Your opinion of Cuba over the past fifty years.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

The Castros have led Cuba for over half a century now. What's your opinion of the two brothers--and do you think Cuba's held true to socialism since the revolution?

My opinion of both Fidel and Raul has steadily gottten worse. Good leaders, IMHO, don't monopolize power in one family and hold on to the presidency for decades. The country's human rights record is hardly stellar either.

L.G.:laugh:

[Sinister Intents]

I think Cuba has potential... It's a lot better off than the other Latin American countries with its healthcare system and other things. It seems a lot safer than other Latin American nations. I think the Castros are alright. I hate that Cuba is a state capitalist nation, I hate the embargos against it. Not really sure what to say tbh

[tuwix]

The Castros have led Cuba for over half a century now. What's your opinion of the two brothers--and do you think Cuba's held true to socialism since the revolution?


Cuba have all advantages and disadvantages of state capitalism:
Advantages are: lack of unemployment, free healthcare, free education, the pension system independent from greedy insurers, one of the planet greatest wealth and income equality and so on.
Disadvantage are: it isn't socialism, the society has practically no influence what oligarchy do, secret police, evident oppression of opposition either left-wing or right-wing, lesser economic efficiency and so on.

Besides Cuba gradually go from state capitalism to classic capitalism. The most evident effect of it is that inequalities grow...

[La Guaneña]

Cuba have all advantages and disadvantages of state capitalism:
Advantages are: lack of unemployment, free healthcare, free education, the pension system independent from greedy insurers, one of the planet greatest wealth and income equality and so on.
Disadvantage are: it isn't socialism, the society has practically no influence what oligarchy do, secret police, evident oppression of opposition either left-wing or right-wing, lesser economic efficiency and so on.

Besides Cuba gradually go from state capitalism to classic capitalism. The most evident effect of it is that inequalities grow...

It has low economic efficiency but manages to feed everyone, give everyone nice education and health attention and have no homeless population, while having zero unemployment. Please explain your concept of inneficience to me, I think it is fairly different from mine. And also explain how capitalism can have zero unemployed, wouldn't that basically make the system go boom?

And oh, no shit that Cuba has repression on political dissent. Can you imagine how easy it is for imperialist forces to infiltrate people/information into the country? Do you seriously believe that it is possible to host any kind of counter-hegemonic situation under Uncle Sam's nose without locking some people up? Let us be a bit more realistic here, comrades.

And seriously, only the most reactionary forces in the world denounce all dem pesky human rights violations in Cuba. Not even the fucking UN compains, and Cuba was ellected to the HR council recently. But who am I to judge you people if you want to listen to the Guantanamo/Abu Ghraib people about how bad Fidel is, right?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

It has low economic efficiency but manages to feed everyone, give everyone nice education and health attention and have no homeless population, while having zero unemployment. Please explain your concept of inneficience to me, I think it is fairly different from mine. And also explain how capitalism can have zero unemployed, wouldn't that basically make the system go boom?

And oh, no shit that Cuba has repression on political dissent. Can you imagine how easy it is for imperialist forces to infiltrate people/information into the country? Do you seriously believe that it is possible to host any kind of counter-hegemonic situation under Uncle Sam's nose without locking some people up? Let us be a bit more realistic here, comrades.

And seriously, only the most reactionary forces in the world denounce all dem pesky human rights violations in Cuba. Not even the fucking UN compains, and Cuba was ellected to the HR council recently. But who am I to judge you people if you want to listen to the Guantanamo/Abu Ghraib people about how bad Fidel is, right?

You are mostly correct. I am leaning towards your argument, I'm not sure why everyone on here is bashing Cuba, they have been more successful than pretty much everyone else.

However, I think you should acknowledge its faults. How about Castro's anti gay policies? He even kicked out a group of workers from North Korea for homosexuality. Also, imprisoning of political dissidents was arbitrary. He did not imprison reactionaries, he imprisoned random people. His suppression of the media and oversight of the internet is also something to criticize.

That being said, I mostly like the Castros. Well, Fidel at least, I don't know much about his brother. But yeah, I would say socialist Cuba is mostly a success. But I think you are failing or refusing to acknowledge some serious faults with the regime.

[Skyhilist]

Cuba is basically just a social democracy minus the illusion of democracy for most people.

[Homo Songun]

How about Castro's anti gay policies? He even kicked out a group of workers from North Korea for homosexuality.
Wow, sounds like an intriguing story. Source please.

(Cuba has been mostly pro LGBT (http://www.walterlippmann.com/lgbt-cuba.html) for many years now, but I don't particularly care to debate it.)

[Blake's Baby]

It was a bourgeois-nationalist revolt led a pissed-off member of the officer caste.

After 2 years of not being able to re-establish a relationship with the USA (Castro's first choice) pragmatism suggested going to the 'other side' - a cozy relationship for both parties, as Cuba got somewhere to send its sugar, and the USSR got an ally 100km from the US mainland. It never stoppped being a capitalist country.

Every country in the world is shit, but not everywhere is shit for the same reasons. I'm sure some things in Cuba are better than other places, and I'm sure some things are worse.

[La Guaneña]

You are mostly correct. I am leaning towards your argument, I'm not sure why everyone on here is bashing Cuba, they have been more successful than pretty much everyone else.

However, I think you should acknowledge its faults. How about Castro's anti gay policies? He even kicked out a group of workers from North Korea for homosexuality. Also, imprisoning of political dissidents was arbitrary. He did not imprison reactionaries, he imprisoned random people. His suppression of the media and oversight of the internet is also something to criticize.

That being said, I mostly like the Castros. Well, Fidel at least, I don't know much about his brother. But yeah, I would say socialist Cuba is mostly a success. But I think you are failing or refusing to acknowledge some serious faults with the regime.


Fidel has openly retreated on the anti-LGBTT positions in the 80s, and today Cuba even has free SRS for whoever wishes to do it in the public health system. Condemning them for their actions is ok, but we gotta recognize that they had the dignity to do a deep self-critique in that aspect.

And the arrests and shooting squads were about as arbitrary as the assaults that the cuban people have suffered for sticking it to uncle sam. All you have to do is look at the long list of industrial sabotage, terrorist attacks (remember flight 455), assassination attempts, anti-socialist propaganda spamming and even a very failed amphibious invasion attempt.

And I'd please like to have named here at least one political dispute that did not involve "arbitrary" muders or arrests. If you are at the point where you are lining up people and shooting them, someone wrong is going to be shot at sometime, shit happens.

[Dodo]

It is a good example of resistance. It is good in the sense that they took the country from being a playground for American upper-class mafia and turned it into a politically active force in the world.

It was never meant to succeed though. It is in the end state capitalism. This is not Cuba's fault, but they simply have no other opstions. It is an ex-colony defined by its dependencies to other countries. Embargo and constant intelligence infiltrations means the country becomes more "repressive" and poor.

In addition to that, the Cuban revolution was not driven by a Marxist understanding of the world. Like Blake's Baby said, they simply had to side with USSR and changed their rhetoic accordingly.

I do not hate it or love it. I am feeling good about it but its not a country I would take as an example of success.

[juljd]

I think it has had a lot of potential and made much progress in many areas of society. Some of it is very impressive when you look at the conditions. Cuba has faults too of course. There's much that according to me should be changed but I still think we should be solidary with Cuba considering how the world looks today. I like Fidel but I'm less fond of Raul. I don't like where Cuba is going today, with the market reforms.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

By the way, when I say "not stellar," I don't mean Cuba's an evil commienazi empire where Fidel Castro feasts on the blood of Christian babies (to paraphrase a smart guy on these forums), I just mean that it ain't perfect. For example, if you believe Panama's government, they've been sending weapons to North Korea:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-26103467

[La Guaneña]

By the way, when I say "not stellar," I don't mean Cuba's an evil commienazi empire where Fidel Castro feasts on the blood of Christian babies (to paraphrase a smart guy on these forums), I just mean that it ain't perfect. For example, if you believe Panama's government, they've been sending weapons to North Korea:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-26103467

And what's wrong about having military alliances with the DPRK? It takes a lot of bullshit US bourgeois propaganda to not see how similar the international situation of both countries is. Except Korea is in a worse, position, with the nation fractured in two States, with the US having a military occupation in one, and with a much more severe embargo.

[BornDeist]

People condemn Castro from keeping the political power from the workers but he never had a choice. The majority of workers didn't even know what marxism was. Not to mention the revolution was not spreading so bourgeois would just infiltrate if political power was up to the workers.

[Ember Catching]

For example, if you believe Panama's government, they've been sending weapons to North Korea:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-26103467
North Korea is a Cuban ally and one of its known military suppliers. It's not exactly shocking that there is a reciprocal relationship between the two militaries.

[Sea]

Fans of Cuba tend to think that the country has went from:

socialism[-|-------------------]capitalism

over the past 50 years to:

socialism[---|-----------------]capitalism

or thereabouts. A deeper examination reveals that it is fruitless to debate "how socialist" the Castroites are because, in reality, Cuba has merely went from:

revisionism[-|-------------------]open capitalism

to

revisoinism[---|-----------------]open capitalism

at which point it is a moot point to debate about where exactly how quantitatively far on that road they are when the goal is to decide whether they are socialist or not.

[JudasMaiden]

As a person who can't describe itself with any political label, but has so much Anarchist beliefs, Cuba is a state capitalist country. I congratulate them on how they stood up to imperialism and helped some more of Latin America stand up to American/European Imperialism, but they are still petite-bourgeoise nationalists with good charisma. I think it's time that Cuba should be handed over to Anarchists and Left Communists to prevent it from becoming a neoliberal shithole.
I think Cuba is okay, but they should definitely hand over the power to Anarchists and Left Communists. For now, it is communist and socialist state in name only. If Anarchists and Left Communists took it over, during the transition, they should encourage revolution around the world from Cuba, give workers' self management, apply free love, and legalize everything even opposition parties, opposition press, and most dangerous drugs but as long as it does not harm/exploit someone else or the environment significantly.

"Bombs may kill the hungry, the sick and ignorant, but they cannot kill hunger, disease, and ignorance." - Fidel Castro, 1979 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf_yeqJ1fiY)

[RedHal]

By the way, when I say "not stellar," I don't mean Cuba's an evil commienazi empire where Fidel Castro feasts on the blood of Christian babies (to paraphrase a smart guy on these forums), I just mean that it ain't perfect. For example, if you believe Panama's government, they've been sending weapons to North Korea:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-26103467

lol out of all the "human rights" criticism against Cuba, this has got to be the lamest.

[RedHal]

Cuba is basically just a social democracy minus the illusion of democracy for most people.

so easy to say when you live in a wealthy western nation.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

State capitalist, but better in many areas than its free market brethren.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

And seriously, only the most reactionary forces in the world denounce all dem pesky human rights violations in Cuba. Not even the fucking UN compains, and Cuba was ellected to the HR council recently.

So was Saudi Arabia.

[Illegalitarian]

It's far better off than most other Latin American nations, ranking 4th out of all the others on the Human Development Index and 6th out of all "underdeveloped" nations.


I also wish people would drop the idiotic, non-Marxist label of "state capitalism". Capitalism is a social relation that directly deals with the means of production. If there is no capitalist ruling minority, there is no capitalism. You cannot simply say "oh well the state acts as the ruling class over the means of production so it's capitalism" (a mischaracterization of state-owned businesses in socialist-lead nations anyways) and be correct.


It might not be socialism, per se, but it's not "state capitalism". While a nifty phrase, it has no basis is historical materialism, and is certainly not an accurate description of economies with more of public than private sector.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

lol out of all the "human rights" criticism against Cuba, this has got to be the lamest.

To be honest, I didn't intend for it to be a good example, that's just one thing that's been in the news as of late.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

It's far better off than most other Latin American nations, ranking 4th out of all the others on the Human Development Index and 6th out of all "underdeveloped" nations.


I also wish people would drop the idiotic, non-Marxist label of "state capitalism". Capitalism is a social relation that directly deals with the means of production. If there is no capitalist ruling minority, there is no capitalism. You cannot simply say "oh well the state acts as the ruling class over the means of production so it's capitalism" (a mischaracterization of state-owned businesses in socialist-lead nations anyways) and be correct.


It might not be socialism, per se, but it's not "state capitalism". While a nifty phrase, it has no basis is historical materialism, and is certainly not an accurate description of economies with more of public than private sector.


Agreed. I really am sick and tired of people arguing with labels.:rolleyes:

[Bala Perdida]

And what's wrong about having military alliances with the DPRK? It takes a lot of bullshit US bourgeois propaganda to not see how similar the international situation of both countries is. Except Korea is in a worse, position, with the nation fractured in two States, with the US having a military occupation in one, and with a much more severe embargo.
There are some major differences between Cuba and North Korea. I haven't heard of any food rationing outside of Pyongyang. Their healthcare system is questionable, but that's not their fault. They do have a privileged class with the military. The prison camps are down right horrible. Their restrictions on personal freedoms, and enforcement of a Il-Jong personality cult, are appauling. They are just undeniably too brutal to their people, to an undefendable level. The Il-Jong dynasty is a luxury obsessed piece of shit. You can't deny or defend their brutal treatment.
I do sympathies when it comes to food, because today they simply don't have access to it. Their closest ally is China and their free market regime. Same goes for healthcare.
But, I will support their counterbalance of western powers. If they gave their people the freedom and respect they deserved, and had a strong military and allied with Cuba they would be okay.
Right now they just give socialism a bad name at a high cost.

[Blake's Baby]

Agreed. I really am sick and tired of people arguing with labels.:rolleyes:


You're right, we should just call them capitalist.

[Comrade Jacob]

Cuba (IMHO) is a struggling nation still trying to stick to socialism as their overall goal. It's achievements are amazing for a nation in such a situation.

[MaximMK]

I like it

[DoCt SPARTAN]

I defend Cuba as much as possible, even though I don't like the Castros leadership that much. I always tell people to look at the conditions of other Latin America or Caribbean Countries. Look at Haiti, Peru, Costa Rica, ETC. The inequality of wealth in these nations are crazy. Cuba doesn't have this as much in my eyes. Cuba has Healthcare, Great Education, and great public establishments.

For the Castro Regime its a love hate thing for me. Like to be so close to one of the biggest Anti-communist imperialist power in the world the US, and kick out its backed corporate dictator Batista. Then to only establish a communist country, and kicks out the american companies, the american mob, and old reputation of what Cuba was for Imperialism. Also his guerrilla tactics in the Cuban Revolution along with his comrades was amazing. This is all stuff that I admire.

But to stay in power for forty years after the revolution and then to pass down the throne, not to a Representative of the people but to his brother. Also any country wear people fear to be thrown in jail as counter-revolutionary prisoner for speaking their mind isn't too good either. Any country that has people willing to die then rather stay in that place isn't good, Like how people go in paddle boats to Key West.

I think Cuba out of most of the other Communist Revolutions had the most potential to actually thrive ,and say screw you Capitalism we don't need you we can do this. Based of its people, Products, Industry, Revolution, Geography,ETC. I think a little after the revolution Fidel should have realized that he will need held running this nation and not try to go in solo, And maybe Cuba would have been alot different Socialist country. He grew hungry with power and soon after took the revolution with him.

I just have recently watched the Showtime Movie based on Fidel's life called "Fidel!" ..I thought it wasn't biased all to much, except at times. If you've seen it tell what you thought of it!

[Illegalitarian]

You're right, we should just call them capitalist.


Or we could, maybe, perhaps just maybe, try and understand the social relations that exist in different parts of the world by examining the relations of different classes to the means of production?


Nah

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, that's what I said.

Not just take their word that they're trying to build socialism, but instead, looking at the wage labour and the existence of a working class and take it from there.

[Illegalitarian]

Wage labour and the existence of a working class do not make capitalism, relations to the means of production do.

I didn't say they were socialist, but they're definitely not capitalist, either. I would say there are elements of both social relations in there, but I wouldn't call it "state capitalism".


If we simply have to concoct a name for it, I've heard the term "bureaucratic collectivism" thrown around a bit. That sounds closer to what exists in these type of nations than "state capitalism" I suppose. I sort of disagree with some of the trot connotations there, but I like the term far more, again, if we just have to have a term for it.

[Illegalitarian]

I never truly got the concept of "building socialism", as if it's some sort of 500-year process that has to go through different phases before undesirable social relations/products just whiter away.

Cuba under Castro has been around for a while, and yet, we've not really seen much of an increase in socialistic elements of society. We've seen a decrease, if anything.

[Blake's Baby]

There are no 'socialistic elements'. what there is is state control of the economy. That's called state capitalism.

[Illegalitarian]

That's a simplistic misunderstanding of both capitalism as a social relation as defined by Marxists and state control of economic organs. There is still a large element of decision-making regarding production and distrubution and control of these industries from the working class, they're not simply ordinary businesses controlled by some detatched bureaucratic class.

[Sea]

Why do so many people call it state-capitalist? It's just capitalist. Save yourself the time from typing "state-" and save yourself from coming across as a third-campist. The "state" thing is only a quantitative difference from the capitalism of the United States, or North Korea, or France, or China, or Britain, etc.

[helot]

That's a simplistic misunderstanding of both capitalism as a social relation as defined by Marxists and state control of economic organs. There is still a large element of decision-making regarding production and distrubution and control of these industries from the working class, they're not simply ordinary businesses controlled by some detatched bureaucratic class.


I suppose the question is can the structural role of the bourgeoisie exist without the flesh and blood individuals comprising it? I think it's possible. Hell, I think a form of worker-run capitalism is possible.

[Red Banana]

Illegalitarian, could you please give us your definition of capitalism and how class society in Cuba does not fit that definition? I just want to see where you're coming from.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

Hang on. Didn't Cuba have some sort of grassroots democratic system in which even liberals take part?

Also, it's beyond me how anyone could even think to describe as soialist. Don't get me wrong, I'd choose Cuba over most countries any day of the week but under socialism, the workers should be in contro and the means of production are owned by the people. That is clearly not the case in Cuba.

[G4b3n]

People condemn Castro from keeping the political power from the workers but he never had a choice. The majority of workers didn't even know what marxism was. Not to mention the revolution was not spreading so bourgeois would just infiltrate if political power was up to the workers.

Not every worker has to be a Marxist Theoretician. What workers need is autonomy and democracy.

[Illegalitarian]

Illegalitarian, could you please give us your definition of capitalism and how class society in Cuba does not fit that definition? I just want to see where you're coming from.


The actual Marxist definition, ie, a social relation where the bourgeois, a ruling minority, have control over the means of production and force an exploited class, the working class, to rent out their labor in exchange for a very small percentage of the value they've generated through surplus labour, keeping the surplus value generated by this labour.


This certainly does exist to an extent in Cuba but it is by no means the dominant mode of production and thus I find it incorrect to label it a capitalist super structure.

[Illegalitarian]

Please do note that I'm not defending the Cuban model, not as a socialist nation or anything else, though they have done great things for many people, giving more power to the working class than the vast majority of nations have.

I'm simply defending them from charges of being a capitalist or "state capitalist" nation, charges that are quite frankly ridiculous.

[Red Banana]

The actual Marxist definition, ie, a social relation where the bourgeois, a ruling minority, have control over the means of production and force an exploited class, the working class, to rent out their labor in exchange for a very small percentage of the value they've generated through surplus labour, keeping the surplus value generated by this labour.


This certainly does exist to an extent in Cuba but it is by no means the dominant mode of production and thus I find it incorrect to label it a capitalist super structure.

So capitalism, by your definition, exists in Cuba, but Cuba is not capitalist.

I'm interested to know to what extent you think capitalism exists in Cuba. Is there a Richter scale for modes of production? Do you believe there is another mode of production sharing the island of Cuba with capitalism? If so, what mode of production, how, and to what 'extent'?

[Illegalitarian]

So capitalism, by your definition, exists in Cuba, but Cuba is not capitalist.

I'm interested to know to what extent you think capitalism exists in Cuba. Is there a Richter scale for modes of production? Do you believe there is another mode of production sharing the island of Cuba with capitalism? If so, what mode of production, how, and to what 'extent'?


Of course not.


There have been small communes in the US, still are, that are entirely self-sufficient, the workers all own the fields and other modes of production, etc. Is the US socialist? Was all of Spain an anarchist territory due to the anarchist societies built in Catalonia etc? How about the Ukraine?


We can't exactly call a region/nation/state "capitalist" if capitalism is not the dominant mode of production, now can we?



There is a very small portion of the economy dominated by private business owners who exploit the working class for their surplus value, but are we really going to call Cuba "capitalist" for that? There is no Richter Scale, but to call a nation capitalist that clearly does not have a dominant capitalist social relation is silly.

As for the other mode of production, I'm not entirely sure there's a term for it, but there doesn't have to be for us to understand its nature. While it certainly does retain a certain socialistic and capitalistic element, it's not either of the two.

[Red Banana]

Of course not.


There have been small communes in the US, still are, that are entirely self-sufficient, the workers all own the fields and other modes of production, etc. Is the US socialist? Was all of Spain an anarchist territory due to the anarchist societies built in Catalonia etc? How about the Ukraine?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Socialism in One Commune? If we had more communes, would socialism be the dominant mode of production in the US, according to you?




There is a very small portion of the economy dominated by private business owners who exploit the working class for their surplus value, but are we really going to call Cuba "capitalist" for that? There is no Richter Scale, but to call a nation capitalist that clearly does not have a dominant capitalist social relation is silly.

There is a very large portion of the Cuban economy dominated by state officials and party leaders who exploit the working class for their surplus value.

They have the same relationship to the means of production as their private counterparts.

Could you please explain the qualitative difference between having ones labor exploited by private and state enterprise?


As for the other mode of production, I'm not entirely sure there's a term for it, but there doesn't have to be for us to understand its nature. While it certainly does retain a certain socialistic and capitalistic element, it's not either of the two.

So let me get this straight, you assert that there are two modes of production in Cuba, capitalism, and the second, dominant one which you describe as a mixture between socialism and capitalism. What criteria are you judging that on? Are the workers there half free, half exploited, what's going on? Do you consider state enterprise 'socialist'?

[Illegalitarian]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Socialism in One Commune? If we had more communes, would socialism be the dominant mode of production in the US, according to you?

If the vast majority of businesses were ran communally and owned in common, yes, socialism would be the dominant mode of production. How would you argue otherwise? Again, by this logic if there are three privately owned businesses in a country where the working class otherwise control the means of production, directly control production and distribution, etc, we could not call it socialist. That makes no sense.





There is a very large portion of the Cuban economy dominated by state officials and party leaders who exploit the working class for their surplus value.

They have the same relationship to the means of production as their private counterparts.

Could you please explain the qualitative difference between having ones labor exploited by private and state enterprise?


You're mischaracterizing state enterprises and equating public enterprises with state enterprises.

They're not businesses where one state official owns one of them and makes most of the surplus value, they're enterprises where the value generated go to the government and a large portion of the profits go into social spending, a lot of these having their production and distribution controlled by the working class through unions, etc. It's not simply "capitalism with an officer instead of a CEO".


]quote]So let me get this straight, you assert that there are two modes of production in Cuba, capitalism, and the second, dominant one which you describe as a mixture between socialism and capitalism. What criteria are you judging that on? Are the workers there half free, half exploited, what's going on? Do you consider state enterprise 'socialist'?[/QUOTE]


The criteria of the marxist definition of both of these modes of production?

I would say that most of them are more free and less exploited than they are in the vast majority of other nations, but exploited and not truly free nonetheless. I do not consider state enterprises to be inherently socialist, no.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

"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." - Engels

[Illegalitarian]

State enterprises were of an entirely different nature in time of Engels' life, however.


Like I said, there is definitely capitalistic elements there, but to call it capitalism simply collides with the definition of the word, even if some of the social relations are emulated. It's simply not the same thing as a social relation and mode of production.



One could very easily make the argument that I am bordering on bookworship with the marxist definition and they would probably be right. Perhaps I'm hung up on a technicality, perhaps, but I don't think so.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But you miss that Engels said the modern state is a capitalist state. That hasn't changed.

[Red Banana]

If the vast majority of businesses were ran communally and owned in common, yes, socialism would be the dominant mode of production. How would you argue otherwise? Again, by this logic if there are three privately owned businesses in a country where the working class otherwise control the means of production, directly control production and distribution, etc, we could not call it socialist. That makes no sense.

You seem to have this idea that a society can be socialist to varying degrees and that socialism can be achieved in isolation. It can't. Think of socialism like a pregnancy. You can't be 'a little bit' or 'mostly' pregnant, you either are, or not. If workers are exploited by capitalists, you are not living in socialism, even if you and all your buddies work at hip vegan co-ops. Socialism and capitalism are antithetical, they cannot coexist.


You're mischaracterizing state enterprises and equating public enterprises with state enterprises.

They're not businesses where one state official owns one of them and makes most of the surplus value, they're enterprises where the value generated go to the government and a large portion of the profits go into social spending, a lot of these having their production and distribution controlled by the working class through unions, etc. It's not simply "capitalism with an officer instead of a CEO".

Whatever difference you think there is between public and state enterprise*, state enterprise is what prevails in Cuba and the question is left unanswered, what is the qualitative difference between having your labor exploited by private and state enterprise?

More to the point, I never characterized state enterprise as 'one state official owns a business and makes the profit', you know what that would be called? Private enterprise.

State enterprises are owned by (guess who?) the state, managed by (managed, not owned) state officials, and the profit, if there is any, goes to the state. How the state chooses to spend its money, be it on bombs or on 'social spending' is up to the state, not the workers. What you are describing isnt socialism, it's social democracy.

Moreover, if you recognize that there is a working class (that would then need to organize itself through unions), you're recognizing the existence of wage labor. Wage labor necessitates Capital, be it state or private. When you recognize the existence of classes, you're recognizing the existence of capitalism. Capitalism, no matter how it's managed, is not socialism.

Oh, and you know CEO stands for Chief Executive Officer, right?

*Can you provide an example of a 'public' enterprise that is not a state enterprise? Because what you described as a 'public' enterprise is simply a state enterprise that is run in a more 'fair' way. Remember we're not trying to make capitalism fairer, we're trying to abolish it.


The criteria of the marxist definition of both of these modes of production?

I would say that most of them are more free and less exploited than they are in the vast majority of other nations, but exploited and not truly free nonetheless. I do not consider state enterprises to be inherently socialist, no.

You really didn't get what I was saying. I was being facetious. You cannot be 'half free', you either have a master, a boss, etc., however nice or mean, or you don't. You cannot be 'half exploited', you either have surplus value extracted out of your labor, however much or little, or you do not.

You also did not answer my question, so let me reword it for you, what leads you to believe Cuba is this capitalism-socialism hybrid you speak of? What material realities lead you to that conclusion?

[Blake's Baby]

How can something be be part capitalist, and part capitalist-mixed-with-socialist, but not be at all socialist?

If let's say the 'capitalist' part of the Cuban economy is 1/3, and the capitalist-socialist hybrid part is 2/3, then half the capitalist-socialist hybrid is capitalist, which is another third, so the economy is now 2/3 capitalist, an if the other 1/3 is 'socialist' 9or contains 'socialistic elements' or whatever0 but also isn't socialism at the same time... it's another 1/3 of capitalism isn't it?

By my reckoning that makes the Cuban economy 3/3 capitalism.

[Red Banana]

State enterprises were of an entirely different nature in time of Engels' life, however.

How so?



Like I said, there is definitely capitalistic elements there,

And what are the 'non-capitalistic elements'?


but to call it capitalism simply collides with the definition of the word, even if some of the social relations are emulated. It's simply not the same thing as a social relation and mode of production.

"It's simply not the same thing" is not an argument. Explain why you think that it's not.


One could very easily make the argument that I am bordering on bookworship with the marxist definition and they would probably be right. Perhaps I'm hung up on a technicality, perhaps, but I don't think so.

No, they couldn't, you're not, and they'd be wrong. You want to bookworship something? Try the Engels quote Danielle Ni Dhighe gave you:

"The transformation... into State ownership does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces."

[Ember Catching]

The actual Marxist definition, ie, a social relation where the bourgeois, a ruling minority, have control over the means of production and force an exploited class, the working class, to rent out their labor in exchange for a very small percentage of the value they've generated through surplus labour, keeping the surplus value generated by this labour.

This certainly does exist to an extent in Cuba but it is by no means the dominant mode of production and thus I find it incorrect to label it a capitalist super structure.
Capitalism is not itself a social relation: it is a mode of production, a configuration of forces and social relations of production which do not presuppose the existence of a bourgeoisie — on the contrary, the existence of a bourgeoisie presupposes a period of primitive accumulation which generalizes the conditions of capitalist production over society, thereby allowing a stratum of owners of expropriated means of production, simultaneously buyers of the labor-power of the dispossessed, to form themselves into a class and contest state power. "Capitalist production is [...] essentially the production of surplus-value" (Capital Vol. 1), of which certain aspects, such as commodity production and wage-labor, existed in embryo for millennia but could not achieve their full and general realization until the productive forces, owing to their advanced level of development, were brought into conflict with the productive relations of the day, within the confines of which they developed, sparking that primitive accumulation, that generalized revolution in the pre-capitalist social relations of production.

Generalized surplus-value production can exist, has existed, and in some countries continues to exist without a bourgeoisie, and, everywhere and always, it reproduces a large mass of exploited laborers, to which every wage-laborer of every "socialist" country ever is a testament. This is not, in itself, a cause for concern, as the prevalence of capitalist production will indeed remain a feature even of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat — it is, however, an absolute repudiation of the socialist nature of every state ever in Moscow or Beijing's orbit — whether purportedly genuine, "actually existing", or endowed with "national characteristics" of any description — and, accordingly, an affirmation of their fundamentally capitalist nature, yet it follows from before that they cannot be opposed on that basis: as such, the communist opposition to said states primarily lies rather in (1) their suppression of international communism and (2) their collaboration with bourgeois and petit-bourgeois interests.

[Illegalitarian]

You seem to have this idea that a society can be socialist to varying degrees and that socialism can be achieved in isolation. It can't. Think of socialism like a pregnancy. You can't be 'a little bit' or 'mostly' pregnant, you either are, or not. If workers are exploited by capitalists, you are not living in socialism, even if you and all your buddies work at hip vegan co-ops. Socialism and capitalism are antithetical, they cannot coexist.

No, my "idea" is that it's illogical to classify an area as "capitalist" or "socialist" when this is not the dominant mode of production said area. This "all or nothing" mindset is essentially a correct one to have, since socialism is internationalist after all and I don't believe socialism can be sustained without a large base of international solidarity, perhaps even an entire global shift in the mode of production, but to say that it simply *must* be all or nothing in any given scenario is just wrong.




Whatever difference you think there is between public and state enterprise*, state enterprise is what prevails in Cuba and the question is left unanswered, what is the qualitative difference between having your labor exploited by private and state enterprise?

Um, nothing? I didn't say it wasn't exploitative by nature, I said it was not a capitalist mode of production, which it isn't.



More to the point, I never characterized state enterprise as 'one state official owns a business and makes the profit', you know what that would be called? Private enterprise.

Well that's what you seem to be implying, but moving on.


State enterprises are owned by (guess who?) the state, managed by (managed, not owned) state officials, and the profit, if there is any, goes to the state. How the state chooses to spend its money, be it on bombs or on 'social spending' is up to the state, not the workers. What you are describing isnt socialism, it's social democracy.

Moreover, if you recognize that there is a working class (that would then need to organize itself through unions), you're recognizing the existence of wage labor. Wage labor necessitates Capital, be it state or private. When you recognize the existence of classes, you're recognizing the existence of capitalism. Capitalism, no matter how it's managed, is not socialism.

Oh, and you know CEO stands for Chief Executive Officer, right?

*Can you provide an example of a 'public' enterprise that is not a state enterprise? Because what you described as a 'public' enterprise is simply a state enterprise that is run in a more 'fair' way. Remember we're not trying to make capitalism fairer, we're trying to abolish it.

Yes I am aware of the nature of state enterprises. However, the surplus value is being poured back into the working class to provide for their basic needs among other things through this social spending, not being pocketed by a bourgeoisie for the explicit purpose of accumulating more capital. I didn't say that was socialism, again I am not defending Cuba as a socialist nation (it most certainly is not in my opinion), I'm just pointing out that the mode of production in Cuba, while sharing capitalist characteristics is not exactly the exact same social relation, with the relation of certain classes to the means of production being not quite the same. You seem to have this idea of social relations and modes of production that facilitate them being these very black and white things that either are and aren't. We can't take such a simplistic view of something so intricate and complicated.

I also find it an odd charge that class society is inherently capitalist. Again, wrong. Feudalism had many different classes, yet it was not a capitalist mode of production. Money does not necessitate capitalism and neither does class, what constitutes a capitalist mode of production is relationships to the means of production. Again, of course capitalism is not socialism. I am not holding up Cuba as a socialist model. That is a strawman, I believe, as I haven't said once that the dominant mode of production in the nation is socialism.

You answered your own question, essentially. "Public enterprises" or "publicly owned" businesses tend to have more if not near-complete worker control of said businesses, though they are still state-owned. I didn't say this was ideal. You cannot humanize capitalism, there is no "fixing the broken system". The system does exactly what it was intended to do. We are in agreement there.




You really didn't get what I was saying. I was being facetious. You cannot be 'half free', you either have a master, a boss, etc., however nice or mean, or you don't. You cannot be 'half exploited', you either have surplus value extracted out of your labor, however much or little, or you do not.

You also did not answer my question, so let me reword it for you, what leads you to believe Cuba is this capitalism-socialism hybrid you speak of? What material realities lead you to that conclusion?

Did I say they were half-free or two-thirds free or any such? I was fully aware that you were being facetious, but the fact does remain that some proles are more exploited than others, is the point I'm driving at.

Not like that makes it even better, because we as socialists do not aim for a "mostly unoppressive" or "mostly anti-imperialist or anti exploitative" society. It does need to be understood that there are varying degrees of exploitation, however, as Lenin elaborated on while talking about the concept of superprofits.


The Engels quote was obviously referring to state-enterprises in liberal bourgeois democracies, governments that are merely an armed extension of bourgeois class interests, and thus they will still serve the will of capital and those who accumulate the most of it. I don't believe we can really characterize the Cuban government as a government that is defending the interests of the bourgeois.



Blake's Baby, again, I'm not saying that it's a capitalist socialist hybrid, I'm saying that certain social relations and economic maxims from both of these modes of production can be found within the economy itself, among the nature of the relation between the people in that society and the modes of production. I'm not trying to make some ridiculous "it's 35.5% capitalist" nonsensical argument.

[Red Banana]

This "all or nothing" mindset is essentially a correct one to have, since socialism is internationalist after all and I don't believe socialism can be sustained without a large base of international solidarity, perhaps even an entire global shift in the mode of production, but to say that it simply *must* be all or nothing in any given scenario is just wrong.

It not so much "all or nothing", just recognizing capitalism when it exists. Could you imagine going to the doctor with grapefruit sized tumor in your brain and having the doctor tell you, "you don't have cancer, I mean, well, your brain does, but that's just one part of you, I wouldn't want to mischaractarize you, in entirety, as 'having cancer'".



Um, nothing?

So you agree there is no qualitative difference between being exploited by private and state enterprise.


I didn't say it wasn't exploitative by nature, I said it is not a capitalist mode of production, which it isn't.

So when a private individual exploits wage labor, it's capitalism, but when a state exploits wage labor it is...?*



Well that's what you seem to be implying, but moving on.

No, I wasn't, show me one instance where I asserted that. Keep your words out of my mouth.


Yes I am aware of the nature of state enterprises. However, the surplus value is being poured back into the working class to provide for their basic needs among other things through this social spending, not being pocketed by a bourgeoisie for the explicit purpose of accumulating more capital.

First, think about the fact that you're saying 'working class' i.e. the class that sells their labor in exchange for a wage. Who is it that the workers sell their labor to? The person or entity that owns the means of production i.e. capital, right? If a person owns means of production and employs wage labor, they are a capitalist. Likewise, if a state owns means of production and employs wage labor, it's is capitalist.

See how they both have the same relationship to the means of production, the relation of owner rather than worker?

Second, social spending is not at all contradictory to capitalism. Is the US not capitalist because we have foodstamps, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, social security, etc.?

What if a regular, private capitalist, you know, the ones you don't like, decides to spend all of their profits at the end of the day on social programs for the working class? Does that mean they don't own means of production, don't exploit wage labor, and are thus not a capitalist? No, it just means they like spending the money they get from exploiting wage labor on nice causes.

When a state, like the private individual, owns means of production and exploits wage labor, then decides to spend all of its profits on social programs for the working class, its relationship to the means of production (i.e. owner) has not changed. What you spend your money does not determine your class.


I didn't say that was socialism again, I am not defending Cuba as a socialist nation

True, you have been asserting that it is part capitalism, and part 'capitalism-socialism hybrid' (whatever that is?), but not at all socialism.


Moreover, if you recognize that there is a working class (that would then need to organize itself through unions), you're recognizing the existence of wage labor. Wage labor necessitates Capital, be it state or private. When you recognize the existence of classes, you're recognizing the existence of capitalism. Capitalism, no matter how it's managed, is not socialism.


I also find it an odd charge that class society is inherently capitalist. Again, wrong. Feudalism had many different classes, yet it was not a capitalist mode of production.

Excuse me for assuming you read the entire paragraph. Perhaps I should've said "these classes", would that have made it easier for you to know which classes I was referring to?


You answered your own question, essentially. "Public enterprises" or "publicly owned" businesses tend to have more if not near-complete worker control of said businesses, though they are still state-owned.

Ok, earlier in this thread you asserted there was a difference between 'public' and state enterprise, now you accept they are one and the same? Alright, baby steps I guess, moving on.

Libraries, police departments, schools, parks etc. are all examples of 'public' property. They are called this because they are owned by the state and the state sees itself (or at least claims to be) representative of the public. None of these 'public' enterprises have "more, if not complet worker control" and "worker control" is not a defining characteristic of 'public' (state) enterprise, I honestly have no idea where you're getting this from. Could you please provide an example of one 'public' enterprise, either in the US or Cuba, that has "more, if not complete worker control"?


The Engels quote was obviously referring to state-enterprises in liberal bourgeois democracies

Ok, so state enterprises in liberal democracies= capitalism

But state enterprises in one party dictatorships= not capitalism?


governments that are merely an armed extension of bourgeois class interests

And the Cuban government is an armed extension of which class's interests?


and thus they will still serve the will of capital and those who accumulate the most of it.

You're still not getting it. Engels wasn't asserting that state enterprises are still capitalist because they 'serve the will of capital', he was asserting they are capitalist because of their relationship to the means of production, the relationship, as I said before, of owner, rather than worker.