Is Cuba a dotp?

[Fourth Internationalist]

So I've been reading a bit about Cuba, including its constitution, and I really like what it says (mostly). Some socialists, though, don't believe it is a dotp, however, others do. Why or why not? (Depending on your position). Is Cuba a good example of what we want? Is it worth defending in debates? Also, do you think there is anything Cuba should have done/be doing differently? Thanks!

[TheRedAnarchist23]

No, it is not a dictatorship of the communist party like it was in the USSR, it is a bit more open than that.

[Brutus]

It has lots of socialist policies, but is not socialist itself. It is now on the road to capitalist restoration.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

So I've been reading a bit about Cuba, including its constitution, and I really like what it says (mostly). Some socialists, though, don't believe it is a dotp, however, others do. Why or why not? (Depending on your position). Is Cuba a good example of what we want? Is it worth defending in debates? Also, do you think there is anything Cuba should have done/be doing differently? Thanks!

Cuba does not have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Cuba has a 1960 SU-type dictatorship of the Managerial classes in the name of "the Proletariat". That is not to say though that it is not a country run in the interests of its workers.

[Red Enemy]

Cuba is a capitalist dictatorship. Was not a proletarian or socialist revolution.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think the various theories about "state capitalism" (in the sense in which Cliff uses the term) and "new classes" in centrist states are empirically unfounded; the role of the bureaucratic stratum in the economy does not justify the notion that this stratum has become a separate class. Even so, and noting that due to the collectivisation efforts Cuba is a workers' state, it seems to be a workers' state with a sever bureaucratic deformation. As far as I know (and I would like to be corrected on this if I am mistaken), the proletariat has no more opportunities for political expression than it has in, say, bourgeois "democracies", and the bureaucratic stratum seems to dictate much of the national policies.

So, no, I do not think that there exists a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Cuba. This does not mean, however, that Cuba is not a workers' state, that it should not be defended against imperialist predation and capitalist roaders (who, sadly, seem to be gaining popularity), or that Cuban policy is reactionary (though certain unfortunate, reactionary mistakes of the past should be admitted).

To someone in Latin America, Cuba is not at all a bad place to live - it might not be a bad place to live to the poor in imperialist countries either. But Leninists should aspire to more.

[Red Rebel]

I'd strongly suggest reading J P Morray's The Second Revolution in Cuba. He talks about how a multi class/tendancy armed struggle against a dictator resulted in the working class obtaining state control in the years after the armed struggle.

[KurtFF8]

As I just argued in this post http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2584576&postcount=41 I would classify Cuba as a socialist state for various reasons.

I suggested there (in case you don't make it to that post) what I see as some good articles on the matter
http://monthlyreview.org/2010/04/01/how-to-visit-a-socialist-country
http://nlg-laboremploy-comm.org/media/ProjIntl_Cuba_2009Report.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2633828?uid=3739832&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101708312873

[Willin']

It has lots of socialist policies, but is not socialist itself. It is now on the road to capitalist restoration.

what do you expect, every single country that is "socialistic" can not survive because of the imperialists who make a market blockade.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Considering that the proletariat has never held power in Cuba (or in the other so-called "deformed workers' states, for that matter), I would find it difficult to classify them as a worker's state at all, much less a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Nationalization of property and welfare are not inherently socialist. And despite the fact that Castroism doubtless survived by leaning on the working class for support, this does not hide the petty-bourgeois class character of the Cuban state. To this day, no independent worker organizations are permitted in Cuba. The individual trade unions that exist are required to become a part of the Cuban Workers' Confederation (CTC), which itself falls under the strict control of the Cuban state. One mark of this, among others, is that workers do not possess a legal right to strike. The right to assembly is in general severely restricted, and any attempt to do so outside of the CTC may entail harassment, violence, and/or imprisonment.

So no, I don't think that it's possible to interpret Cuba as a proletarian dictatorship.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I think the various theories about "state capitalism" (in the sense in which Cliff uses the term) and "new classes" in centrist states are empirically unfounded; the role of the bureaucratic stratum in the economy does not justify the notion that this stratum has become a separate class. Even so, and noting that due to the collectivisation efforts Cuba is a workers' state, it seems to be a workers' state with a sever bureaucratic deformation. As far as I know (and I would like to be corrected on this if I am mistaken), the proletariat has no more opportunities for political expression than it has in, say, bourgeois "democracies", and the bureaucratic stratum seems to dictate much of the national policies.

So, no, I do not think that there exists a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Cuba. This does not mean, however, that Cuba is not a workers' state, that it should not be defended against imperialist predation and capitalist roaders (who, sadly, seem to be gaining popularity), or that Cuban policy is reactionary (though certain unfortunate, reactionary mistakes of the past should be admitted).

To someone in Latin America, Cuba is not at all a bad place to live - it might not be a bad place to live to the poor in imperialist countries either. But Leninists should aspire to more.

Comrade, I think the logic of your arguments, with which I agree, is that Cuba is a dotp. If the bureaucrats are not a class, then which class rules. Before comrades have a stroke, I'm not suggesting that workers have direct political rule their. The property forms established after the Cuban revolution are those of the dotp. Planned, collectivized economy. To me that means:
Cuba must be defended against attack by any imperialist or even junior capitalist country.

The nature of the Cuban bureaucracy is contradictory. On the one hand, its power rest on these property forms so it is forced to defend them. On the other hand, they are not Marxist in outlook and while they have done some laudable things (e.g., sending troops to Angola during the civil war), they are primarily nationalists and do not fight to spread revolution. They give political support to bourgeois nationalists, like Chavez. Any left wing opposition to the government has historically been crushed.

I completely agree that if I had to be living off of a median income in Latin America, I would prefer to live in Cuba over the other countries.

[Leftsolidarity]

It has lots of socialist policies, but is not socialist itself. It is now on the road to capitalist restoration.

If its "on the road to capitalist restoration" that would mean that it's not currently capitalist wouldn't it?

I believe that it is a socialist country.

[vanukar]

I believe that it is a socialist country.

"Believe" being the key word here.

[Leftsolidarity]

"Believe" being the key word here.

Your contribution right now? Nothing but pointless semantics so piss off. The OP was asking people's opinions about if Cuba is a DotP and I gave my opinion, worded as my opinion.

[vanukar]

Your contribution right now? Nothing but pointless semantics so piss off. The OP was asking people's opinions about if Cuba is a DotP and I gave my opinion, worded as my opinion.

Cool. Maybe you should explain your reasoning rather than whining.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I'm not sure there is much point in debating the fineries of whether Cuba qualifies as a DOTP. It is unlikely we would be much more enlightened, whichever way we decided. For such a tiny country, never highly industrialized, I don't see how it would really matter at all in terms of understanding the prospects of global socialist revolution. It was, of course, a project doomed from the very start.

The interesting question is: "is it worth defending?" Considering that much of the discourse on Cuba comes from the radical right, from Republicans, who demonise it as some kind of dystopian hell-on-earth, then our answer must surely be "yes". This would be the case even if we weren't socialists, since all those with even the most basic concern for truth and objectivity would find themselves defending the nation against the lies and distortion that forms "popular opinion" on Cuba.

That doesn't mean we can't be critical of its failures, of which there are many. But we have to recognise the successes too. We should be objective at all times.

To me, shouting down Cuba for not being communist is an entirely irrelevant criticism, missing the point entirely (communism is a new world system that comes after capitalism, so of course it isn't). This tendency seems to have more to do with left communists trying desperately to retain their sense of ideological purity and moral superiority, in the face of real-existing-Marxism's collapse

[Engels]

The interesting question is: "is it worth defending?" Considering that much of the discourse on Cuba comes from the radical right, from Republicans, who demonise it as some kind of dystopian hell-on-earth, then our answer must surely be "yes". This would be the case even if we weren't socialists, since all those with even the most basic concern for truth and objectivity would find themselves defending the nation against the lies and distortion that forms "popular opinion" on Cuba.

And here you've revealed the core of the bullshit that is leftist ‘anti’-imperialism.



To me, shouting down Cuba for not being communist is an entirely irrelevant criticism, missing the point entirely (communism is a new world system that comes after capitalism, so of course it isn't). This tendency seems to have more to do with left communists trying desperately to retain their sense of ideological purity and moral superiority, in the face of real-existing-Marxism's collapse

You’re absolutely right; it’s just another state to be abolished. But if kissing the ass of every state that waves a red flag is your thing, then by all means, go ahead – provide your ‘critical support’ or whatever.

[Lord Hargreaves]

And here you've revealed the core of the bullshit that is leftist ‘anti’-imperialism.

I would defend Cuba for all the same reasons other socialists would - for its high (relatively) standards of living, healthcare, its relatively advanced green technologies, the advantages of the socialised economy, the unions, etc.

And yes, I'm a leftist anti-imperialist. I don't see what the problem with that is. Cuba has a right to govern itself in its own interests without the colonial oppression of the USA. You don't think that?



You’re absolutely right; it’s just another state to be abolished. But if kissing the ass of every state that waves a red flag is your thing, then by all means, go ahead – provide your ‘critical support’ or whatever.

I was very clear in stating the terms in which I would defend Cuba. In no sense would this amount to my "kissing the ass of every state that waves a red flag"

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

The property forms established after the Cuban revolution are those of the dotp.
If we're serious in making an in-depth analysis, then some questions are in order: What are the relations between the workers and the Cuban state? And if a proletarian dictatorship really exists in Cuba, in what capacity did the working class ever exercise power in the state through its own organs and institutions? An honest answer to these questions, in my opinion, would make it very difficult to hold to the "worker's state" theory. Property forms alone, such as nationalization, does not a worker's state make. Yet Cuba's nationalization policies seem to be the linchpin of your argument. If you really want to defend the existence of a proletarian dictatorship in Cuba, you're going to have to do more than that.

And while I'm at it, we must ask another question: Why do we hold that Russia was a worker's state, for that matter? According to Trotsky's own analysis, it wasn't simply on the basis of the regime's nationalization policies, but the country's own revolutionary history. No such element exists in your own assertion. Here, somebody else's words (http://permanent-revolution.org/archives/opportunism_empiricism.pdf) would be sufficient for my point:

What made the Soviet Union a workers’ state was not that it fulfilled certain abstract criteria for a workers’ state, such as the nationalization of industry. As is noted in the document [Opportunism and Empiricism], other regimes that no one recognized as a workers’ state were capable of large-scale nationalization. Rather, it was the originating experience of the proletarian revolution led by the Bolsheviks and the exercise of workers power through its own autonomous instruments of rule, the Soviets, that was the historical content in the characterization of the Soviet Union as workers’ state, despite its later bureaucratic deformations. No comparable event ever took place in Cuba. Nor could it, as the Castro leadership, while undoubtedly leaning on the working class for support, was essentially a petty-bourgeois formation based on the peasantry. To this day, no independent organizations of the working class are permitted in Cuba.

[vanukar]

I would defend Cuba for all the same reasons other socialists would - for its high (relatively) standards of living, healthcare, its relatively advanced green technologies, the advantages of the socialised economy, the unions, etc.

In other words: you'd defend it because the Communist Party has political power and it has conflict with the US. This is silly moralism at best.



And yes, I'm a leftist anti-imperialist. I don't see what the problem with that is. Cuba has a right to govern itself in its own interests without the colonial oppression of the USA. You don't think that?

Nothing is going to stop imperialism but worldwide working-class revolution. Cuba or any other Communist state may be able to fend off the West, but it will never be any "closer" to socialism than any other capitalist state.



I was very clear in stating the terms in which I would defend Cuba. In no sense would this amount to my "kissing the ass of every state that waves a red flag"

The same kind of rhetoric you're using is also used to defend Iran, North Korea, China, Syria, etc.

[Lord Hargreaves]

In other words: you'd defend it because the Communist Party has political power and it has conflict with the US. This is silly moralism at best.

I clearly didn't say anything remotely like that. I deliberately stressed objectivity (impartiality) yet you somehow see the opposite in me: obsequiousness toward Official Communism. This is a 180 degree error.



Nothing is going to stop imperialism but worldwide working-class revolution. Cuba or any other Communist state may be able to fend off the West, but it will never be any "closer" to socialism than any other capitalist state.

I don't know what I said that contradicts that? Please explain.



The same kind of rhetoric you're using is also used to defend Iran, North Korea, China, Syria, etc.

What rhetoric? I would defend the right of any of those countries to defend themselves against US imperialist aggression, wouldn't you? That has nothing to do with claiming that they are socialist states

[Engels]

And yes, I'm a leftist anti-imperialist. I don't see what the problem with that is. Cuba has a right to govern itself in its own interests without the colonial oppression of the USA. You don't think that?


I’m for the working class abolishing itself and bringing an end to class society. I’m against imperialism because I support proletarian revolution – I don’t use the word “anti-imperialist” to describe myself because it’s used by those who like to pick sides in bourgeois conflicts; they’re not against imperialism per se, but only that of a particular nation state. I want no part of that nonsense.

Nationalism of any kind is completely irrelevant and your complete identification with the state is not good, to say the least. It simply amounts to wanting the working class to subordinate itself to the nation, i.e. the interests of the domestic bourgeoisie. A choice between domestic or foreign exploitation isn’t much of a choice at all.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Comrade, I think the logic of your arguments, with which I agree, is that Cuba is a dotp. If the bureaucrats are not a class, then which class rules. Before comrades have a stroke, I'm not suggesting that workers have direct political rule their. The property forms established after the Cuban revolution are those of the dotp. Planned, collectivized economy. To me that means:
Cuba must be defended against attack by any imperialist or even junior capitalist country.

The nature of the Cuban bureaucracy is contradictory. On the one hand, its power rest on these property forms so it is forced to defend them. On the other hand, they are not Marxist in outlook and while they have done some laudable things (e.g., sending troops to Angola during the civil war), they are primarily nationalists and do not fight to spread revolution. They give political support to bourgeois nationalists, like Chavez. Any left wing opposition to the government has historically been crushed.

I completely agree that if I had to be living off of a median income in Latin America, I would prefer to live in Cuba over the other countries.

Yes, I can see the logic in that. And I am perfectly willing to concede the point, since I am not really sure of my grasp of Marxist theory in this case. But before I do that, let's explore the issue a little bit.

Now, we both agree that (1) Cuba is a proletarian state, and (2) that there exists a bureaucratic degeneration, and in consequence state power is chiefly exercised by the bureaucracy. Correct?

I think that the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" implies that the proletariat has organised itself as the ruling class in order to suppress the remnants of bourgeois and feudal opposition. "Concentration of state power entirely in the hands of the proletariat", to use Trotsky's phrase.

The crux of the question seems to be this: can we admit, in Marxist analysis, the possibility of a dictatorship by strata that do not qualify for the status of a class? This is not entirely a rhetorical question: it seems to me that we can, that for example the late Ancien Regime in France, while a feudal state, was a dictatorship of the court bureaucracy rather than the feudal classes in whole. But I am not sure; it might be that I place too much emphasis on the superstructure.

In any case, I am very much in agreement with your practical conclusions. Furthermore, it seems to me that Cuba is the deformed workers' state that has come closest to certain forms that are required for the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat - the committees for the defense of the revolution etc. But the nature of the bureaucracy, the contradictions that arise from the proletarian nature of the economy and the undemocratic nature of the government, probably mean that the current system in Cuba is not stable - therefore it should be defended not just against external enemies, but against the capitalist roaders, against the Posadas Carriles etc., in order to preserve the possibility of political reform that could lead to a democratic, revolutionary Cuba.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

If we're serious in making an in-depth analysis, then some questions are in order: What are the relations between the workers and the Cuban state? And if a proletarian dictatorship really exists in Cuba, in what capacity did the working class ever exercise power in the state through its own organs and institutions? An honest answer to these questions, in my opinion, would make it very difficult to hold to the "worker's state" theory. Property forms alone, such as nationalization, does not a worker's state make. Yet Cuba's nationalization policies seem to be the linchpin of your argument. If you really want to defend the existence of a proletarian dictatorship in Cuba, you're going to have to do more than that.

And while I'm at it, we must ask another question: Why do we hold that Russia was a worker's state, for that matter? According to Trotsky's own analysis, it wasn't simply on the basis of the regime's nationalization policies, but the country's own revolutionary history. No such element exists in your own assertion. Here, somebody else's words (http://permanent-revolution.org/archives/opportunism_empiricism.pdf) would be sufficient for my point:
I will have to read this document later -- I am definitely interested and thank you for the link, comrade. The Revolutionary Tendency in the SWP in the early sixties coalesced around the issue of Cuba. The demoralized leadership of Hansen and Dobbs were looking for something to hang their hats on, and the Cuban Revolution was it. The RT split into two pieces (an unprincipled split engineered by Wohlforth and Healy) that ultimately became, respectively, The Spartacist League and The American Committee for the Fourth International. The SL had an orientation to fuse with the ACFI until Healy tried to extract "confessions" from the SL leadership at an international conference of the IC in 1966. There was a fight going on in the IC at this time, between the French and the British sections about the class nature of Cuba. The British Section's position was that Cuba was still capitalist, but the bourgeoisie was "weak." The Spartacist delegation commented at the conference that if the Cuban Bourgeoisie were weak, it was because they were tired from the long swim from Cuba to Miami.

To belabor the obvious, there was no Cuban bourgeoisie after 1962. They were completely expropriated. Banks, industry, agriculture, everything was nationalized. The old state was smashed. The tricky part is that the revolution was a peasant based guerilla movement. My thinking is, that they overthrew capitalism precisely because of the existence and support from the USSR (so the Proletarian Russian Revolution does come in somewhere). Without the USSR, the would have done no more than the Sandinistas, or maybe Chavez.

It so onerous for you unsullied comrades to defend the gains of the Cuban Revolution? This does not require political support to the Castro regime.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I will have to read this document later -- I am definitely interested and thank you for the link, comrade. The Revolutionary Tendency in the SWP in the early sixties coalesced around the issue of Cuba. The demoralized leadership of Hansen and Dobbs were looking for something to hang their hats on, and the Cuban Revolution was it. The RT split into two pieces (an unprincipled split engineered by Wohlforth and Healy) that ultimately became, respectively, The Spartacist League and The American Committee for the Fourth International. The SL had an orientation to fuse with the ACFI until Healy tried to extract "confessions" from the SL leadership at an international conference of the IC in 1966. There was a fight going on in the IC at this time, between the French and the British sections about the class nature of Cuba. The British Section's position was that Cuba was still capitalist, but the bourgeoisie was "weak." The Spartacist delegation commented at the conference that if the Cuban Bourgeoisie were weak, it was because they were tired from the long swim from Cuba to Miami.

To belabor the obvious, there was no Cuban bourgeoisie after 1962. They were completely expropriated. Banks, industry, agriculture, everything was nationalized. The old state was smashed. The tricky part is that the revolution was a peasant based guerilla movement. My thinking is, that they overthrew capitalism precisely because of the existence and support from the USSR (so the Proletarian Russian Revolution does come in somewhere). Without the USSR, the would have done no more than the Sandinistas, or maybe Chavez.

It so onerous for you unsullied comrades to defend the gains of the Cuban Revolution? This does not require political support to the Castro regime.
There's little I can say at this point without quoting extensively from the document I linked. I hope that you will have time to read it.

[Red Banana]

I would defend Cuba for all the same reasons other socialists would - for its high (relatively) standards of living, healthcare, its relatively advanced green technologies, the advantages of the socialised economy, the unions, etc.

That same argument could be used to justify defending most western bourgeois republics.


And yes, I'm a leftist anti-imperialist. I don't see what the problem with that is. Cuba has a right to govern itself in its own interests without the colonial oppression of the USA. You don't think that?

Opposing imperialist aggression against Cuban workers does not amount to being an apologist for the Cuban government.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I’m for the working class abolishing itself and bringing an end to class society. I’m against imperialism because I support proletarian revolution – I don’t use the word “anti-imperialist” to describe myself because it’s used by those who like to pick sides in bourgeois conflicts; they’re not against imperialism per se, but only that of a particular nation state. I want no part of that nonsense.

Nationalism of any kind is completely irrelevant and your complete identification with the state is not good, to say the least. It simply amounts to wanting the working class to subordinate itself to the nation, i.e. the interests of the domestic bourgeoisie. A choice between domestic or foreign exploitation isn’t much of a choice at all.

I think you're addressing some kind of straw-man here. Perhaps you think I'm some kind of Stalin loving Marxist-Leninist who goes round cheerleading for the "right kind" of governments. That isn't me. I have no axe to grind, no official line to spin, and I belong to no organisation. I can't help feeling that you haven't read my first two posts in this thread, where I laid out my actual position.

In supporting the right of Cuba to govern itself, and to defend itself against US imperialist aggression, I don't mean to say that the Cuban state has a right to crush dissidents and exploit workers how they please. I don't see how the two things are connected at all, to be perfectly honest. I find your point of view completely mystifying :confused:

And I don't see it as subordinating revolutionary potential to the nation either: clearly there would be no "revolutionary potential" if US corporations come in to run Cuba, and not much of a independent "nation" either.

Simply because Cuban working people have a fundamental common interest with the working people of other countries, and with those in the US, it does not follow thereby as if by syllogism that there is nothing for them to choose between Castroite government in Havana, and rule by diktat from Pennsylvania Avenue. I think such a conclusion would be crudely reductionist.

[billydan225]

I'm happy about cuba because in a socialist society people like myself could still skate

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

Is Cuba a decent, non-capitalist socialist state? Yes, it could also be considered the last Leninist state in existence. But Cuba can't be considered a DOTP because of it's nationalist overtones, assistance to Chavez (who isn't socialist enough, but rather a radical social democrat), and it's cult of personality with the Castro brothers.

[KurtFF8]

Is Cuba a decent, non-capitalist socialist state? Yes, it could also be considered the last Leninist state in existence. But Cuba can't be considered a DOTP because of it's nationalist overtones, assistance to Chavez (who isn't socialist enough, but rather a radical social democrat), and it's cult of personality with the Castro brothers.

I'm not sure how the reasons you've listed disqualify it from being DOTP

[Let's Get Free]

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the so called proletarian dictatorship in Cuba was established by members of the upper middle class, by the sons of rich families who had been sent to European capitals for their studies.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I'm not sure how the reasons you've listed disqualify it from being DOTP
And how would you respond to the arguments I've previously made in this thread? That is, how does the complete absence of worker's power in Cuba today--as well as the fact that it never held state power at all--prove that Cuba has a proletarian dictatorship?

[KurtFF8]

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the so called proletarian dictatorship in Cuba was established by members of the upper middle class, by the sons of rich families who had been sent to European capitals for their studies.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning indeed. But the burden of arriving at the conclusion that "therefore Cuba is not socialist" lays with you. There were certainly elements of the privileged classes involved in the Revolution, but how that somehow determines the rest of subsequent Cuban history is beyond me.


And how would you respond to the arguments I've previously made in this thread? That is, how does the complete absence of worker's power in Cuba today--as well as the fact that it never held state power at all--prove that Cuba has a proletarian dictatorship?

I would respond by saying that you're making a baseless claim. The idea that there is a "complete absence" of workers power in Cuba is just misguided and doesn't reflect the realities of Cuba.

Sometimes I find it silly when people link to their own posts in other threads, but I referenced a few good sources on this post http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2584576&postcount=41

[Geiseric]

Cuba is a capitalist dictatorship. Was not a proletarian or socialist revolution.


No it wasn't but there's a planned economy, which makes it a dotp. There is no market either, they're just starting to do those reforms.

[Let's Get Free]

No it wasn't but there's a planned economy, which makes it a dotp. There is no market either, they're just starting to do those reforms.

Broody, how many times do we have to go over this: every economy is a planned economy. And actually, markets exist everywhere in Cuba.

[Old Bolshie]

No it wasn't but there's a planned economy, which makes it a dotp. There is no market either, they're just starting to do those reforms.

A planned economy by itself doesn't make it a DOTP. North Korea has a planned economy too and I don't think you would consider it a DOTP. If a revolution isn't proletarian in its nature it cannot be a DOTP.

[KurtFF8]

A planned economy by itself doesn't make it a DOTP. North Korea has a planned economy too and I don't think you would consider it a DOTP. If a revolution isn't proletarian in its nature it cannot be a DOTP.

This is just as bad of a syllogism as the one you're attacking.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I would respond by saying that you're making a baseless claim. The idea that there is a "complete absence" of workers power in Cuba is just misguided and doesn't reflect the realities of Cuba.

Sometimes I find it silly when people link to their own posts in other threads, but I referenced a few good sources on this post http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2584576&postcount=41
I didn't ask you to respond to the post I just made, I asked you to look at the others that I made. And the post you linked to does not, in my opinion, sufficiently rebut what I had said. I had based my own claim on the actual movement of the class forces that were (and are) at work in Cuba, on its revolutionary history, and the class character of its state (which was driven primarily by petty-bourgeois nationalism, rather than the workers themselves). But your burden of proof seems to be different. As one of my favorite thinkers said:
"The point therefore is to establish scientifically the real relations between classes and not to arbitrarily and ahistorically apply ‘criteria’".
While you note that the workers have some degree of participation, this is an insufficient condition (and proof) for a proletarian dictatorship. Following your own logic, any of the bourgeois countries, which have their own semblance of "worker's participation" can be proof of a proletarian dictatorship. You are relying on the intuition of what we would expect a "healthy" worker's state to look like, not on how it was actually born, and moreover who birthed it. Your analysis does not go any further than what appears on the surface and instead the aforementioned "abstract criteria" is precisely the crux of your argument; it's simply not very convincing. To say the least, the explanation you've given does not explain the "reality" that there are no independent worker's organizations allowed outside the CTC. And we both know this is just the tip of the iceberg.

[KurtFF8]

I think you're relying on a straw man here though. I (and the authors I appealed to) aren't just pointing out workers participation but are rather exploring how Cuban workers help run the state in Cuba.

It's quite different than in a place like the US where workers can lobby the government. In Cuba, worker power is a permanent feature of the state.

And I've yet to see any convincing argument that there exists a bourgeoisie in Cuba that runs/owns/or controls the means of production. Or that the logic of capitalism is the dominant economic and social force in Cuba.

And I'm not sure how your criteria are any less "abstract" than mine here

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I think you're relying on a straw man here though. I (and the authors I appealed to) aren't just pointing out workers participation but are rather exploring how Cuban workers help run the state in Cuba.

It's quite different than in a place like the US where workers can lobby the government. In Cuba, worker power is a permanent feature of the state.
The key word here being "help", which is my point exactly: The workers themselves do not run the state, but the petty-bourgeoisie, which only leans on the former for support.


And I've yet to see any convincing argument that there exists a bourgeoisie in Cuba that runs/owns/or controls the means of production. Or that the logic of capitalism is the dominant economic and social force in Cuba.
I never said that a bourgeoisie existed. I said that the class character of the Cuban state was petty-bourgeois. And as I've said before, nationalized property forms also exist in "capitalist" countries that we would never dream of calling worker's states, so it cannot be used as an argument that Cuba is being run under a proletarian dictatorship. Forms are one thing, but the actual relations between the workers, the means of production, and the state; that's a horse of a different color.


And I'm not sure how your criteria are any less "abstract" than mine here
Perhaps you could actually try dealing with my arguments first, rather than engaging in poor deflection. You still haven't, to my mind, established proof that the Cuban state is run by a proletarian dictatorship. All you've managed to do is establish that it looks like one to you.

[KurtFF8]

The key word here being "help", which is my point exactly: The workers themselves do not run the state, but the petty-bourgeoisie, which only leans on the former for support.

And as I've said, I have yet to see a cogent argument that can make the case that the ruling class in Cuba is the bourgeoisie or petty-bourgeoisie.


I never said that a bourgeoisie existed. I said that the class character of the Cuban state was petty-bourgeois. And as I've said before, nationalized property forms also exist in "capitalist" countries that we would never dream of calling worker's states, so it cannot be used as an argument that Cuba is being run under a proletarian dictatorship. Forms are one thing, but the actual relations between the workers, the means of production, and the state; that's a horse of a different color.

While it's obviously true that nationalized MoP can exist in capitalist societies, it doesn't then follow that Cuba is not socialist because it has most of the economy nationalized. Now I agree that this isn't a sufficient condition, but your point here doesn't go beyond pointing that out.

I'm still confused about how the state can have the class character of a class that isn't really present in the country, however.

And the "actual" relations between the workers and the means of production is something I feel that you're having a tough time with here.


Perhaps you could actually try dealing with my arguments first, rather than engaging in poor deflection. You still haven't, to my mind, established proof that the Cuban state is run by a proletarian dictatorship. All you've managed to do is establish that it looks like one to you.

I provided numerous ones in the thread I linked to before. You're repose was essentially "no, actually the state is petty bourgeois" which is a sort of non-response. It's the classical "begging the question" fallacy: you assume your conclusion is valid as part of the argument itself.

[tuwix]

And as I've said, I have yet to see a cogent argument that can make the case that the ruling class in Cuba is the bourgeoisie or petty-bourgeoisie.



If you are aware that workers aren't ruling class there, then who could be else? But there is not classic bourgeoisie. Just 'red bureaucracy' as it Bakunin described in his critics of Marx's works. But it has the same role as classic bourgeoisie: oppress the people and maintain power with economic system that it sustains.

[Geiseric]

If you are aware that workers aren't ruling class there, then who could be else? But there is not classic bourgeoisie. Just 'red bureaucracy' as it Bakunin described in his critics of Marx's works. But it has the same role as classic bourgeoisie: oppress the people and maintain power with economic system that it sustains.

That has nothing to do with anything Marx talked about in Capital. They don't do wage slavery, there is a state that rules in its own interest trying to become the bourgeoisie.

[Old Bolshie]

This is just as bad of a syllogism as the one you're attacking.

Why it's bad? Hasn't North Korea a planned economy?