist movement" that he represented and he said that capital and labor could cooperate! So putting aside the fact that the revolutionaries recieved only passive support from the working population which should raise alarm-bells for anyone who believes that socialism can only come throught the self-emancipation of the working class... how is this a socialist revolution where the socialism was secret and only revaled to the population later?

How it follows that therefore Cuba isn't socialist is because there isn't working class control over society and the economy! The annecdote about Castro is only evidence of this and pretty blatant evidence at that. What I think the cold-war "real-politics" argument does illuminate though is why the Cuban government persued the policies it did - economically and politically. It saw the government of Russia or this or that other anti-imperialist government as its allies, not the international working class (although there was always room for them as passive supporters or objects in propagandistic speeches of the world's support for Cuab).


Sure much of what motivated the Cuban Revolution was national liberation, and there were plenty of elements involved that weren't working class, and didn't want socialism. But to then argue that it therefore couldn't build socialism just doesn't make any sense. Cuba clearly outlined that it was going to go down a socialist path.The socialist "path" IMO is working class revolution and worker's power - Cuba has policies which may or may not be considered Socilaist or "Social-Democratic" depending on who you ask, but policies don't define Socialism, the class in power defines Socialism.


OK man. Next time someone will try to start something like it on such a small country, with more or less same objective conditions, we should tell them to stop. Cause if it doesnt reach to communist society, then its a failed try.

"Why are you trying to have a revolution? You dont even have a heavy indusrty! Stand perfectly still!"

No wonder ideas like these are historicly so isolated from the working class.:lol:
And yet you think it's convincing to workers to say: "Hey in Cuba, you can grow your own food to eat right in your appartment because the government is only allowing cash-crops and they all get exported to the USSR or France"?

No one is saying that a worker's movement should "stand still" but in this case it wasn't a worker's movement, but a national liberation gurella organization. Had workers in Havana and farmers overthrown the weak government, then maybe they wouldn't have to wait for international revolution for very long because rather than inspiring a bunch of gurella movements, it might have re-energized working class movemements confused in the post-WWII period. But this is all abstract "what-ifs". The point is, that the government chose as "a way out" an alliance with one power to defend against a much more threatening direct power. Che, on the other hand, seemed to think other anti-imperialist movements as the allies that could help Cuba and spread revolution - but that is also limited. A lot of this has to do with the historical situation and that the revolutionary wave at that time was anti-colonial/anti-imperialist struggle and in the contexts of this struggle, these methods and tactics probably made a kind of sense. But we have historical retrospect and a different perspective to look at these things and I don't think there is any excuse for people to defend Cuba as revolutionary socialist in any way.

[Willin']

No every single country that claimed that was/is socialistic don't deserve our support.
1.communists do not support states nor do we support dictatorship of a single man.
2.communist don't support art or propaganda (and all so called socialist countries use it to keep the peoples morals up. ( Marx's said that art is an illusion and it's an weapon of the higher class)
3.communism needs to be a global thing it just cant work in a single place.


So no we certainly do not support any state that is/was socialistic but we do support communistic/socialistic ideologies.

[Delenda Carthago]

And yet you think it's convincing to workers to say: "Hey in Cuba, you can grow your own food to eat right in your appartment because the government is only allowing cash-crops and they all get exported to the USSR or France"?

No one is saying that a worker's movement should "stand still" but in this case it wasn't a worker's movement, but a national liberation gurella organization. Had workers in Havana and farmers overthrown the weak government, then maybe they wouldn't have to wait for international revolution for very long because rather than inspiring a bunch of gurella movements, it might have re-energized working class movemements confused in the post-WWII period. But this is all abstract "what-ifs". The point is, that the government chose as "a way out" an alliance with one power to defend against a much more threatening direct power. Che, on the other hand, seemed to think other anti-imperialist movements as the allies that could help Cuba and spread revolution - but that is also limited. A lot of this has to do with the historical situation and that the revolutionary wave at that time was anti-colonial/anti-imperialist struggle and in the contexts of this struggle, these methods and tactics probably made a kind of sense. But we have historical retrospect and a different perspective to look at these things and I don't think there is any excuse for people to defend Cuba as revolutionary socialist in any way.


First of all, there is no reason for us to bring Cuba as an example to convinse any 1st world worker. Its not Cuba what we aim for, neither should it be another model of socialism of 20th century.


But that neither qualifies Cuba as failed. A socialist country should be compared to what it was before the revolution and what could today be if it returned back to capitalism. Could the life of cubans be better if they make a full return to capitalism. I dunno. In China there seems to be a leveling up after Deng, and its no wonder: China never had the materialistic objective requirements to have socialism. Kinda the same goes for Cuba. On the other hand, it has way better economy and life quality than all the other countries on the region.

So I say, they could never(unless a worldwide revolution happened) reach to stateless society, but giving to what they had to manage, they are far-far away from failed.

[Zukunftsmusik]

First of all, there is no reason for us to bring Cuba as an example to convinse any 1st world worker. Its not Cuba what we aim for, neither should it be another model of socialism of 20th century.


But that neither qualifies Cuba as failed. A socialist country should be compared to what it was before the revolution and what could today be if it returned back to capitalism. Could the life of cubans be better if they make a full return to capitalism. I dunno. In China there seems to be a leveling up after Deng, and its no wonder: China never had the materialistic objective requirements to have socialism. Kinda the same goes for Cuba. On the other hand, it has way better economy and life quality than all the other countries on the region.

So I say, they could never(unless a worldwide revolution happened) reach to stateless society, but giving to what they had to manage, they are far-far away from failed.

So we're back at from what perspective we view a state as "succesful" or not. I find it strange that someone who identifies as a revolutionary thinks Cuba is a "succesful" country because it's better than it was before the revolution, a revolution which proletarian nature is highly dubious.

[KurtFF8]

What empirical counter-evidence do you have? Fidel repeatedly and explicitly said it was not a "socialist movement" that he represented and he said that capital and labor could cooperate! So putting aside the fact that the revolutionaries recieved only passive support from the working population which should raise alarm-bells for anyone who believes that socialism can only come throught the self-emancipation of the working class... how is this a socialist revolution where the socialism was secret and only revaled to the population later?

And of course, as I constantly pointed out in these previous arguments, what Fidel said and didn't say was not the "total essence" of the revolution which was itself acted out by many folks who were Marxists aiming for a socialist society.

I also think this narrative of "socialism being a secret later revealed to the population" just assumes your final point. (This is "begging the question")


How it follows that therefore Cuba isn't socialist is because there isn't working class control over society and the economy! The annecdote about Castro is only evidence of this and pretty blatant evidence at that. What I think the cold-war "real-politics" argument does illuminate though is why the Cuban government persued the policies it did - economically and politically. It saw the government of Russia or this or that other anti-imperialist government as its allies, not the international working class (although there was always room for them as passive supporters or objects in propagandistic speeches of the world's support for Cuab).

This is a tautology. You essentially said "It's not socialist because it's not socialist!" I also remain unconvinced that Cuba decided to structure its entire economy the way it did solely as the result of "Realpolitik" to gain favor with the USSR (which didn't itself have a major policy of trying to restructure foreign economies at that time just to gain geopolitical alliances)

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is a tautology. You essentially said "It's not socialist because it's not socialist!"Ok, I'll put it this way, nationalized economies do not equal socialism, otherwise the UK would have been fairly socialist in the post-war era and conservatives would be right that nationalization and public institutions represent "socialsim".

So yes, it's not socialist because it's not socialist in these sense of socialism being a society run collectivly by workers.


I also remain unconvinced that Cuba decided to structure its entire economy the way it did solely as the result of "Realpolitik" to gain favor with the USSR (which didn't itself have a major policy of trying to restructure foreign economies at that time just to gain geopolitical alliances)It did so just as some Nationalist regimes of the same time had high levels of nationalization after wining fights against colonial or pupet regimes. I don't think it was simply to "gain favor" although some of the production changes were directly due to trade agreements with the USSR for certain products.

There are contradictions within such national liberation movemements because national independance also needs a degree of economic independance from (in this case, US) firms backed by the big powers. Without a highly developed local bourgoise (which is often the case in countries that have been "underdeveloped" due to capitalist imperialist relations) or a lot of built up surplus and investment capital, the state can step in and help fill the gaps in the economy. I think evidence for this argument can be found in the ways Cuba handeled agriculture. The promoted "self-sufficiency" in times where they didn't have support from larger economies and when they did have support they would switch production over to crops for trade.

Because of the world economy and the way that colonial economies are developed, this is a bind for all national liberation efforts. They might be able to win independance from one power, but then they can not, through national liberation struggle alone, free themselves from the world economy. Nationalization and state-management of the economy is one way to try and protect from the influence of outside powers while building up the domestic economy, but even then they will tend to be slowly brought back into regular trade relations (often due to a crisis or debt) and possibly forced to "open up" again. Or they can try and get the backing of competing powers and try and find a sort of patron who can counter the influence of the old colonial power as well as use the new patron to "fill in the gaps" in the economy. Of course a mixture of these options is also often the case.

I believe that Cuba organized their economy generally in order to reshape an economy mishapen by unequal relations, but I think they specifically decreed that the Revolution "had always been a Marxist-Leninist one" a year or so after the revolution as part of justifying and explaining a rather risky (for both the USSR and Cuba) alliance in the context of the Cold War.

[KurtFF8]

Ok, I'll put it this way, nationalized economies do not equal socialism, otherwise the UK would have been fairly socialist in the post-war era and conservatives would be right that nationalization and public institutions represent "socialsim".

So yes, it's not socialist because it's not socialist in these sense of socialism being a society run collectivly by workers.

More tautologies. You just keep repeating your original claim with the hopes that this time you state it, it will sound like an argument.


It did so just as some Nationalist regimes of the same time had high levels of nationalization after wining fights against colonial or pupet regimes. I don't think it was simply to "gain favor" although some of the production changes were directly due to trade agreements with the USSR for certain products.

There are contradictions within such national liberation movemements because national independance also needs a degree of economic independance from (in this case, US) firms backed by the big powers. Without a highly developed local bourgoise (which is often the case in countries that have been "underdeveloped" due to capitalist imperialist relations) or a lot of built up surplus and investment capital, the state can step in and help fill the gaps in the economy. I think evidence for this argument can be found in the ways Cuba handeled agriculture. The promoted "self-sufficiency" in times where they didn't have support from larger economies and when they did have support they would switch production over to crops for trade.

Because of the world economy and the way that colonial economies are developed, this is a bind for all national liberation efforts. They might be able to win independance from one power, but then they can not, through national liberation struggle alone, free themselves from the world economy. Nationalization and state-management of the economy is one way to try and protect from the influence of outside powers while building up the domestic economy, but even then they will tend to be slowly brought back into regular trade relations (often due to a crisis or debt) and possibly forced to "open up" again. Or they can try and get the backing of competing powers and try and find a sort of patron who can counter the influence of the old colonial power as well as use the new patron to "fill in the gaps" in the economy. Of course a mixture of these options is also often the case.

I believe that Cuba organized their economy generally in order to reshape an economy mishapen by unequal relations, but I think they specifically decreed that the Revolution "had always been a Marxist-Leninist one" a year or so after the revolution as part of justifying and explaining a rather risky (for both the USSR and Cuba) alliance in the context of the Cold War.

While I to a large extent agree with your assessment here about nationalization, I don't think that your conclusion of "therefore Cuba is not and was not socialist" really follows from it.

And of course we've seen the role of the market increase significantly since the fall of the USSR, but examining Cubas economic relations (especially when looking at the role of the working class): it is quite difficult to conclude that it's a capitalist economy in my opinion.

[Sir Comradical]

Cuba is not a failure, it's an inspiration to the third world, actually I'd say it's a success. North Korea's economic achievements and emphasis on self sufficiency is absolutely what's needed given the isolated conditions they've been dealt.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, I confess, I skipped the middle few pages of this thread but, in case the question hasn't been raised . . . what the hell do y'all mean by "support"?

Like, in words, saying "I support Cuba!"? I can't say that sounds super relevant.

Sure, in an organizational capacity, one could push for, for example, sending solidarity/work tours to Cuba. Or doing drives for medical supplies. But that isn't necessarily supporting the state per se, if the people of Cuba need that help, any more than Food Not Bombs is supporting the Canadian state.

Ultimately, what we can do is support the working class internationally, and its leadership in whatever country. We can also resist imperialism and stand against the capitalist centre's international terror.

Neither of those things requires a discussion of whether or not Cuba is a "failed communist state".

Though, that said, WTF is a communist state? Probably talking a few hours to read Marx would benefit anyone who doesn't see the contradiction in this question.

[one10]

I don't quite understand what the OP means by support....

But I will say that Cuba rightfully deserves praise from any person that considers themselves leftist.

They were able to establish a system that greatly improved the education, health care, and living standards of the proletariat while fighting against Imperialism and heavily influencing the rise of other Socialists/leftist movements in Latin America.

Have they failed in the sense that they have not been able to achieve Communism? Yes, but name me one country that has successfully become a classless society or is on the path to it. Cuba's system was challenged greatly during the Special Period, and they were able to pull through as a country without completely giving in to capitalism. Not to mention that the United States has maintained an economic blockade on Cuba for nearly 60 years, something other "communist" countries like China haven't had to deal with.

The fact is that Cuba is far from the capitalist play ground that it used to be in the 1950s before the revolution. While not perfect, one should consider all that they've been able to achieve despite unfavourable circumstances.

Too many of you are idealists. You make it sound as if establishing a Socialist system in the modern world is an easy task.

[DROSL]

I think Cuba is a pretty good country. But, I agree that North Korea, Is from my point of view, not a communist nor not even socialist. It's just a military dictatorship that worships destruction. I personally think North Korea is more right than it is left.

[one10]

I think Cuba is a pretty good country. But, I agree that North Korea, Is from my point of view, not a communist nor not even socialist. It's just a military dictatorship that worships destruction. I personally think North Korea is more right than it is left.

It's a shame how western propaganda labels North Korea as a communist tyranny.

[Comrade Alex]

Cuba deserves full support
North Korea needs some major reform as do China and Vietnam
I haven't heard much from Laos so I'm not to sure on them

[one10]

Fidel Castro and the Communist Party of Cuba have been very pragmatic in dealing with their issues. While this has caused the Cuban revolution to deviate from it's initial principles, I trust and feel as if the changes carried out by the Cuban government have been genuine attempts at preserving the revolution without having the economy collapse entirely. Considering the challenges Cuba has faced since the fall of the USSR, the fact that they haven't given into the demands of the American government is admirable.

It's hard to ignore Marx's belief that communist revolution would first occur in developed industrial countries and then blame the failure of said countries on the fact that none of them were developed nations when revolution occured.

[Buck]

Hello. I notice that I am a bit late to this post, but I apparently have to post something, or my account will get deleted. Anyway I chose this post because of its common misconceptions that we see every day. This orginial inquiry, contains multiple faults and thus I will demonstrate them. First of, you make the assumption that their have been "communist states", which in of itself, is a contradiction, if you are using Marxist nomenclature. If you are not using Marist nomenclature, then I am in the wrong, seeing as you can then define "communism"/"socialism" as what ever you like, be it the USSR, Nazi Germany, Sweden, Obama, liberals etc... The second assumption is that they failed. This then again, depends on what you mean by failure. If you mean that they "dengerated", a troksy term and an utterly rediculus conception, then you cannot call yourself a Marxist, and thus must not be using the Marxist definition of "communism". If you mean in terms of living standards, self proclaimed "socialist" china has brought millions out of absolute poverty, and Cuba has one of the best health care industries in the world. If you define failure as priviatistion, then you again, have demonstrated that you are not a Marxist and thus are not using the Marxist definition of "communism". Nationalization and welfare are not socialism and are not socialist measures. These are merely attempts to reform and run capitalism, practiced by both capitalist parties and self proclaimed "socialist" parties. In addition they are also measures to prevent a socialist revolution by making capitalism appealing and give it a human face, as famously demonstrated by Bismark, the German politican, to steal votes from the SDP, which Marx and Engels both criticized. Also mark and Engels would have most definitely critizes all "communist" state, thus their approval would be a dubious proposition at best.
Another misunderstanding that I have seen on this post, and in the title of this forum, is the association of "left wing" with communism/socialism(they are the same thing in a market definition). To understand what I mean we only need I look back at the origin of this term. It originated with the seating of fench rebulican on the left and monarchist on the right. They are two parties trying to impose this idea of having/not having a monarch over the state. These terms only are a set of ideas on how to govern the superstructure of society, with the left advocating welfare, nationalization and the right, priviatistion, although these policies change from state to state. Socialism, is above this, it is a complete change of the "base" changing completely the mode of production, not a series of policies on superstructure governance. And this Socialism is not seen in any of those supposed "communist" states, besides the fact that a communist/socialist state is a contradiction, being that socialism is not a series of reforms involving nationalization and welfare.