Raul Castro to retire.

[Prometeo liberado]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/reuters/2013-02-22t191617z_343386801_gm1e92n088n01_rtrmadp_3_cuba-castro.photoblog600.jpgEnrique De La Osa / REUTERS
Cuba's President Raul Castro (R) gestures while talking to the media at the Soviet Soldier monument in Havana February 22, 2013.


By Marc Frank, Reuters
HAVANA - Cuban leader Raul Castro announced on Sunday he would step down from power after his second term as president ends in 2018, and the new parliament named a 52-year-old rising star to become his first vice president and most visible successor.
Castro, 81, made the announcement in a nationally broadcast speech shortly after the Cuban National Assembly elected him to a second five-year term in the opening session of the new parliament.
"This will be my last term," Castro said.
&ltbr&gt
Follow @NBCNewsWorld (http://twitter.com/NBCNewsWorld)
In a surprise move, the new parliament named as his first vice president Miguel Diaz-Canel, a member of the political bureau who rose through the party ranks in the provinces to become the most visible possible successor to Castro. Diaz-Canel would succeed Castro if he cannot serve his full term.







The new government will almost certainly be the last headed up by the Castro brothers and their followers who have ruled Cuba since they swept down from the mountains in the 1959 revolution.
Raul Castro starts his second term immediately, leaving him free to retire in 2018, aged 86.
Former president Fidel Castro joined the meeting, in a rare public appearance. Since falling ill in 2006 and ceding the presidency to his brother, the elder Castro, 86, has given up official positions except as a deputy in the National Assembly.
Governments, Cuba watchers and Cubans were keenly observing to see if any new, and younger, faces might appear among the Council of State members, in particular its first vice president and five vice presidents.
Their hopes were partially fulfilled with Diaz-Canel's ascension. He replaces former first vice president, Jose Machado Ventura, 82, who will continue on as one of five vice presidents. Commander of the Revolution Ramiro Valdes, 80, and Gladys Bejerano, 66, the comptroller general were also re-elected as vice presidents.
Two other newcomers, Mercedes López Acea, 48, first secretary of the Havana communist party, and Salvador Valdes Mesa, 64, head of the official labor federation, also earned vice presidential slots.
Former vice president Esteban Lazo, member of the political bureau of the Communist Party, 68, left his post upon being named parliament president on Sunday, replacing Ricardo Alarcon, who served for 20 years.
Six of the Council's top seven members sit on the party's political bureau which is also lead by Castro.
The National Assembly meets for just a few weeks each year and delegates its legislative powers between sessions to the 31-member Council of State, which also functions as the nation's executive through the Council of Ministers it appoints.
Eighty percent of the 612 deputies, who were elected in an uncontested vote February 3 and with an average age under 50, were born after the Revolution.

All I can say is that it's good to see that Raul, like his brother, did not overstay his welcome. Does anyone know anything about Diaz-Canel?

[DoCt SPARTAN]

Wow! I thought he was gonna be in til death. It this will be really interesting to see cuba's future.

[Lucretia]

Gee. I wonder which Castro will take power now. Gotta love socialism in one family.

[La Guaneña]

Who do you guys think might be coming up? Parilla seems to be a big name.

[tuwix]

But is it relevant who will be a new leader? The question is will the life of Cubans will be easier due to that change?

[RedAtheist]

I'm worried the new leader will make Cuba capitalist, without making the state more democratic. Then nothing positive will have been achieved and we will have to listen to more 'communism is dead rhetoric'.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Meh, I think the last decades have shown that there can be the so-called socialism of Weekend-At-Burnies revolutionary Cuba and capitalists still saying "communism is dead". They'll say that until the class has them in a guillotine... figurativly... probably.

A socialist movement with strong identification by and connections with working class struggle in Egypt, Greece, or Spain would do more for international working class consiousness than 5 existing Cubas IMO.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm worried the new leader will make Cuba capitalist, without making the state more democratic. Then nothing positive will have been achieved and we will have to listen to more 'communism is dead rhetoric'.

What? 'Make Cuba capitalist'???? It's never been anything else, since the overturning of feudal property relations.

[Blake's Baby]

Gee. I wonder which Castro will take power now. Gotta love socialism in one family.

I suggest Kim Jong Castro.

Maybe, when the cachet of the leaders of the 'revolution' of '59 is over, there will be a real examination of Cuba's history and perhaps more realisation that the last 60 years have been a different flavour of cpitalism rather than any kind of radical experiment.

[KurtFF8]

I'm worried the new leader will make Cuba capitalist, without making the state more democratic. Then nothing positive will have been achieved and we will have to listen to more 'communism is dead rhetoric'.

What about Miguel Diaz-Canel makes you think Cuba will become capitalist?

[Let's Get Free]

The way I see it, the "restoration" of capitalism in Cuba is only a matter of time (though it has never at any point in it's history been anything other than capitalist.) For a new layer of young Cubans, the only reality they remember living is one of continuous privations and sacrifices. I'm wondering how much longer this can sustain itself without major social explosions.

[Lokomotive293]

Thank you all for showing your solidarity with a country that has fought and is still fighting every day hard for its independence, is able to uphold, against all odds, the highest living standard in the Caribbean for all of its people, and does an indispensable service for revolutionary and national independence movements all over Latin America.
I understand if you don't agree with the way things are going on Cuba, or even its whole form of government, but maybe, instead of joining in on the anti-communist crusade against Cuba, you could think about what you could do to actually help the small country on its way to socialism. And there, the two most important things are to support Cuba against foreign aggression, in whatever ways it may present itself, and to fight for socialism in your own country.

[Lucretia]

Thank you all for showing your solidarity with a country that has fought and is still fighting every day hard for its independence, is able to uphold, against all odds, the highest living standard in the Caribbean for all of its people, and does an indispensable service for revolutionary and national independence movements all over Latin America.
I understand if you don't agree with the way things are going on Cuba, or even its whole form of government, but maybe, instead of joining in on the anti-communist crusade against Cuba, you could think about what you could do to actually help the small country on its way to socialism. And there, the two most important things are to support Cuba against foreign aggression, in whatever ways it may present itself, and to fight for socialism in your own country.

You're welcome.

[Prometeo liberado]

Gee. I wonder which Castro will take power now. Gotta love socialism in one family.

Did you read the article or is this an attempt at being cute? Seth Mcfarlane did a better job at being funny last night(and he wasn't) than your little DPRK joke/thing. IMO.:grin:

[Clarion]

Gee. I wonder which Castro will take power now. Gotta love socialism in one family.

You're either being dishonest or idiotic. There are a number of people who it is suggested may take over, none of them are relatives of the current or former President.

You're inability to tell Cuba from North Korea isn't far removed from Glenn Beck's inability to tell communism from fascism.

[Lucretia]

You're either being dishonest or idiotic. There are a number of people who it is suggested may take over, none of them are relatives of the current or former President.

You're inability to tell Cuba from North Korea isn't far removed from Glenn Beck's inability to tell communism from fascism.

Yes, because the idea of passing state power from one family member to another could never happen in a place like Cuba. How silly of me.

[Clarion]

Given that it's long been clear (and theres never been any suggestion otherwise) that no future leaders will have the name Castro. . . yes, that is silly of you.

One case is not statistically significant.

[Delenda Carthago]

Yes, because the idea of passing state power from one family member to another could never happen in a place like Cuba. How silly of me.
Raul is not "a member of the family". He is one of the starting guerilla team of Granma and their most advanced ideologicly member, the one that understood m-l the best. Hadnt be for that, he would never be the president of Cuba. The same way Fidel's kids were never supposed to.

[Lucretia]

Given that it's long been clear (and theres never been any suggestion otherwise) that no future leaders will have the name Castro. . . yes, that is silly of you.

One case is not statistically significant.

Whether the person has the last name "Castro" or not is actually insignificant to my larger point, which is that people in such anti-socialist regimes are chosen not on the basis of any democratic decision-making, but on the basis of the personal preferences of the Great Leader and his inner circle. It's therefore not surprising that "trusted" family members are often chosen as replacements, as has happened in Cuba the sole time there has been a change in leadership, and as has happened in North Korea over the past half century. But it's not like the underlying point I am making suddenly evaporates if everything you say is true and Raul does chose a successor who isn't a Castro.

It's actually sad that I have to go into this much detail to explain something to you that socialists should instinctively know.

[Lucretia]

Raul is not "a member of the family". He is one of the starting guerilla team of Granma and their most advanced ideologicly member, the one that understood m-l the best. Hadnt be for that, he would never be the president of Cuba. The same way Fidel's kids were never supposed to.

So it's entirely coincidental that his last name is "Castro." Ok. Thanks for explaining it to me.

[KurtFF8]

Whether the person has the last name "Castro" or not is actually insignificant to my larger point, which is that people in such anti-socialist regimes are chosen not on the basis of any democratic decision-making, but on the basis of the personal preferences of the Great Leader and his inner circle. It's therefore not surprising that "trusted" family members are often chosen as replacements, as has happened in Cuba the sole time there has been a change in leadership, and as has happened in North Korea over the past half century. But it's not like the underlying point I am making suddenly evaporates if everything you say is true and Raul does chose a successor who isn't a Castro.

It's actually sad that I have to go into this much detail to explain something to you that socialists should instinctively know.

So not only is Cuba secretly capitalist behind its supposed only nominal socialism, but now it is "anti-socialist"??

How do you arrive at that conclusion?


So it's entirely coincidental that his last name is "Castro." Ok. Thanks for explaining it to me.

No it's not a "coincidence" but he wasn't chosen to be the President of Cuba after Fidel by the merit of having been in Fidel's family (much like the strange succession system in the DPRK), but rather he directly helped lead and fought in the Cuban revolution, and has played a crucial role in building socialism (or secret anti-socialism according to some apparently) in Cuba

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Yes, because the idea of passing state power from one family member to another could never happen in a place like Cuba. How silly of me.

It could happen in a place you consequentially favor over Cuba, USA, with George the First and George the Second working hard to exploit and push any division within the Cuban socialist regime.
Trotskyists have historically often sided with the Bourgeoisie over fellow Workers, going so far as to tactically ally with Bourgeoisie many times. Here you once again agitate against the Left - in the class struggle there is no 'third way'; if you agitate against a Socialist government, you side with the Bourgeoisie, against the interests of the workers and for the interests of the Class Enemy.

[Lucretia]

It could happen in a place you consequentially favor over Cuba, USA, with George the First and George the Second working hard to exploit and push any division within the Cuban socialist regime.
Trotskyists have historically often sided with the Bourgeoisie over fellow Workers, going so far as to tactically ally with Bourgeoisie many times. Here you once again agitate against the Left - in the class struggle there is no 'third way'; if you agitate against a Socialist government, you side with the Bourgeoisie, against the interests of the workers and for the interests of the Class Enemy.

Ah, yes. Because the Shrub dynasty is a model standard by which to compare supposedly socialist regimes. Only in the world of "Marxism-Leninism."

[Jimmie Higgins]

It could happen in a place you consequentially favor over Cuba, USA, with George the First and George the Second working hard to exploit and push any division within the Cuban socialist regime.How is having a political criticism of Cuba the same as supporting the US? I assume you were against the US invasion of Iraq... so should we not have criticisms of the Iraqi government?

Supporting US attempts to disipline what they see as "their" rebellious colony is not at all part of the equation here. No one is supporting that and marxists having criticisms of the government of Cuba on the basis of it NOT representing socialism in the marxist sense really makes little difference as far as US policy. One can oppose US sanctions on Iraq or an embargo against Cuba - not to mention a direct attempt at attacking either country - and also politically oppose and critique those governments.

Trotskyists have historically often sided with the Bourgeoisie over fellow Workers, going so far as to tactically ally with Bourgeoisie many times.
Yes tactically ally when necissary against fascism or counter-revolution... as opposed to M-L traddition of alling politically to the bourgeoise forces in Popular Fronts, national struggles and so on.


Here you once again agitate against the Left - in the class struggle there is no 'third way'; if you agitate against a Socialist government, you side with the Bourgeoisie, against the interests of the workers and for the interests of the Class Enemy.Yes just as if you oppose the US government or advocate US workers going on strike in WWII, you are "siding with the NAZIs".

You are avoiding the central criticism (that Cuba doesn't represent Socialism) here and all these accusations of supporting imperialism are obfuscations.

That supporters of "Cuban Socialism" here fear that a new figurehead can change the country to capitalism should reveal that socialism doesn't actually exist in Cuba. If Cuba was a society of working class rule, then how could a change at the top result in capitalism? I think this fear also shows a recognition even among supporters that the Cuban regime is not an actual defense against US influence and could possibly return to the "US sphere" with the same "socialist" government intact. To echo Eugene Debs: if a gurella movement claims it can take you to the promised land, it can take you right back out too.

That your argument in "defense" of socialism in Cuba means painting critics as supporters of the US on the one hand and attacking Trotskyism on the other, I think demonstrates the weakness of the arguments that Cuba is socialist.

The best thing for a chance of Socialism in Cuba or Venusuela or any region is working class revolution somewhere that will revive the real working class nature of socialism. Short of that, the best thing for Cuba or any country subject to US imperilaism would be a US working class socialist movement that could effectivly oppose US efforts and international aims. Arguing that the Cuban revolution was an anti-imperialist revolution and having criticisms of the regime there is not a barrier to that... however, IMO arguing to workers that Socialism is basically a country with some nationalized industry and a better social safty-net where workers passivly support a benevolent government IS a barrier to developing such a movement.

[Orange Juche]

I saw he said something about how he thinks there should be term limits. Honestly, as far as my critiques of Leninism go, that's a huge one that would need to be in place (in my opinion) in any Leninist system. I know it's "not democratic" but I tend to feel something slightly undemocratic that works as a check/balance against people like Stalin wreaking havoc are unfortunate necessities. I don't understand why a single Leninist system hasn't implemented this yet.

[Luís Henrique]

What? 'Make Cuba capitalist'???? It's never been anything else, since the overturning of feudal property relations.

When were there feudal property relations in Cuba?

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

So not only is Cuba secretly capitalist behind its supposed only nominal socialism, but now it is "anti-socialist"??

How do you arrive at that conclusion?...

Don't you know that capitalism is opposed to socialism?


...
No it's not a "coincidence" but he wasn't chosen to be the President of Cuba after Fidel by the merit of having been in Fidel's family (much like the strange succession system in the DPRK), but rather he directly helped lead and fought in the Cuban revolution, and has played a crucial role in building socialism (or secret anti-socialism according to some apparently) in Cuba

Building Stalinist state capitalim, you mean? You do know that Fidel Castro wasn't a communist, that he spent two years trying to co-operate with the Americans before they pissed him off so much he went to Kruschev (yes, Kruschev, who I'm sure you really really like) for assistance. Guevara, and Raoul Castro, werecertainly 'ideological' communists but really, the 'revolution' was bourgeois-democratic and popular-nationalist at best. It was the ttempt by some petit-bourgeois officers and intellectuals to overthrow a savage and corrupt capitalist regime and replace it with a slightly less savage and corrupt capitalist regime. Cuba's 'socialism' was built with Russian money as a pawn against the US, just as the 'socialism' in western Europe was built with American money as pawns against the USSR. Just imperialist wargames.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

How is having a political criticism of Cuba the same as supporting the US? I assume you were against the US invasion of Iraq... so should we not have criticisms of the Iraqi government?

Supporting US attempts to disipline what they see as "their" rebellious colony is not at all part of the equation here. No one is supporting that and marxists having criticisms of the government of Cuba on the basis of it NOT representing socialism in the marxist sense really makes little difference as far as US policy. One can oppose US sanctions on Iraq or an embargo against Cuba - not to mention a direct attempt at attacking either country - and also politically oppose and critique those governments.



Was Saddam's Iraq a country going against Capital, advocating consistent anti-capitalist policies - or did it sell its oil for cheap to the Imperialists, gas ethnic minorities, have 60% private property, play out religious sects against each other, and wage imperialist war against another nation? Did the Iraqi leadership even give lip service to being 'Communist'? No, no.

Has Cuba achieved our dream of Communism? No. But its leadership and people have shown a lot of resilience to hold on to the system they call 'Socialism'. In the world, Cuba is seen as one of the last places that "Communism" exists. Are you honestly going to try to tell the majority of the world that believe this, that you oppose this government?
Criticism (here on Revleft) and Public opposition (as I believe the ISO in Chicago not so long ago staged) are two different things. I publicly oppose Imperialist crimes, I will never publicly oppose crimes of genuine communists, because it weakens our position and strengthens that of the Bourgeoisie.

Say, for instance, Raul Castro (who to my knowledge has a genuine 'belief' in communism) orders the shooting of dozens of anti-government protesters. I might find it appalling on a personal and moral level, lose respect for the man, but I would never publicly campaign against a fellow communist. Why? Because the bourgeois media will launch a campaign against him if it sees him as a Class-Enemy. The louder the Bourgeoisie screams, the louder we should applaud.

[Tifosi]

Has Cuba achieved our dream of Communism? No. But its leadership and people have shown a lot of resilience to hold on to the system they call 'Socialism'. In the world, Cuba is seen as one of the last places that "Communism" exists. Are you honestly going to try to tell the majority of the world that believe this, that you oppose this government?
Criticism (here on Revleft) and Public opposition (as I believe the ISO in Chicago not so long ago staged) are two different things. I publicly oppose Imperialist crimes, I will never publicly oppose crimes of genuine communists, because it weakens our position and strengthens that of the Bourgeoisie.

Say, for instance, Raul Castro (who to my knowledge has a genuine 'belief' in communism) orders the shooting of dozens of anti-government protesters. I might find it appalling on a personal and moral level, lose respect for the man, but I would never publicly campaign against a fellow communist. Why? Because the bourgeois media will launch a campaign against him if it sees him as a Class-Enemy. The louder the Bourgeoisie screams, the louder we should applaud.

And everyone else, people we are trying to reach, will treat you in utter contempt for being a spineless coward.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Yes tactically ally when necissary against fascism or counter-revolution... as opposed to [1] M-L traddition of alling politically to the bourgeoise forces in Popular Fronts, national struggles and so on.

Yes [2]just as if you oppose the US government or advocate US workers going on strike in WWII, you are "siding with the NAZIs".

You are avoiding the central criticism (that Cuba doesn't represent Socialism) here and all these accusations of supporting imperialism are obfuscations.

That supporters of "Cuban Socialism" here fear that a new figurehead can change the country to capitalism should reveal that socialism doesn't actually exist in Cuba. If Cuba was a society of working class rule, then how could a change at the top result in capitalism? I think this fear also shows a recognition even among supporters that the Cuban regime is not an actual defense against US influence and could possibly return to the "US sphere" with the same "socialist" government intact. To echo Eugene Debs: if a gurella movement claims it can take you to the promised land, it can take you right back out too.

That your argument in "defense" of socialism in Cuba means painting critics as supporters of the US on the one hand and attacking Trotskyism on the other, I think demonstrates the weakness of the arguments that Cuba is socialist.

[4] The best thing for a chance of Socialism in Cuba or Venuzuela or any region is working class revolution somewhere that will revive the real working class nature of socialism. Short of that, the best thing for Cuba or any country subject to US imperilaism would be a US working class socialist movement that could effectivly oppose US efforts and international aims. Arguing that the Cuban revolution was an anti-imperialist revolution and having criticisms of the regime there is not a barrier to that... however, IMO arguing to workers that Socialism is basically a country with some nationalized industry and a better social safty-net where workers passivly support a benevolent government IS a barrier to developing such a movement.


[1] Precisely why I am not loyal Stalinist. Although the decision to form a popular front and alliance with the UK and US Bourgeois countries certainly helped a lot in the war effort.
[2] Hardly. The US was (remains) a capitalist and imperialist country whose Bourgeoisie didn't even give lip service to Socialism in its darkest hour, much less run in its interests to abolish capital. I support workers' strikes against US Imperialists just as much as German Imperialists, although German imperialism was a lot more aggressive and reactionary.
[3] That's a very good point comrade. As I stated before, the Cuban Party today is like the revisionist party of the CPSU 1960, and the survival of Cuban Socialism depends on how strong the 'Communist' bureaucratic clique is versus the self-interested Bureaucrats.

"If Cuba was a society of working class rule, then how could a change at the top result in capitalism?"
I never claimed Cuba is a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The problem we should of course have, as you pointed out, is that the party, state and country is not yet a genuine 'socialist', Communist country. It is however Socialist, because it is a country which is run in the interests of the workers. "Socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."

[4] "The real working class nature of Socialism". Yes, I can applaud that statement of yours.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

And everyone else, people we are trying to reach, will treat you in utter contempt for being a spineless coward.

Interesting. Do these "people we are trying to reach" side with Socialist revolution? Because if so, I would have no problem telling my honest thoughts to them. If not, I will just be a 'spineless coward' and refuse to give them the satisfaction of siding with their campaign against communists, and hence Socialism.

[Q]

What? 'Make Cuba capitalist'???? It's never been anything else, since the overturning of feudal property relations.

I'm not so sure comrade. Has there been universal commodity production, where capital could freely expand itself in the last few decades? I don't think so, besides perhaps for some sectors, such as the tourist sector.

If you're saying that there has been exploitation for surplus labour, then I would obviously agree. But such exploitation is a feature of any class society where a minority class rules over a majority. You can therefore at most argue that Cuba wasn't socialist, but that doesn't automatically make it capitalist.

Similar logical fallacies have been employed against the USSR to claim it was "state capitalist", which made no sense either.

[Blake's Baby]

If one is a Marxist, then the economy of the Soviet Union must have been either capitalist or communist. There is no intervening period - except for the transformation of the one to the other. Was it transforming from one to the other? If not, it must have been one or the other. Which?

Or, do you reject the paradigm?

[Q]

If one is a Marxist, then the economy of the Soviet Union must have been either capitalist or communist. There is no intervening period - except for the transformation of the one to the other. Was it transforming from one to the other? If not, it must have been one or the other. Which?

Or, do you reject the paradigm?

This is exactly the fallacy I'm protesting to. Capitalism, as Marx describes at length in his Capital, is a pretty specific set of conditions. You can't just say "well, it wasn't socialism, so therefore it was capitalism".

Claiming such a fallacy to be "Marxist" doesn't make it Marxist. The 'paradigm' you might be referring to of social evolution from barbarism to slavery to feudalism to capitalism to socialism, which was popularised by the Second International, is at best a model of historical materialism, an expectation based on certain parameters. To treat it as gospel is taking the scientific method out of historical materialism.

So, what was the USSR (or Cuba for that matter?). I like to use an analogy that I read a while back on this: Biologists are well aware that mutations happen all the time in various (probably most) species. However, most of these mutations are not going to survive or not able to reproduce at all. To give such a mutation therefore a name is a waste of time. New names are only given when a mutation is durable, when in other words it results into a new (sub)species.

Likewise, Stalinism was a dead end. A mutation that had no future and could only collapse into another type of society. That society has been capitalism since capitalism is the hegemonic mode of production on the planet.

I hope this suffices (it probably won't, but meh).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Q;2584474]This is exactly the fallacy I'm protesting to. Capitalism, as Marx describes at length in his Capital, is a pretty specific set of conditions. You can't just say "well, it wasn't socialism, so therefore it was capitalism".

Are you not doing the opposite and saying, 'well it wasn't capitalism, so...'.


Claiming such a fallacy to be "Marxist" doesn't make it Marxist. The 'paradigm' you might be referring to of social evolution from barbarism to slavery to feudalism to capitalism to socialism, which was popularised by the Second International, is at best a model of historical materialism, an expectation based on certain parameters. To treat it as gospel is taking the scientific method out of historical materialism.

You're absolutely correct that it's not gospel, and certainly the experience (certainly in Western Europe) of the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism shows that modes of production do not change overnight. Indeed, i've recently been arguing that the earliest shoots of pre-commodity production existed in English as early as the 14th century, whereas other historians/economic historians would argue this was not the case until perhaps 300 or 400 years later.

However, we do have the benefit of hindsight to look at the experiments of 20th Century attempts to implement Socialism and we can note some things:

1) Most importantly, these attempts failed, and look to be consigned to the dustbin of history. A 'failed mutation', if you will, but not a break, and certainly - in historical context, given hindsight - not a revolutionary break, nor a permanent one.
2) These attempts did not turn the world from capitalism, and indeed existed in a world that was still largely capitalist. They had diplomatic and some economic relations with capitalist countries.
3) These countries never abolished money, states and probably not classes either, though the latter did seem to begin to be dissolved in the Soviet Union, but one has a feeling that this was on paper only. Studies of the USSR in the 1970s show it had the characteristics - in terms of macroeconomics and labour - of an egalitarian social democracy.



So, what was the USSR (or Cuba for that matter?). I like to use an analogy that I read a while back on this: Biologists are well aware that mutations happen all the time in various (probably most) species. However, most of these mutations are not going to survive or not able to reproduce at all. To give such a mutation therefore a name is a waste of time. New names are only given when a mutation is durable, when in other words it results into a new (sub)species.

If a human mutates into having a third eye, or 1 leg, or even a fin, due to some bizarre accident or whatever, do we give it a new name? No, we call it a human still because, whilst it may have some different characteristics, it still overall resembles and fits in the human species.


Likewise, Stalinism was a dead end. A mutation that had no future and could only collapse into another type of society. That society has been capitalism since capitalism is the hegemonic mode of production on the planet.

So, it came from Capitalism, mutated slightly, and then peacefully morphed back into Capitalism? Sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, hell, it even quacks like a duck! ;)

I understand where you're coming from, and certainly Stalinism was/is qualitatively different from neo-liberalism, or neo-classical economics, or Keynesianism, or social democracy, but it seems as though that's all. It was a fairly radical implementation of top-down capitalism, with some mutations as you say. There is nothing to say that it was a different mode of production/of society.

[KurtFF8]

Don't you know that capitalism is opposed to socialism?

But this would require labeling Cuba "secretly capitalist" (and yes you can't get around the claim that they have attempted to "hide" their mode of production from their own population and the world, which is an absurd claim)




Building Stalinist state capitalim, you mean? You do know that Fidel Castro wasn't a communist, that he spent two years trying to co-operate with the Americans before they pissed him off so much he went to Kruschev (yes, Kruschev, who I'm sure you really really like) for assistance. Guevara, and Raoul Castro, werecertainly 'ideological' communists but really, the 'revolution' was bourgeois-democratic and popular-nationalist at best. It was the ttempt by some petit-bourgeois officers and intellectuals to overthrow a savage and corrupt capitalist regime and replace it with a slightly less savage and corrupt capitalist regime. Cuba's 'socialism' was built with Russian money as a pawn against the US, just as the 'socialism' in western Europe was built with American money as pawns against the USSR. Just imperialist wargames.

This is quite an ahistorical take on both the Cuban revolution and the geopolitical situation of Cuba and its relationship to the USSR. The idea that Cuba was just a "pawn" of the USSR takes quite a lot of credit away from the Cuban leadership which did a lot to pressure the USSR into action on many things (most prominently perhaps in Africa). Your narrative here is pretty much an echo of the US Cold War ideology of "all proclaimed socialist states were just agents of Moscow" which in Cuba's case is just false (and certainly doesn't explain why they've upheld socialism so much since the fall of the USSR).

As for your continued claims about it being "just a different kind of capitalism," I remain unconvinced because (as usual) there's no real argument to address: just repeated claims.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Your narrative here is pretty much an echo of the US Cold War ideology of "all proclaimed socialist states were just agents of Moscow" which in Cuba's case is just false (and certainly doesn't explain why they've upheld socialism so much since the fall of the USSR).


But they haven't upheld Socialism since the collapse of the USSR, that's the point. They've expanded the private sector to cater for tourism - they have a dual currency (introducing MORE money rather than attempting to abolish it) which prices many Cuban workers out of luxury and even normal goods that are sparse and, in the past few years, have shrunk the government sector and introduced privatisation of small businesses and of property relationships in an attempt to initiate growth in the private sector - entrepreneurship, a classic example!

What is Socialist about this? It's certainly welfare-ist and something to defend against the more rampant neo-liberal agenda of the developed west, but it's not really Socialism. I struggle to see how any argument can be made for this, other than 'the Communist Party is doing it, so it must be Socialist'.

[La Guaneña]

Cuba has a parlamentarist system, where the candidates are not indicated by the parties, but by the neighbourhood councils.

Any of the Castros must be ellected by their neighbours, and later by the city assembly.

[KurtFF8]

But they haven't upheld Socialism since the collapse of the USSR, that's the point. They've expanded the private sector to cater for tourism - they have a dual currency (introducing MORE money rather than attempting to abolish it) which prices many Cuban workers out of luxury and even normal goods that are sparse and, in the past few years, have shrunk the government sector and introduced privatisation of small businesses and of property relationships in an attempt to initiate growth in the private sector - entrepreneurship, a classic example!

What is Socialist about this? It's certainly welfare-ist and something to defend against the more rampant neo-liberal agenda of the developed west, but it's not really Socialism. I struggle to see how any argument can be made for this, other than 'the Communist Party is doing it, so it must be Socialist'.

None of this has been part of a transformation of the mode of production however. Yes Cuba has made some "retreats" in terms of its economy, but none of what you have brought up signals that the overall Cuban economy is now based on the capitalist mode of production. Could capitalism be restored in Cuba and private property be the dominant productive mode? Sure of course it could be. But does it follow from these reforms that it has already taken place? I would say this last claim makes no sense.

It's obviously a lot more than "The CP is doing it" and of course no where have I or anyone made that argument. I would instead argue that if we examine the class character of the Cuban state, the way in which their government is structure, etc, that that's where we see that labeling Cuba as a capitalist society makes no sense from a Marxist perspective.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

None of this has been part of a transformation of the mode of production however. Yes Cuba has made some "retreats" in terms of its economy, but none of what you have brought up signals that the overall Cuban economy is now based on the capitalist mode of production. Could capitalism be restored in Cuba and private property be the dominant productive mode? Sure of course it could be. But does it follow from these reforms that it has already taken place? I would say this last claim makes no sense.

It's obviously a lot more than "The CP is doing it" and of course no where have I or anyone made that argument. I would instead argue that if we examine the class character of the Cuban state, the way in which their government is structure, etc, that that's where we see that labeling Cuba as a capitalist society makes no sense from a Marxist perspective.

Even though people can trade in property? Even though Cuba has a dual currency system? Even though Cubans are undoubtedly engaged in commodity production, and those in the private sector can - in theory at least - make a profit? Even though Cuba relies on trade with the capitalist world to survive?

I'm not being rude at all, and I normally think you're a very qualified poster on most things, but can you please explain to me where the Socialism is in Cuba, in real terms? I am partial to the Cuban system as it works in Cuba, but I just don't see it as Socialist in its content.

[KurtFF8]

Even though people can trade in property? Even though Cuba has a dual currency system? Even though Cubans are undoubtedly engaged in commodity production, and those in the private sector can - in theory at least - make a profit? Even though Cuba relies on trade with the capitalist world to survive?

Yes, and I think you have a very simplistic conception of the economic reforms that took place in Cuba. Private property rights were not introduced in the same way that they were in China of Vietnam: this is a misconception. The Cuban state plays a much more active role in these areas than you seem to believe it does. As for commodity production, I don't see how that claim makes sense. And relying on trade with the capitalist world is literally the only trade option Cuba has and it of course doesn't follow that Cuba is itself capitalist because it trades with capitalist countries. Such a claim or argument doesn't seem coherent to me.

(I'm also not trying to be rude here: I've really just always seen these positions as seriously lacking much logical or empirical backing)


I'm not being rude at all, and I normally think you're a very qualified poster on most things, but can you please explain to me where the Socialism is in Cuba, in real terms? I am partial to the Cuban system as it works in Cuba, but I just don't see it as Socialist in its content.You can see the socialism in Cuba by looking at the role of the working class, the state, and the Communist Party of Cuba. A good place that I suggest would be the NLG's reports on the conditions of the workers rights in Cuba for example:
http://www.nlg-laboremploy-comm.org/Intl_Cuba_Research.php

And in particular, the most recent one they have published from 2009 http://nlg-laboremploy-comm.org/media/ProjIntl_Cuba_2009Report.pdf which has a report from Prof. Steve Ludlam from University of Sheffield which makes the following observations:


The second section of the paper considered broader issues of union and worker power. At the most general level it was noted that the Cuban state, despite the ‘opening’ to capitalism, had retained control over the economy: the market remained subject to political control in Cuba’s ‘socialist state of workers’. Attention was drawn to the many forms of political participation open to unions and workers, and to the tradition of mass consultation over radical change, as in the ‘workers parliaments’ of the 1990s, and more recent mass consultations over economic priorities and over pension reform. Prof. Ludlam identified three key arenas of ‘the political power of the workers’: the role of the national unions and of the CTC federation; the collective bargaining system; and the workplace assembly system.The second section of the paper considered broader issues of union and worker power. At the most general level it was noted that the Cuban state, despite the ‘opening’ to capitalism, had retained control over the economy: the market remained subject to political control in Cuba’s ‘socialist state of workers’. Attention was drawn to the many forms of political participation open to unions and workers, and to the tradition of mass consultation over radical change, as in the ‘workers parliaments’ of the 1990s, and more recent mass consultations over economic priorities and over pension reform. Prof. Ludlam identified three key arenas of ‘the political power of the workers’: the role of the national unions and of the CTC federation; the collective bargaining system; and the workplace assembly systemSorry for the weird formatting (PDFs don't paste well here I suppose).

Some other good articles for examining the question of socialism in Cuba in my opinion are: How to Visit a Socialist Country - Monthly Review (http://monthlyreview.org/2010/04/01/how-to-visit-a-socialist-country) which makes the following excelnt point:


The unions are among the mass organizations that play a vital role in running the country. But are they “independent unions,” in our sense, or “controlled by the state”? And, if they are independent, how come we don’t see strikes in Cuba?

Once again, the visitor is tempted to apply perfectly good criteria to the wrong situation. The relations between the unions and the state are various. Unions may propose legislation in the National Assembly. Many deputies are union members. Twice a year, the unions meet with the cabinet ministers to discuss matters of mutual concern. Unions sponsor nationwide discussions on labor matters and have occasionally rejected proposals from the National Assembly. The state and the unions jointly monitor compliance with labor law (there are many of these violations, caused sometimes by ignorance of the law, sometimes by indifference, or not wanting to make waves when there is urgency to produce, sometimes opportunism). If we do not see workers picketing the National Assembly, it is for the same reason that we do not see bankers or CEO’s picketing Congress or sitting in at the White House: it is theirs already, and even if they are dissatisfied with particular decisions, they know they share a common interest.And this one is a little older but helpful nonetheless : Representative Government in Socialist Cuba by Peter Roman (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2633828?uid=3739832&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101708312873) (Of course it's Jstor and more difficult to get access to, if you're interested in it, PM me)

[Tim Cornelis]

Democracy at work: Miguel Diaz-Canel appointed president by 2018.

[KurtFF8]

Democracy at work: Miguel Diaz-Canel appointed president by 2018.

Where does any publication make the claim that Diaz-Canel has been appointed to be the president in 2018? :confused:

[Tim Cornelis]

Where does any publication make the claim that Diaz-Canel has been appointed to be the president in 2018? :confused:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/miguel-diazcanel-castros-chosen-successor-is-integral-figure-in--cuban-party-machine-but-can-he-win-over-man-in-street-8510566.html

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2013/feb/25/miguel-diaz-canel-next-president-cuba

[hashem]

I'm worried the new leader will make Cuba capitalist

don't worry. Cuba has been capitalist for many years and will remain that way.

whats the worst that can happen? transmission of state properties to private properties? proletariat will remain oppressed, no matter the oppressor is a bourgeoisie state or a private owner of means of production.

[KurtFF8]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/miguel-diazcanel-castros-chosen-successor-is-integral-figure-in--cuban-party-machine-but-can-he-win-over-man-in-street-8510566.html

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2013/feb/25/miguel-diaz-canel-next-president-cuba

Neither of these articles makes the claim you made


don't worry. Cuba has been capitalist for many years and will remain that way.

whats the worst that can happen? transmission of state properties to private properties? proletariat will remain oppressed, no matter the oppressor is a bourgeoisie state or a private owner of means of production.

This makes sense only if you ignore the state of the working class in Cuba today. If private property were restored in Cuba: the position of the working class would radically change (and for the worse)

[Blake's Baby]

But this would require labeling Cuba "secretly capitalist" (and yes you can't get around the claim that they have attempted to "hide" their mode of production from their own population and the world, which is an absurd claim)...

No, just capitalist. The sad fact is a lot of people think that capitalism is called 'socialism' if it involves having nationalised corporations. It's just capitalism, just like nationalised industry every where else is capitalism.





...

This is quite an ahistorical take on both the Cuban revolution and the geopolitical situation of Cuba and its relationship to the USSR. The idea that Cuba was just a "pawn" of the USSR takes quite a lot of credit away from the Cuban leadership which did a lot to pressure the USSR into action on many things (most prominently perhaps in Africa). Your narrative here is pretty much an echo of the US Cold War ideology of "all proclaimed socialist states were just agents of Moscow" which in Cuba's case is just false (and certainly doesn't explain why they've upheld socialism so much since the fall of the USSR).

As for your continued claims about it being "just a different kind of capitalism," I remain unconvinced because (as usual) there's no real argument to address: just repeated claims.

Not really. Go look at your history books. Do you think China, Yugoslavia and North Korea were, after 1960, "agents of Moscow"?

They haven't upheld 'socialism' as socialism doesn't exist, they've upheld capitalism.

[KurtFF8]

No, just capitalist. The sad fact is a lot of people think that capitalism is called 'socialism' if it involves having nationalised corporations. It's just capitalism, just like nationalised industry every where else is capitalism.

That is a straw man, however. Marxists who uphold that Cuba is a socialist do not simply make the argument that "Cuba has a mostly nationalized economy: therefore it is socialist"



Not really. Go look at your history books. Do you think China, Yugoslavia and North Korea were, after 1960, "agents of Moscow"?

They haven't upheld 'socialism' as socialism doesn't exist, they've upheld capitalism.

You're once more not really saying anything, just repeating your claim. It's the equivalent of saying "nuh uh, you're just wrong!"

[Blake's Baby]

So, because I'm saying you're wrong, you think you aren't? I don't get your point.

[KurtFF8]

So, because I'm saying you're wrong, you think you aren't? I don't get your point.

What I'm saying is, your post isn't saying anything at all.

I made claims that Cuba is indeed socialist, and attempted to demonstrate that. Your response was essentially just "nuh uh!!!" (In other words: a sort of non response)

[Ostrinski]

That is a straw man, however. Marxists who uphold that Cuba is a socialist do not simply make the argument that "Cuba has a mostly nationalized economy: therefore it is socialist"What other argument is there to make? As far as I can see that's the only basis on which one could mistakenly understand an economy such as Cuba's as socialist. So what, from your perspective, actually does constitute a socialist economy and what constitutes your application of that standard to Cuba?

[KurtFF8]

What other argument is there to make? As far as I can see that's the only basis on which one could mistakenly understand an economy such as Cuba's as socialist. So what, from your perspective, actually does constitute a socialist economy and what constitutes your application of that standard to Cuba?

I believe this is exactly what my post at the top of this page answers

(Or at least I made an attempt at starting an answer)

[Ostrinski]

With all due respect, there doesn't seem to be much of an argument or answer at all. You say it is a strawman that those who regard Cuba as socialist do so because it has a nationalized or planned economy, but that seems to me to be at least the crux of your argument, if not the essence. Is that an unfair assessment?

[hashem]

the state of the working class in Cuba today

one can only talk about a worker state when workers are running the state through their councils, state officials are being elected by workers and have no privileges comparing to an ordinary worker. but Cuba is practically a monarchy. who has elected Castro (Fidel or Raul)? who will elect the next leader (to be more exact: king)? which honest person can claim that ordinary workers are equal with high ranker state officials or members of the "communist"(!) party?

internationally, Cuba was a servant of russian social imperialism and is an ally of reactionary and totalitarian regimes. no worker movement supports government of Cuba elsewhere and vice versa.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

one can only talk about a worker state when workers are running the state through their councils, state officials are being elected by workers and have no privileges comparing to an ordinary worker. but Cuba is practically a monarchy. who has elected Castro (Fidel or Raul)? who will elect the next leader (to be more exact: king)? which honest person can claim that ordinary workers are equal with high ranker state officials or members of the "communist"(!) party?

internationally, Cuba was a servant of russian social imperialism and is an ally of reactionary and totalitarian regimes. no worker movement supports government of Cuba elsewhere and vice versa.

CDR's (Committees for the Defense of the Revolution) are the institutions existing at the local community level where workers in Cuba democratically elect their representatives, who can be recalled by a simple majority vote. Cuba played an important role in fighting imperialism and colonialism in countries like Bolivia, Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Grenada. Socially, there was some Soviet prudishness/moralism imposed on Cuba but it was not the same dynamic of russification as in Eurasia. Cuba benefited from trade with the eastern bloc countries but over-relied on products like tobacco and sugar, which is why the tourism industry was expanded for in order to survive economically after the Special Period. Many workers movements have looked, and still do look, to Cuba as an example of sustained defiance against the global capitalist system, especially U.S. imperialism. Conditions are not the best, but that can hardly be expected, since Cuba does not exist outside the context of global capitalism in which it historically has occupied a position in the 'Global South' and extra energy has to be spent to work around the embargo. It is, though, one of the few places--perhaps the only one internationally recognized as a sovereign entity--in the world today where revolutionary politics have sway and socialism is constitutionally protected.

[hashem]

CDR's (Committees for the Defense of the Revolution) are the institutions existing at the local community level where workers in Cuba democratically elect their representatives, who can be recalled by a simple majority vote. Cuba played an important role in fighting imperialism and colonialism in countries like Bolivia, Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Grenada. Socially, there was some Soviet prudishness/moralism imposed on Cuba but it was not the same dynamic of russification as in Eurasia. Cuba benefited from trade with the eastern bloc countries but over-relied on products like tobacco and sugar, which is why the tourism industry was expanded for in order to survive economically after the Special Period. Many workers movements have looked, and still do look, to Cuba as an example of sustained defiance against the global capitalist system, especially U.S. imperialism. Conditions are not the best, but that can hardly be expected, since Cuba does not exist outside the context of global capitalism in which it historically has occupied a position in the 'Global South' and extra energy has to be spent to work around the embargo. It is, though, one of the few places--perhaps the only one internationally recognized as a sovereign entity--in the world today where revolutionary politics have sway and socialism is constitutionally protected.

there have been so called parliaments, committees, trade unions, councils and ... in totalitarian regimes. in Iran there are governmental "islamic labour council"s which attack worker meetings as soon as they hear about them (arent Cuba and Venezuela close friends of Irans government?). CDR's in Cuba are not representing people. even their names expose their nature. what if someone believes that revolution has been diverted from its aims and there is nothing left to defend? will "Committees for the Defense of the Revolution" allow that person to express his ideas and put them to action?

Cuba has served as an servant of imperialism. USSR used it as a missile base and it intervened on behalf of russians in africa.

maybe ruling class of Cuba can deceive few lumpens and backward workers with lies (which fewer people believe everyday) but no class conscious worker wants to create a bourgeoisie dictatorship like Cuba.

[KurtFF8]

With all due respect, there doesn't seem to be much of an argument or answer at all. You say it is a strawman that those who regard Cuba as socialist do so because it has a nationalized or planned economy, but that seems to me to be at least the crux of your argument, if not the essence. Is that an unfair assessment?

Perhaps you didn't see the post I was referring to (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2584576&postcount=41) which I pointed out various articles that show the extent that the working class itself influences the policy of the state in Cuba.

When did I ever argue that Cuba is socialist because the means of production are nationalized?


one can only talk about a worker state when workers are running the state through their councils, state officials are being elected by workers and have no privileges comparing to an ordinary worker. but Cuba is practically a monarchy. who has elected Castro (Fidel or Raul)? who will elect the next leader (to be more exact: king)? which honest person can claim that ordinary workers are equal with high ranker state officials or members of the "communist"(!) party?

internationally, Cuba was a servant of russian social imperialism and is an ally of reactionary and totalitarian regimes. no worker movement supports government of Cuba elsewhere and vice versa.

You seem to not actually know much about the Cuban state, as evidenced by this post. For example, those in the National Assembly (the highest decision making body in Cuba) do not get material privileges over ordinary workers, and actually mostly hold normal jobs and aren't paid for their services in government, unlike in places like the United States.

This National Assembly (and the various other assemblies) are elected with much participation amongst the Cuban public actually. I suggest looking at the article "Representative Government in Socialist Cuba" as I cited above. It's in Jstor, but if you need a copy, PM me.

Your claims here don't seem to be an accurate reflection of the political realities of Cuba. Just because you happen to not know the political processes in Cuba, doesn't mean that it is automatically some "oppressive hereditary rule"


there have been so called parliaments, committees, trade unions, councils and ... in totalitarian regimes. in Iran there are governmental "islamic labour council"s which attack worker meetings as soon as they hear about them (arent Cuba and Venezuela close friends of Irans government?). CDR's in Cuba are not representing people. even their names expose their nature. what if someone believes that revolution has been diverted from its aims and there is nothing left to defend? will "Committees for the Defense of the Revolution" allow that person to express his ideas and put them to action?

Cuba has served as an servant of imperialism. USSR used it as a missile base and it intervened on behalf of russians in africa.

maybe ruling class of Cuba can deceive few lumpens and backward workers with lies (which fewer people believe everyday) but no class conscious worker wants to create a bourgeoisie dictatorship like Cuba.

You call them out for being "front" organizations, and then point to Iran as an example? Iran is hardly comparable to Cuba in this sense in any way, so your analogy doesn't make much sense.

Your skepticism of the CDRs seems to not really based on anything other than an inkling that you have, not much else.

As for your claim about the relationship between Cuba, the USSR, and Africa: it really shows that you are confused about that history. Cuba was actually the one pushing the USSR to be more involved in Africa, not the other way around. Your point of view here reflects the American Cold War mentality (of which even high ranking American government officials held during those conflicts), which proved to be incredibly inaccurate, and a mischaracterization of the role that Cuba played in places like Angola and South Africa.

[Ismail]

The Cubans were sent as neo-colonial subjects to Angola and Ethiopia in order to wage neo-colonial wars on behalf of the Soviet neo-colonialists. It's quite simple.

This idea that Castro and Co. are great revolutionaries is nonsense. From praising the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia to praising Deng Xiaoping, Tito and Kim Il Sung as militant revolutionaries, and saying that Gorbachev "struggled to perfect socialism" as late as 1992, it's obvious that they are not Marxists but petty-bourgeois "radicals" and revisionists.


Cuba benefited from trade with the eastern bloc countries but over-relied on products like tobacco and sugar, which is why the tourism industry was expanded for in order to survive economically after the Special Period.Cuba did not "benefit," the working-class paid for Cuba's ever-growing dependency on the Soviet Union. It "over-relied" on tobacco and sugar precisely because the Soviet social-imperialists demanded this of the Cuban leadership, which happily obliged.

A good read on Cuban revisionism both domestically and internationally is Cuba: The Evaporation of a Myth, which was put online not long ago: http://revolutionaryspiritapl.blogspot.com/2012/06/cuba-evaportion-of-myth-from-anti.html


Many workers movements have looked, and still do look, to Cuba as an example of sustained defiance against the global capitalist system, especially U.S. imperialism.And so much the worse for those movements. Regimes inspired by Castro, such as those in Nicaragua and Mozambique, had no problem promoting Western capital in their countries while their working-classes paid the bill, from the FSLN outlawing strikes in the early 80's to the IMF-led austerity measures of the late 80's Frelimo. Cuban "solidarity" with working-class movements was and is as hollow as the Soviet revisionist "solidarity" it based itself on.

And let us not forget the un-Marxist conception of revolution advocated by Castro and Co to begin with. "From what we know, reading the 'theories' of Castro and others like him on the party, the armed struggle, the role of the peasantry and the confidence which the party should have in it, we see that all these 'theories' of theirs are not Marxist at all. In reading Che Guevara's notebook which was published in Cuba we ask the question: what sort of Marxist can live as a savage in the Sierra and organize the work in secrecy from the masses, in whom he has no confidence?" (Hoxha, Speeches, Conversations and Articles: 1969-1970, p. 208.)

[KurtFF8]

The Cubans were sent as neo-colonial subjects to Angola and Ethiopia in order to wage neo-colonial wars on behalf of the Soviet neo-colonialists. It's quite simple.

This is just not accurate in any sense. The Soviets did not even want to get entangled in Angola, yet the Cubans were the ones that, through their increase in troop levels and political pressure: eventually got the Soviets involved in a meaningful way.



Cuba did not "benefit," the working-class paid for Cuba's ever-growing dependency on the Soviet Union. It "over-relied" on tobacco and sugar precisely because the Soviet social-imperialists demanded this of the Cuban leadership, which happily obliged.Cuba's economy, at the time, did indeed benefit quite greatly from these trade arrangements. The problem is that Cuba has historically relied to heavily on a single trading partner: which is something they're quite conscious of at the moment. So while their relationship to Venezuela is crucial, they understand that they can't depend on the political stability of a single other country.


And let us not forget the un-Marxist conception of revolution advocated by Castro and Co to begin with. "From what we know, reading the 'theories' of Castro and others like him on the party, the armed struggle, the role of the peasantry and the confidence which the party should have in it, we see that all these 'theories' of theirs are not Marxist at all. In reading Che Guevara's notebook which was published in Cuba we ask the question: what sort of Marxist can live as a savage in the Sierra and organize the work in secrecy from the masses, in whom he has no confidence?" (Hoxha, Speeches, Conversations and Articles: 1969-1970, p. 208.)

In other words: all guerrilla warfare is un-Marxist?

[Ismail]

"Meaningful" meaning that Angola and its people were reduced to pawns between the imperialist powers and their proxies.


Cuba's economy, at the time, did indeed benefit quite greatly from these trade arrangements. The problem is that Cuba has historically relied to heavily on a single trading partner: which is something they're quite conscious of at the moment. So while their relationship to Venezuela is crucial, they understand that they can't depend on the political stability of a single other country.Albania was also seen as a country which "historically relied to [sic.] heavily on a single trading partner." The difference is that socialism is supposed to change this.

"The complete construction of socialist society is closely connected with the understanding and implementation of the principle of self-reliance in every step and every field of life. This great Marxist-Leninist principle of profound revolutionary content is not only a law for the construction of socialism but also, in the present conditions, an urgent necessity for our country to cope successfully with enemy blockades and encirclement...

Our Party has always defended the view that self-reliance is not a temporary policy imposed by circumstances, but an objective necessity for every country, big or small, developed or underdeveloped, a principle applying both in liberation wars and the proletarian revolution, and in the construction of socialism and the defence of the homeland. The implementation of this principle bars all paths to the inflow of bank credits from bourgeois and revisionist states, by means of which the imperialists and the social-imperialists enslave countries and nations...

The bourgeois-revisionist propaganda endeavors to spread and cultivate among the peoples, especially in the developing countries, the sense of bowing and submission to the big imperialist powers. The Soviet revisionists, in particular, distort the revolutionary essence of the principle of self-reliance, labelling it as 'slipping into positions of narrow nationalism', as 'departure from the position of proletarian internationalism', as 'rejecting mutual aid among socialist countries'. With these anti-Marxist theses they seek to justify their policy of imperialist expansion and their practices of capitalist exploitation of other countries...

Far from excluding reciprocal collaboration and aid among the revolutionary and socialist forces, self-reliance presupposes it. The aid which the victorious revolution gives the countries and peoples fighting for national and social liberation, the mutual aid among countries building socialism, is an internationalist duty. It is devoid of any sort of selfish interest and inspired by the lofty interests of Marxism-Leninism. This aid is to the advantage not only of the country which receives it but also of the country which gives it, because the triumph of socialism in any country serves the triumph of revolution in the other countries, too, its triumph over capitalism and revisionism....

The principle of self-reliance is correctly understood when it is implemented in every field of social activity... when people work and live everywhere as in a state of siege."
(Enver Hoxha. Report Submitted to the 7th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1977. pp. 70-73.)

Thus the 1976 Constitution declared that, "The granting of concessions to, and the creation of, foreign economic and financial companies and other institutions or ones formed jointly with bourgeois and revisionist capitalist monopolies and states, as well as obtaining credits from them, are prohibited in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania."


In other words: all guerrilla warfare is un-Marxist?If that warfare consists of a bunch of "great men" milling about in the jungles, with no proletarian vanguard, and who come to power as avowed non-communists as Castro did, yes.

This whole admiration for Cuba comes out of the delusions held by many Trotskyists and liberals that Cuba is some sort of "proletarian revolution" untouched by so-called "Stalinism" (in reality Soviet revisionism) and that everything bad about it is a result of forced importations from the "Stalinist" USSR (e.g. Fly Pan Dulce ridiculously attributing Cuba's "prudish" attitudes to Soviet influence, since Stalin apparently invented machismo) and are excused away because they need a country to point to and say "look, here's socialism untainted by JOSEPH STALIN!" The logical result of this is apologia for Soviet revisionism and its Cuban variety.

[KurtFF8]

"Meaningful" meaning that Angola and its people were reduced to pawns between the imperialist powers and their proxies.

So does this mean you're now claiming that Cuba was itself reducing Angola to a proxy (contradicting your earlier claim that the USSR was the prime mover here)?


If that warfare consists of a bunch of "great men" milling about in the jungles, with no proletarian vanguard, and who come to power as avowed non-communists as Castro did, yes.

Yes, if only Field had said the proper magic words of the appropriate international Marxist groups at the time: it would have been a "real revolution." Let's not pay attention to the fact that the July 26 movement was massively popular of course.


This whole admiration for Cuba comes out of the delusions held by many Trotskyists and liberals that Cuba is some sort of "proletarian revolution" untouched by so-called "Stalinism" (in reality Soviet revisionism) and that everything bad about it is a result of forced importations from the "Stalinist" USSR (e.g. Fly Pan Dulce ridiculously attributing Cuba's "prudish" attitudes to Soviet influence, since Stalin apparently invented machismo) and are excused away because they need a country to point to and say "look, here's socialism untainted by JOSEPH STALIN!" The logical result of this is apologia for Soviet revisionism and its Cuban variety.

Again I don't understand this attempt at force fitting the Cuban revolution into the appropriate tendency. It's what I like to call "ideological acrobatics". It largely ignores the fact that Cuba itself lead its own way to socialism, not a pre-fitted European directed model. For some folks, I guess this just doesn't make sense: and the idea that folks from the "Global South" were able to make their own path just doesn't fit the proper political line.

[hashem]

I pointed out various articles that show the extent that the working class itself influences the policy of the state in Cuba.

lying and justifying are truly simplest works. Saddam and Gaddafi also claimed that people want them.


those in the National Assembly (the highest decision making body in Cuba) do not get material privileges over ordinary workers, and actually mostly hold normal jobs and aren't paid for their services in government

Irans leader also pretends to be poor. in the meetings, he sits on ground not a chair. he receives no official salary that people are aware of. on the paper he is equal to a beggar. but in reality, no one has ever criticized him during his rule, although his rule has been catastrophic even from the ruling class point of view!


Iran is hardly comparable to Cuba

why not? both of them claim to be anti imperialists and anti capitalists. both of them have "National Assemblies" which representatives of people(!) "who are elected with much participation" amongst public "do not get material privileges over ordinary workers" in them. Cuban government doesnt care about the trade unionist, students and leftist activists who are in prison in Iran (not to mention those who are in mass graves), Irans government doesnt care about Cuban people either, but governments of both countries have good relationships with each other. when Ahmadinejad says that Marxism has failed (for example in his speech during the Non Aligned Movement meeting in Tehran) Cuban diplomats just ignore him. Iranian islamists ignore the name and slogans of "communist" party of Cuba too. both governments claim that they are representing working and poor people. in both countries internet is filtered and people are only allowed to see, hear and say what the government decides. Ahmadinejad claims that Iran is the freest country in the world. supporters of Cuban government also claim that their beloved leaders are elected and "can be recalled by a simple majority vote". people of both countries are migrating and sometimes escaping from their country. but most important of all: people of both countries have given up hopes about possibility of reforms and are struggling for a new revolution.

[KurtFF8]

lying and justifying are truly simplest works. Saddam and Gaddafi also claimed that people want them.

This has nothing to do with what we're talking about.




Irans leader also pretends to be poor. in the meetings, he sits on ground not a chair. he receives no official salary that people are aware of. on the paper he is equal to a beggar. but in reality, no one has ever criticized him during his rule, although his rule has been catastrophic even from the ruling class point of view!No question, and the Iranian leader doesn't deserve support. Fidel, on the other hand, has genuinely not enriched himself on the backs of the Cuban people. I believe it was Forbes that made the claim of his mass wealth, which was because they used the following logic: Cuba's economy is state run, Fidel is the head of state, so Fidel personally owns the economy.

They also made the claim of a private stash of money, of which he said if any evidence was offered that it existed that he would immediately resign. Needless to say no evidence was ever offered.




why not? both of them claim to be anti imperialists and anti capitalists. both of them have "National Assemblies" which representatives of people(!) "who are elected with much participation" amongst public "do not get material privileges over ordinary workers" in them. Cuban government doesnt care about the trade unionist, students and leftist activists who are in prison in Iran (not to mention those who are in mass graves), Irans government doesnt care about Cuban people either, but governments of both countries have good relationships with each other. when Ahmadinejad says that Marxism has failed (for example in his speech during the Non Aligned Movement meeting in Tehran) Cuban diplomats just ignore him. Iranian islamists ignore the name and slogans of "communist" party of Cuba too. both governments claim that they are representing working and poor people. in both countries internet is filtered and people are only allowed to see, hear and say what the government decides. Ahmadinejad claims that Iran is the freest country in the world. supporters of Cuban government also claim that their beloved leaders are elected and "can be recalled by a simple majority vote". people of both countries are migrating and sometimes escaping from their country. but most important of all: people of both countries have given up hopes about possibility of reforms and are struggling for a new revolution.Iran does not claim to be anti-capitalist, and Neo-liberal reforms have been promoted there just as many other countries. The "anti-imperialism" of Iran is qualitatively different than Cuba's (historically and presently).

This comparison makes no sense and relies on a sort of conspiracy theory-esque skepticism rather than any real analysis of the Cuban political system (of which you continue to demonstrate that you lack even the basic understanding of how it functions)

And in what sense have the Cuban people "given up hopes about possibility of reforms" and moved towards struggling for revolution? Can you actually substantiate this claim or is it yet another misunderstanding on your part?

[Ismail]

So does this mean you're now claiming that Cuba was itself reducing Angola to a proxy (contradicting your earlier claim that the USSR was the prime mover here)?I specifically noted that your comment about the USSR being "meaningfully" involved meant that it was using Angola as a pawn in US-Soviet inter-imperialist rivalry. The Cubans acted as mercenaries of Soviet social-imperialism in Angola, just as they did in Ethiopia.

Using your logic the South Africans were not acting as proxies for the US in Angola since, after all, they invaded without much concern for the US (though their involvement certainly served American imperialist interests despite the diplomatic embarrassment it caused) and involved themselves in Angola far more than the USA. That's the point of proxies. Sometimes they "step out of line" (Castro used a lot more "revolutionary" rhetoric than Khrushchev, for instance, thus irritating the latter) but it does not fundamentally alter relationships between countries.


Yes, if only Field had said the proper magic words of the appropriate international Marxist groups at the time: it would have been a "real revolution." Let's not pay attention to the fact that the July 26 movement was massively popular of course.It was popular in the same sense as any "heroic" movement of bourgeois liberals are throughout Latin American history. Castro emerged forthrightly calling both capitalism and communism "exploitative." He said his revolution was not red but green (the color of the rebel army.)

I'm pretty sure a significant precondition for an armed struggle being classified as Marxist is to actually have Marxists lead it and to describe itself as Marxist. That's not entirely sufficient, of course, but it helps.


Again I don't understand this attempt at force fitting the Cuban revolution into the appropriate tendency. It's what I like to call "ideological acrobatics". It largely ignores the fact that Cuba itself lead its own way to socialism, not a pre-fitted European directed model.It's always amusing that in the end "X country must forge its own path" is inevitably invoked, as if the criticism of Cuba consists in it creatively applying Marxism-Leninism rather than the reality that its "Marxism-Leninism" was of a bastard kind influenced by Latin American populism and Soviet revisionism, that Cuba was and is a state-capitalist country, and that its foreign policy is marked by a neo-colonial status.

But hey, here's a great example of Castro honoring (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/contemp/leftover/Castro1993Zemin.htm) a fellow "comrade" who also led his country on "its own way to socialism, not a pre-fitted European directed model":

China claims, and most rightfully, its right to build a socialism with Chinese peculiarities... China is resolutely opposed to any meddling whatsoever in its internal affairs or those of any other country. China considers itself -- and this honors us -- a Third World country, and is interested in the development of that Third World, as being an element essential to the progress, stability, and peace of the world of the future. These just aspirations have our full support. China is moving forward and making solid progress. This satisfies and encourages us all. It is a great honor, Comrade Jiang Zemin, to have the friendship of the Chinese people. Your visit, which will undoubtedly go down in history as an incomparable gesture of friendship and brotherhood, is a great honor. For this reason, and for your services and faithfulness to the cause of socialism -- a cause to which you devoted your life from a very early age, when the struggle against foreign occupation was still underway -- our people have wished, and our Council of State has decided, to present to you our revolutionary fatherland's highest decoration, the order that bears the beloved and immortal name of Jose Marti.

[KurtFF8]

I specifically noted that your comment about the USSR being "meaningfully" involved meant that it was using Angola as a pawn in US-Soviet inter-imperialist rivalry. The Cubans acted as mercenaries of Soviet social-imperialism in Angola, just as they did in Ethiopia.

This is a mischaracterization of history, however. The Cubans were involved in Angola prior to the Soviets and had actually convinced the Soviets to become involved. The idea that they were acting on the contrary (as agents of the Soviets trying to get a foothold in Angola) is just inaccurate. This is not a political point but rather a point of historical accuracy. Your political conclusions are based on a misunderstanding of what role Cuba and the USSR played in Angola respectively. (And I'm not going to bother opening the can of worms trying to understand what Soviet imperialism was)


Using your logic the South Africans were not acting as proxies for the US in Angola since, after all, they invaded without much concern for the US (though their involvement certainly served American imperialist interests despite the diplomatic embarrassment it caused) and involved themselves in Angola far more than the USA. That's the point of proxies. Sometimes they "step out of line" (Castro used a lot more "revolutionary" rhetoric than Khrushchev, for instance, thus irritating the latter) but it does not fundamentally alter relationships between countries.

This is just more American mentality Cold War logic. You assume that a player aligned with a camp was automatically acting as a proxy, when in the Cuban case: this structure didn't play out that way whatsoever.

And Cuban involvement in Angola almost did fundamentally alter the relationship between Cuba and the USSR, but the USSR decided to back it at the end of the day (rather than, as you claim, having used Cuba as a proxy).


It was popular in the same sense as any "heroic" movement of bourgeois liberals are throughout Latin American history. Castro emerged forthrightly calling both capitalism and communism "exploitative." He said his revolution was not red but green (the color of the rebel army.)

Not sure how this helps demonstrate anything about the structure of the Cuban economy, however.


I'm pretty sure a significant precondition for an armed struggle being classified as Marxist is to actually have Marxists lead it and to describe itself as Marxist. That's not entirely sufficient, of course, but it helps.

It's always amusing that in the end "X country must forge its own path" is inevitably invoked, as if the criticism of Cuba consists in it creatively applying Marxism-Leninism rather than the reality that its "Marxism-Leninism" was of a bastard kind influenced by Latin American populism and Soviet revisionism, that Cuba was and is a state-capitalist country, and that its foreign policy is marked by a neo-colonial status.

Most of this is just using the proper derogatory terms rather than engaging in any kind of analysis.


But hey, here's a great example of Castro honoring (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/contemp/leftover/Castro1993Zemin.htm) a fellow "comrade" who also led his country on "its own way to socialism, not a pre-fitted European directed model":

And once again, this says absolutely nothing about the history or nature of Cuban society.

[Ismail]

This is just more American mentality Cold War logic. You assume that a player aligned with a camp was automatically acting as a proxy, when in the Cuban case: this structure didn't play out that way whatsoever.So the Soviets, among other things, did not have Cuba act as their proxy in the "peace negotiations" in 1988 wherein they used Cuban troops in the country as a guarantor that their interests in it would be represented vis-à-vis South African troops and American interests?

Who financed and armed the Cuban army in Angola? Who gave it diplomatic cover throughout the 80's?


Not sure how this helps demonstrate anything about the structure of the Cuban economy, however.I've already given a link to a work discussing the Cuban state-capitalist economy.

All the way back in 2004 one knowledgeable RevLefter likewise noted the neo-colonial nature of the Cuban economy and Soviet social-imperialist exploitation of it: http://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-socia...x.html?t=27853 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-socialist-revisionisti-t27853/index.html?t=27853)


And once again, this says absolutely nothing about the history or nature of Cuban society.It certainly says much about Fidel Castro, the Cuban "Communists," and their "Marxism."

[KurtFF8]

So the Soviets, among other things, did not have Cuba act as their proxy in the "peace negotiations" in 1988 wherein they used Cuban troops in the country as a guarantor that their interests in it would be represented vis-à-vis South African troops and American interests?

Who financed and armed the Cuban army in Angola? Who gave it diplomatic cover throughout the 80's?

No where did I say the Soviets were absent in this process. But your narrative of Cuba acting as a proxy the whole time for the Soviets ignores the very natures of Cuba's initial push to get involved in the area, and Cuba's leading role in the conflict at crucial moments.

Cuba did not get involved in the conflict because the USSR was using it as a proxy to get a foothold there, but it was the contrary: Cuba pressured the USSR (via its own bold actions, and diplomacy) to get involved.


I've already given a link to a work discussing the Cuban state-capitalist economy.

And I've given links demonstrating the socialist nature of the Cuban economy: perhaps we've thus reached an impasse with our link providing.


All the way back in 2004 one knowledgeable RevLefter likewise noted the neo-colonial nature of the Cuban economy and Soviet social-imperialist exploitation of it: http://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-socialist-revisionisti-t27853/index.html?t=27853

And many other have written to the contrary since, like the links I provided previously.

[Ismail]

No where did I say the Soviets were absent in this process...

Cuba did not get involved in the conflict because the USSR was using it as a proxy to get a foothold there, but it was the contrary: Cuba pressured the USSR (via its own bold actions, and diplomacy) to get involved.Yet we cannot artificially separate the USSR and Cuba as if the two had nothing in common and were economically disconnected from each other. South Africa had much invested Western capital within its borders, was financed and backed by the West for this reason, and likewise engaged in "bold" moves in Angola, taking the initiative (e.g. invading Angola) while the Americans generally played an assisting role.

If you're going to argue that Cuba wasn't a proxy because it did things autonomously and had its own interests (not particularly "internationalist" interests either since, among other things, many of those Cubans sent to Angola were unemployed at home) then you might as well argue that South Africa wasn't a proxy of the Americans either, since both the USA under Reagan and UK under Thatcher refused to arm the South African-backed Renamo in Mozambique, and in fact supported the Soviet/Cuban-backed Frelimo government against it due to the latter's otherwise friendly relations with Western states.

[Let's Get Free]

Let's clear all this silliness up once and for all. Do Cuban workers work for a wage? Of course they do. Anyone with the faintest association with Marxism knows that wage-labor presupposes capital and vice versa. Hence there is capitalism. Do capitalists employ workers through capitalist enterprises? Again of course. Its not (in the main) private individuals capitalists that do this, it is the state acting as Engels put it as the "national capitalist" that does. Is there commodity production in Cuba? Of course. How the hell do you think Cuban workers get the things they need to live upon in Cuba today.? They don't appear out of thin air, they come in the form of commodities, things bought and sold on the market. Markets exist everywhere in Cuba.

You have wage labor, you have commodity production and market exchange, you have private ownership, you have a generalized monetary system what more do you need to conclude that Cuba is indeed just another capitalist state? I mean, unless you want to say "to hell with Marxian or materialist analysis" and just call Cuba socialist because of its socialist sounding rhetoric and alluring red flags.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Let's clear all this silliness up once and for all. Do Cuban workers work for a wage? Of course they do. Anyone with the faintest association with Marxism knows that wage-labor presupposes capital and vice versa.

Wrong, as comrade Q noted above. One can exist without the other, while the other needs the one.


Do capitalists employ workers through capitalist enterprises? Again of course. Its not (in the main) private individuals capitalists that do this, it is the state acting as Engels put it as the "national capitalist" that does.

Engels didn't say anything about a "national capitalist," but mentioned public ownership being the seeds of a solution.


You have wage labor, you have commodity production and market exchange, you have private ownership, you have a generalized monetary system what more do you need to conclude that Cuba is indeed just another capitalist state? I mean, unless you want to say "to hell with Marxian or materialist analysis" and just call Cuba socialist because of its socialist sounding rhetoric and alluring red flags.

Wage labour? Check.

Generalized commodity production where commodity production and a monetary system go hand in hand? Check.

Market exchange? Debatable, and like wage labour and capital, generalized commodity production and market exchange share a similar independence/dependence relationship.

Private ownership? No.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Engels didn't say anything about a "national capitalist," but mentioned public ownership being the seeds of a solution....

Except in Ch 3 of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, that is.

"But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution..."

[KurtFF8]

Let's clear all this silliness up once and for all. Do Cuban workers work for a wage? Of course they do. Anyone with the faintest association with Marxism knows that wage-labor presupposes capital and vice versa. Hence there is capitalism. Do capitalists employ workers through capitalist enterprises? Again of course. Its not (in the main) private individuals capitalists that do this, it is the state acting as Engels put it as the "national capitalist" that does. Is there commodity production in Cuba? Of course. How the hell do you think Cuban workers get the things they need to live upon in Cuba today.? They don't appear out of thin air, they come in the form of commodities, things bought and sold on the market. Markets exist everywhere in Cuba.

You have wage labor, you have commodity production and market exchange, you have private ownership, you have a generalized monetary system what more do you need to conclude that Cuba is indeed just another capitalist state? I mean, unless you want to say "to hell with Marxian or materialist analysis" and just call Cuba socialist because of its socialist sounding rhetoric and alluring red flags.

This is a very vulgar analysis of capitalist wage production and on top of that it really ignores the relationship that Cuban workers have to the state in the first place.


Anyone with the faintest association with Marxism knows that wage-labor presupposes capital and vice versa. Hence there is capitalism.

It's sad that while trying to condescend to others about the definition of capitalist from a Marxist point of view, you really miss the mark.

To answer you questions that you had for yourself:

Do Cuban workers work for a wage? Yes, as did workers in literally every country that has described itself as socialist. Although I would assume you think that they were all "state capitalist"

Do capitalists employ workers through capitalist enterprises? This is not a general trend in the Cuban economy: no.

Is there commodity production in Cuba? Indeed, but how capitalism follows from this is beyond me.

what more do you need to conclude that Cuba is indeed just another capitalist state?

Quite a lot, actually. You have failed to examine who owns the means of production, the logic of production in Cuba, the relationship between the workers and the state, and you have yet to demonstrate how your otherwise provocative questions actually lead to your conclusion.

It seems that your entire argument rests on the fact that there are wages in Cuba, which is quite a weak point that ignores the fact that Marx had a hell of a lot more to say when trying to answer the question of what capitalism is.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

]

Do Cuban workers work for a wage? Yes, as did workers in literally every country that has described itself as socialist. Although I would assume you think that they were all "state capitalist"

So because a country with wage-labour calls itself Socialist, we are now forced by this to change our definition of Socialism? C'mon, you cannot possibly say that wage-labour and Socialism can possibly exist together.


Do capitalists employ workers through capitalist enterprises? This is not a general trend in the Cuban economy: no.

But self-employment is rife and small businesses operate and can make profit. How can Socialism and profit co-exist?


Is there commodity production in Cuba? Indeed, but how capitalism follows from this is beyond me.

Really? You seem to have a basic non-understanding of Marxism, then. Commodity production is the defining feature of Capitalism, when it is in the form it is in, in Cuba: with money, profit and wage-labour. Capitalism's raison d'etre is to produce goods as commodities in this form, via the exploitation of labour, in the form M-C-M in particular, in order to produce a surplus that can be accumulated, which guarantees the bourgeoisie political hegemony.

Seriously, this is a huge ignorance on your part, to not understand that commodity production in this form is utterly unique to the capitalist mode of production.

How can a country with profit, commodity production and wage-labour possibly be Socialist? It's really either dis-honest or ignorant to suggest that these things can co-exist with a system defined as Socialist.

[KurtFF8]

So because a country with wage-labour calls itself Socialist, we are now forced by this to change our definition of Socialism? C'mon, you cannot possibly say that wage-labour and Socialism can possibly exist together.

Considering socialism is seen by most Marxists (and more particularly, Leninists) are a transitional stage, it's quite easy to see. Capitalism is not defined simply by the existence of wage labor, as was pointed out by most Marxist economists in the 20th century. This was never Marx's argument, but is instead a simplification that some subsequent critics of places like the USSR have made in order to make political attacks on the way in which the Marxist movements took shape once they achieved power.




But self-employment is rife and small businesses operate and can make profit. How can Socialism and profit co-exist?

Well there are a few problems with this sentence. Firstly, self-employment is not the predominant economic activity in Cuba. Secondly, self-employment is more artisanal than an over all mode of commodity production. So if self-employment does continue to grow in importance in Cuba, it does not necessarily signal a return of capitalism.

And perhaps even more importantly than the above: different forms of production have always co-existed. What was important for Marx, and subsequent Marxists to examine was the dominant mode of production in a given place. Not all production in capitalist states is of the traditional wage labor relationship: you have state owned industries, employee owned non-profits, etc. That of course ignores the fact that the capitalist class is the ruling class that uses the state, and its economic power to direct the countries in question (politically, economically, culturally, etc).

Locating such a capitalist class in Cuba that has this sort of political expression has been a challenge for people claiming it isn't socialist, and I've yet to see a convincing argument that such a class even exists, let alone expresses this sort of political or economic power.



Really? You seem to have a basic non-understanding of Marxism, then. Commodity production is the defining feature of Capitalism, when it is in the form it is in, in Cuba: with money, profit and wage-labour. Capitalism's raison d'etre is to produce goods as commodities in this form, via the exploitation of labour, in the form M-C-M in particular, in order to produce a surplus that can be accumulated, which guarantees the bourgeoisie political hegemony.

Seriously, this is a huge ignorance on your part, to not understand that commodity production in this form is utterly unique to the capitalist mode of production.

How can a country with profit, commodity production and wage-labour possibly be Socialist? It's really either dis-honest or ignorant to suggest that these things can co-exist with a system defined as Socialist.

Yet you have failed to demonstrate how the commodity production of a place like Cuba has taken on a capitalist relationship. Virtually none of the conditions of capitalist production that Marx talked about presently exist in Cuba other than the fact that workers are paid a wage. Being paid a waged and being in an exploitative wage relationship to a capitalist industry are different things.

Having a state that carries out a central plan (in a large part from the direction of trade unions, for example) contradicts the very logic of capitalist production. Yet this "small inconvenience" is largely ignored by folks who want to claim Cuba is capitalist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Except in Ch 3 of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, that is.

"But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution..."

That last sentence is the very reason why permanent capitalist nationalizations cannot be negative, and history has proven this time and again: http://www.revleft.com/vb/permanent-capitalist-nationalizations-t161200/index.html

[That's why I'm for something like an ECB monopoly over all financial services in the EU, replacing all nation-based public and private financial institutions.]

[Let's Get Free]

Considering socialism is seen by most Marxists (and more particularly, Leninists) are a transitional stage, it's quite easy to see. Capitalism is not defined simply by the existence of wage labor, as was pointed out by most Marxist economists in the 20th century. This was never Marx's argument, but is instead a simplification that some subsequent critics of places like the USSR have made in order to make political attacks on the way in which the Marxist movements took shape once they achieved power.

Historically, socialism at least in the Marxian tradition was more or less a synonym of communism. It was Lenin among others who departed radically from this tradition by identifying socialism as the "lower phase of communism" at one point and then confusingly calling it "state capitalism" run in the interests of the workers, at another. And for Marx, wage labor was pretty much the linchpin of capitalist exploitation. Where there is wage-labor, you have capitalism. This is why Marx argued in Value Price and Profit that instead of the conservative motto of a fair days wage for a fair days work workers should inscribe on their banner the revolutionary slogan "abolition of the wages system"




Well there are a few problems with this sentence. Firstly, self-employment is not the predominant economic activity in Cuba. Secondly, self-employment is more artisanal than an over all mode of commodity production. So if self-employment does continue to grow in importance in Cuba, it does not necessarily signal a return of capitalism.



And perhaps even more importantly than the above: different forms of production have always co-existed. What was important for Marx, and subsequent Marxists to examine was the dominant mode of production in a given place. Not all production in capitalist states is of the traditional wage labor relationship: you have state owned industries, employee owned non-profits, etc. That of course ignores the fact that the capitalist class is the ruling class that uses the state, and its economic power to direct the countries in question (politically, economically, culturally, etc).

Locating such a capitalist class in Cuba that has this sort of political expression has been a challenge for people claiming it isn't socialist, and I've yet to see a convincing argument that such a class even exists, let alone expresses this sort of political or economic power.




Yet you have failed to demonstrate how the commodity production of a place like Cuba has taken on a capitalist relationship. Virtually none of the conditions of capitalist production that Marx talked about presently exist in Cuba other than the fact that workers are paid a wage. Being paid a waged and being in an exploitative wage relationship to a capitalist industry are different things.

Having a state that carries out a central plan (in a large part from the direction of trade unions, for example) contradicts the very logic of capitalist production. Yet this "small inconvenience" is largely ignored by folks who want to claim Cuba is capitalist.


Capitalism is based on class ownership of the means of production and the separation of the producers or the exploited class from these means. This can take various forms including state capitalism where a tiny state capitalist class collectively own the means of production through their de facto control of the state. In medieval Europe the Catholic Church owned vast tracts of lands and indeed other means of production. No individual clergyman had legal to title to this land as an individual. Its the same with state capitalist regimes like Cuba and Russia. The state replaced private entrepreneurs in developing Western-style capitalism and industrialism. It hires wage labor, supervises investment, commodities are produced and exchanged for currency, etc. It’s the manner in which formerly agricultural nations, from China to Russia, were able to build a modern economy and infrastructure.

Here is a relevant quote from Engels

"But the transformation into state-ownership does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine—the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers—proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head."

Engels is saying quite clearly that as long as workers remain wage workers the capitalist relation is not done away with the clear implication that even under complete state ownership and "planning" (every capitalist economy involves extensive plnning, by the way)as long as the wages system remains intact, capitalism will remain. This is clear as daylight.

However, Cuba is undergoing reforms that will most certainly restore "traditional capitalism" back to the island. Their decrepit old command economy is no longer viable in an increasingly globalized and competitive global capitalist market.

[KurtFF8]

Historically, socialism at least in the Marxian tradition was more or less a synonym of communism. It was Lenin among others who departed radically from this tradition by identifying socialism as the "lower phase of communism" at one point and then confusingly calling it "state capitalism" run in the interests of the workers, at another. And for Marx, wage labor was pretty much the linchpin of capitalist exploitation. Where there is wage-labor, you have capitalism. This is why Marx argued in Value Price and Profit that instead of the conservative motto of a fair days wage for a fair days work workers should inscribe on their banner the revolutionary slogan "abolition of the wages system"

Again, you are erroneously pointing to the mere existence of wages with the capitalist mode of production. This is not what Marx's argument boils down to, which itself involves much more (such as the competition or monopoly between industries, a specific logic of expansion, a specific method of accumulation, etc.) which you, and other "state capitalist theory" folks seem to be unable to identify in Cuba.

This is something that Cliff (one of the main proponents of state-capitalism) had quite a difficult time with actually (trying to demonstrate industrial competition in the USSR)






Capitalism is based on class ownership of the means of production and the separation of the producers or the exploited class from these means. This can take various forms including state capitalism where a tiny state capitalist class collectively own the means of production through their de facto control of the state. In medieval Europe the Catholic Church owned vast tracts of lands and indeed other means of production. No individual clergyman had legal to title to this land as an individual. Its the same with state capitalist regimes like Cuba and Russia. The state replaced private entrepreneurs in developing Western-style capitalism and industrialism. It hires wage labor, supervises investment, commodities are produced and exchanged for currency, etc. It’s the manner in which formerly agricultural nations, from China to Russia, were able to build a modern economy and infrastructure

This sort of begging-the-question paragraph doesn't really make much sense in terms of a Marxist analysis. To boil it down quite simply: there doesn't exist a Cuban bourgeoisie. The idea that there can be a capitalist system in which no bourgeoisie exists doesn't mesh all that well with Karl Marx's analysis of capitalism (of which you seem to want to appeal to the most).

The Engels quote you're referring to doesn't have to do with a situation like Cuba or the USSR where an explicitly Marxist ruling party came to power to represent the interests of the working class. I'm not sure he was talking about a post-revolutionary situation like what we saw in either Cuba or the USSR, but rather with folks trying to theorize revolutions that had not yet happened. If you can produce an alternative interpretation of this quote, I would be interested to see it, however.

[Let's Get Free]

Again, you are erroneously pointing to the mere existence of wages with the capitalist mode of production. This is not what Marx's argument boils down to, which itself involves much more (such as the competition or monopoly between industries, a specific logic of expansion, a specific method of accumulation, etc.) which you, and other "state capitalist theory" folks seem to be unable to identify in Cuba.

This is something that Cliff (one of the main proponents of state-capitalism) had quite a difficult time with actually (trying to demonstrate industrial competition in the USSR)


Marx pointed out again and again that wage labor and capital presuppose and condition each other. Generalized wage labor therefore necessarily denotes the existence of capitalism.
If you truly had a situation where you had full, 100% control by workers at the point of production over the whole productive process then I cannot see how you could continue to have wage labor. Wage labor denotes the separation of the producer from the means of production. A wage is the price that the worker gets upon selling their labor power to an employer. It implies the existence of employers and employees - or capitalists and workers, in other words

In Cuba, you have a generalized monetary system , you have profits, you have wages, you have capital accumulation - all characteristics pertaining to capitalism. Labor power is bought and sold. Consumer goods are bought and sold. Means of production are bought and sold between state enterprises. What more is needed to convince you that the Cuba is a fully capitalist market system?

Also, it's worth mentioning that Lenin himself was one of the first people to describe Russia as state capitalist.







This sort of begging-the-question paragraph doesn't really make much sense in terms of a Marxist analysis. To boil it down quite simply: there doesn't exist a Cuban bourgeoisie. The idea that there can be a capitalist system in which no bourgeoisie exists doesn't mesh all that well with Karl Marx's analysis of capitalism (of which you seem to want to appeal to the most).

The Engels quote you're referring to doesn't have to do with a situation like Cuba or the USSR where an explicitly Marxist ruling party came to power to represent the interests of the working class. I'm not sure he was talking about a post-revolutionary situation like what we saw in either Cuba or the USSR, but rather with folks trying to theorize revolutions that had not yet happened. If you can produce an alternative interpretation of this quote, I would be interested to see it, however.

Who cares if the ruling party calls itself "Marxist?" Since when did alleged intentions matter? What matters is what actually holds on the ground.

and as for there being no bourgeois in Cuba, how ridiculous! Of course there is. The Cuban bourgeois are that class that have effectively monopolized the means of production via their stranglehold on the state. The Red Fat Cats in the Cuba have absolute control over the disposal of the economic surplus just like their counterparts in the US only the basis of their control is somewhat different.

What we see happening in Cuba is not a socialist revolution, but Batista's place in power simply being taken by Castro. Except that, in order to consolidate his hegemony and to cling to power, Castro availed of an ideological disguise, Marxist “revolution”, representing this as synonymous with himself and vice versa. He was not the first to employ that stratagem. Stalin, Mao and many of the leaders of the decolonization struggles in Asia and Africa before him had done so in order to seize power and to cling to it. Thus, as in many of those instances, in Cuba it meant state capitalism. That is, the workers' objective is to obey and work. And the power and the privileges being reserved for the bureaucrats, the new nomenklatura. Which is why none of the aforesaid “experiments” did away with wage slavery, repressive agencies, the army, etc. On the contrary: a system of police surveillance and a single party, single trade union, single press, etc, arrangement was imposed in order to keep the populace under control and stop it thinking for itself.

In reference to the Engels quote, he is very clearly saying that the state is inherently a capitalist machine. Even more clearly he says that the more the state takes over the the productive forces the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The form in which capitalist ownership of the productive forces - whether by legal de jure ownership of capital by private individuals or whether by the state being the national capitalist, pretty much functioning as one big corporation - is not relevant in Engels' view to the existence of capitalism which is clearly demonstrable by the existence of generalized wage labor.

[KurtFF8]

Marx pointed out again and again that wage labor and capital presuppose and condition each other. Generalized wage labor therefore necessarily denotes the existence of capitalism.
If you truly had a situation where you had full, 100% control by workers at the point of production over the whole productive process then I cannot see how you could continue to have wage labor. Wage labor denotes the separation of the producer from the means of production. A wage is the price that the worker gets upon selling their labor power to an employer. It implies the existence of employers and employees - or capitalists and workers, in other words

In Cuba, you have a generalized monetary system , you have profits, you have wages, you have capital accumulation - all characteristics pertaining to capitalism. Labor power is bought and sold. Consumer goods are bought and sold. Means of production are bought and sold between state enterprises. What more is needed to convince you that the Cuba is a fully capitalist market system?

Also, it's worth mentioning that Lenin himself was one of the first people to describe Russia as state capitalist.

But you seem to be having a hard time demonstrating the capitalist character of the employer in this case. The political and economic relationship between the worker and the employer presents a serious challenge to the idea that it is operating under capitalist logic. The way wages have been set nationally, the way production has been coordinated, etc. have all been done by a state that is itself an expression of workers power (see the posts above)








Who cares if the ruling party calls itself "Marxist?" Since when did alleged intentions matter? What matters is what actually holds on the ground.

I didn't point to that fact because of a mere label being used, but rather with the political and economic goals that these organizations have as ruling parties. That quite clearly separates them from all bourgeois governments


and as for there being no bourgeois in Cuba, how ridiculous! Of course there is. The Cuban bourgeois are that class that have effectively monopolized the means of production via their stranglehold on the state. The Red Fat Cats in the Cuba have absolute control over the disposal of the economic surplus just like their counterparts in the US only the basis of their control is somewhat different.

This is just weak. You seem to be arguing that the bourgeoisie exists because means of production exist. Yet who owns the means of production in Cuba? Can you actually demonstrate to me a class of people who own the means of production that are separate from the working class in Cuba? Government officials do not own them, the National Assembly does not own them, so who does?


What we see happening in Cuba is not a socialist revolution, but Batista's place in power simply being taken by Castro. Except that, in order to consolidate his hegemony and to cling to power, Castro availed of an ideological disguise, Marxist “revolution”, representing this as synonymous with himself and vice versa. He was not the first to employ that stratagem. Stalin, Mao and many of the leaders of the decolonization struggles in Asia and Africa before him had done so in order to seize power and to cling to it. Thus, as in many of those instances, in Cuba it meant state capitalism. That is, the workers' objective is to obey and work. And the power and the privileges being reserved for the bureaucrats, the new nomenklatura. Which is why none of the aforesaid “experiments” did away with wage slavery, repressive agencies, the army, etc. On the contrary: a system of police surveillance and a single party, single trade union, single press, etc, arrangement was imposed in order to keep the populace under control and stop it thinking for itself.

In reference to the Engels quote, he is very clearly saying that the state is inherently a capitalist machine. Even more clearly he says that the more the state takes over the the productive forces the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The form in which capitalist ownership of the productive forces - whether by legal de jure ownership of capital by private individuals or whether by the state being the national capitalist, pretty much functioning as one big corporation - is not relevant in Engels' view to the existence of capitalism which is clearly demonstrable by the existence of generalized wage labor.

I don't think that Engels was eternalizing the nature of the state as much as you claim. There were states before capitalism of course, and states can take on different class characteristics depending on the social forces behind them.

But we're just talking in circles at this point in all honesty. I'm just not too convinced that you can demonstrate that the logic of capital is the predominant mode of production in Cuba, or even come close to showing how a Cuban bourgeoisie even exists in Cuba.

[Let's Get Free]

But you seem to be having a hard time demonstrating the capitalist character of the employer in this case. The political and economic relationship between the worker and the employer presents a serious challenge to the idea that it is operating under capitalist logic. The way wages have been set nationally, the way production has been coordinated, etc. have all been done by a state that is itself an expression of workers power (see the posts above)

The entire social relationship of an employer hiring employees is a capitalist one. But I tell you what, whenever you get the chance, go lay your hands on a copy of Wage Labor and Capital and read the whole thing in context. Then come back and tell me - if you can - that Marx is not saying that generalized wage labor signifies the existence of capital and hence capitalism.


I didn't point to that fact because of a mere label being used, but rather with the political and economic goals that these organizations have as ruling parties. That quite clearly separates them from all bourgeois governments

The imperatives of the Cuban capitalist class and those of other nations are one and the same. The economy is run a bureaucracy that internally has taken upon a bourgeois class character. You have money, wage, capital, exchange-oriented production, what else do you need? The ruling class in Cuba, like that of any other capitalist nation, has placed its imperatives above those of the working class. The fact that the working class still exists as a class is proof enough that it can no way, in no abstract universe, be characterized as socialist.



This is just weak. You seem to be arguing that the bourgeoisie exists because means of production exist. Yet who owns the means of production in Cuba? Can you actually demonstrate to me a class of people who own the means of production that are separate from the working class in Cuba? Government officials do not own them, the National Assembly does not own them, so who does?

In a society where the state owns the means of production, we must ask, who owns the state? The workers certainly do not own it. The top levels of the bureaucracy owns the state, and therefore constitute a new bourgeois. The Cuban state hires wage labor, supervises investment, commodities are produced and exchanged for currency, etc, all tasks pertaining to a capitalist class. The so called “revolutionary state” has simply stepped in the shoes vacated by the old bourgeois.

Yours in an idealist outlook in analyzing the Cuban social structure and concluding there are "no bourgeois" there since individuals are not permitted to legally own private capital in their own right (there is of course a substantial black economy in Cuba)
The fact is that all the major economic decisions in Cuba are made by a tiny group who decide among themselves on the distribution of state revenue, the allocation of investment and the priorities of production. If that does not constitute a distinct bourgeois class then I do not know what does!



I don't think that Engels was eternalizing the nature of the state as much as you claim. There were states before capitalism of course, and states can take on different class characteristics depending on the social forces behind them.

"The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital". He is saying that any state in the modern era is ipso facto a capitalist state. It cannot be anything else. The logic of Engels' whole argument supports this interpretation. The state is an instrument of class rule. The existence of a state therefore necessarily points to the existence of a class society. Since capitalism is the last form of class society in existence, the modern state must therefore necessarily be a capitalist state.

[KurtFF8]

Instead of the line by line response, I just want to focus on one thing (I'm also quite tired at the moment).

Im just wondering how this follows:


. The top levels of the bureaucracy owns the state, and therefore constitute a new bourgeoisThem being bureaucrats does not imply that they own the means of production. They may make administrative decisions and management decisions, but the logic of "the state owns the MoP, bureaucrats help run the state, therefore bureaucrats are the bourgeoisie" just doesn't make any sense, especially from a Marxist perspective. The President of the United States (and his administration, or Congress, or the Supreme Court) do not own the Postal Service for example.

But I digress: I don't see this conversation moving anywhere productive and instead I feel that it will continue to be circular.

[Blake's Baby]

OK, to cut through this - can you demonstrate that the working class owns the means of production? can a worker go and smash a machine with impunity (as a capitalist could)? Can a worker decide that he's going to take home the widgets that he made at 'his' machine or the dingleberries he grew on 'his' field for his own use or to give away as he saw fit (as a capitalist could)?

Without those opportunities it's difficult to see how the working class 'owns' the MoP in Cuba. If not the working class, then who...?

[Hiero]

OK, to cut through this - can you demonstrate that the working class owns the means of production? can a worker go and smash a machine with impunity (as a capitalist could)? Can a worker decide that he's going to take home the widgets that he made at 'his' machine or the dingleberries he grew on 'his' field for his own use or to give away as he saw fit (as a capitalist could)?

Without those opportunities it's difficult to see how the working class 'owns' the MoP in Cuba. If not the working class, then who...?

That is not a very good test. What socialist society would ever allow an individual to destroy what is collectively owned? Socialism isn't about making everyone a capitalist so they can do what they please. Also if a capitalist did that, they would be sued by their stock holders or partners. Also if a bureaucrat did that in Cuba, even if all the bureaucrats did that, they would be imprisoned by the army. Also, you can't own a state.

So... what the fuck are you smoking?

[Blake's Baby]

That is not a very good test. What socialist society would ever allow an individual to destroy what is collectively owned? Socialism isn't about making everyone a capitalist so they can do what they please. Also if a capitalist did that, they would be sued by their stock holders or partners. Also if a bureaucrat did that in Cuba, even if all the bureaucrats did that, they would be imprisoned by the army. Also, you can't own a state.

So... what the fuck are you smoking?

If as I think is the case KurtFFFF is trying to claim that workers 'own' the MoP in Cuba and therefore Cuba isn't capitalist, I want to know if workers can smash the MoP or take the products of the MoP, just as capitalists can. If they can't, they don't 'own' them.

The bureaucrats could decide to trash machines, or to re-distribute production without reference to the workers. They have ownership rights (usus, abusus, fructus) - they decide who gets to use the machines, at what point (and by whom) the mchines are scrapped or alienated, and what happens to the products. This is what 'ownership' means.

I didn't mention the state.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If as I think is the case KurtFFFF is trying to claim that workers 'own' the MoP in Cuba and therefore Cuba isn't capitalist, I want to know if workers can smash the MoP or take the products of the MoP, just as capitalists can. If they can't, they don't 'own' them.

The bureaucrats could decide to trash machines, or to re-distribute production without reference to the workers. They have ownership rights (usus, abusus, fructus) - they decide who gets to use the machines, at what point (and by whom) the mchines are scrapped or alienated, and what happens to the products. This is what 'ownership' means.

I didn't mention the state.

The bourgeoisie own the means of production as individuals - the proletariat owns the means of production as a class. Therefore, individual workers or groups of workers do not have the right to dispose of the means of production as they like - only the entire proletarian society does.

[Blake's Baby]

And how does this 'proletarian society' manage the MoP and its products?

Is it through the state?

[KurtFF8]

OK, to cut through this - can you demonstrate that the working class owns the means of production? can a worker go and smash a machine with impunity (as a capitalist could)? Can a worker decide that he's going to take home the widgets that he made at 'his' machine or the dingleberries he grew on 'his' field for his own use or to give away as he saw fit (as a capitalist could)?

Without those opportunities it's difficult to see how the working class 'owns' the MoP in Cuba. If not the working class, then who...?

This test, as was pointed out above, doesn't really make sense. Individual workers don't own the entire means of production but rather they are held in common. Of course a single worker couldn't do this, and even in an anarchist commune I would imagine workers would be disallowed to do this as well.


If as I think is the case KurtFFFF is trying to claim that workers 'own' the MoP in Cuba and therefore Cuba isn't capitalist, I want to know if workers can smash the MoP or take the products of the MoP, just as capitalists can. If they can't, they don't 'own' them.Again, this just doesn't make any sense


The bureaucrats could decide to trash machines, or to re-distribute production without reference to the workers. They have ownership rights (usus, abusus, fructus) - they decide who gets to use the machines, at what point (and by whom) the mchines are scrapped or alienated, and what happens to the products. This is what 'ownership' means.

I didn't mention the state.

This is actually false. Bureaucrats cannot arbitraily decide to "trash machines" or redistribute production without reference to the workers. The recent economic reforms, for example, were decided upon with mass input and consent by working class organizations (something that wouldn't happen in a place like the United States).

And you must have missed the various articles I posted in the previous page demonstrating the influence that the working class has over the state. Again the Monthly Review put it well (http://monthlyreview.org/2010/04/01/how-to-visit-a-socialist-country) in my opinion:


If we do not see workers picketing the National Assembly, it is for the same reason that we do not see bankers or CEO’s picketing Congress or sitting in at the White House: it is theirs already, and even if they are dissatisfied with particular decisions, they know they share a common interest.

[ElCubano]

During his speech to Parliament, Raul Castro scoffed at any idea that the country would soon abandon socialism and embrace profound economic changes. "I was not chosen to be president to restore capitalism to Cuba," he emphasized. "I was elected to defend, maintain and continue to perfect socialism and not to destroy it."

Who ever takes over Cuba should follow the Castro legacy

[Blake's Baby]

Oh, good, I completely believe everything politicians say. Only a couple of days ago, President Obama was saying he'd work hard for freedom and security. That's nice, isn't it?