Cuban National Assembly approves new Foreign Investment Law

[PeoplesRepublics]

Cuban National Assembly approves new Foreign Investment Law
LIVIA RODRÍGUEZ DELIS
The Cuban Parliament’s approval of a new Foreign Investment Law has raised great expectations among national and international enterprises and is considered one of the most strategically important steps to be taken in the process of implementing the Economic and Social Policy Guidelines approved in 2011, by the 6th Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba.

The law, initially discussed in extensive regional meetings, was approved unanimously by the National Assembly.

In terms of the law’s basic purpose, Marino Murillo, a Council of Ministers vice president, provided legislators context by explaining that, in order to make long term development plans, the economy’s rate of growth through 2030, and the level of investment required to allow for this growth, were identified.
He pointed out that the Cuban economy is currently facing a dilemma, having to direct resources toward investment, as opposed to consumption, given the insufficient Gross National Product, and the need to reach a growth rate of five to seven percent a year, to achieve the level of development projected.
He indicated that essential components of the Cuban economy require significant re-capitalization to support development, and that this level of investment cannot be reached without resources from abroad, mentioning agriculture as a case in point.
Over the last few years, Murillo reported, Cuba’s GNP has shown moderate growth. In 2013, the rate was 2.7%, while a 2.2% growth is projected for 2014. He commented that although there is positive growth, the rate is declining, indicating a deceleration and the need for external financing.
In a presentation on the new legal framework, Rodrigo Malmierca, head of the Foreign Trade and Investment Ministry, reaffirmed that the policy is well aligned with Cuba’s socialist system and is characterized by attention to the protection of national sovereignty, the country’s natural resources, environment and heritage.
The law, initially discussed in extensive regional meetings, was approved unanimously by the National Assembly and contains 34 general principles, including the conception of foreign investment as necessary to economic development in the short, medium and long term, and the proviso that it should contribute to introducing advanced technology; to the development of better management practices; the diversification and extension of export markets; the substitution of imports; and the generation of greater income throughout the economy, as a result of growth in national production linked to new investments.
The law is intended to promote foreign investment by offering an extensive and diverse portfolio of projects and opportunities in special development zones, in particular the recently opened Mariel special zone, the Minister said.
Malmierca further explained that priorities established by the country will be emphasized, including a change in energy generation patterns, to move toward greater use of renewable resources; greater Cuban participation in companies involved in extracting natural resources; public service provision; development of the biotechnology industry; and expansion of the wholesale market serving tourist installations.
The country’s private sector, fundamentally cooperatives, will also have access to foreign capital, although on the basis of exceptional procedures which include government supervision.
Given their importance, Malmierca continued, specific principles are established for several sectors, including agriculture and forestry; energy and mining; sugar production; heavy and light industry (steel, electronics, biotechnology, etc.); wholesale distribution; healthcare; construction; tourism; and transportation.
Among the new features of the foreign investment law is an eight-year tax exemption on earnings, available for longer periods in special cases. Preferential treatment is also afforded investors to encourage the utilization of competitively-priced Cuban products, and provisions are in place to support foreign operations as the unification of Cuba’s two currencies proceeds.
Malmierca emphasized that investors’ assets are fully protected, that they will not be expropriated except in exceptional cases of public need or social interest. The state guarantees investors’ right to transfer abroad any hard currency dividends or earnings.
Among other positive elements, beyond the letter of the law, which should be attractive to foreign capital are the updating of Cuba’s economic model currently underway; the country’s characteristic political and social stability; and the availability of a highly qualified workforce, Malmierca said.
He however warned that obstacles to the participation of international investors in the economy continue to exist, in particular the financial and commercial blockade imposed by the United States; Cuba’s outstanding foreign debt; errors committed in the past in this arena; and limitations caused by the scarcity of hard currency.
In addition to approving the Foreign Investment Law, the National Assembly elected two new members to the Council of State and reiterated its support to the struggle to free the three members of the Cuban Five who remain unjustly imprisoned in the United States, Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino and Antonio Guerrero Source is Granma. I found this quite disturbing especially the part about Special Economic Zones. What does anyone else think about this?

[RedSonRising]

I posted some additional details on it here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2734814&postcount=50

I see it as unfortunate, but necessary. Cuba simply cannot remain as economically isolated as it is. Many point to this as a sign of the state reverting to capitalism, and they may ultimately be right, but the fact is that no amount of purist socialist re-modeling will solve the material deficits that exist in Cuba.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I posted some additional details on it here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2734814&postcount=50

I see it as unfortunate, but necessary. Cuba simply cannot remain as economically isolated as it is. Many point to this as a sign of the state reverting to capitalism, and they may ultimately be right, but the fact is that no amount of purist socialist re-modeling will solve the material deficits that exist in Cuba.

Why are you continuing to defend them?

Call a spade a spade ffs.

[Prometeo liberado]

Anytime I hear the phrase "tax exemption" my knees buckle. Basically you're letting that precious Capital leave the country, for 8 years! !
I recently saw an interview with the minister of the economy who said that an Italian comrade asked him why Cuba was betraying the revolution. His response, we are trying to save our country. What would you do? No country, no revolution.
Now I don't really give a shit about that but I do care about is the way it's just being given away without the internal structure or willingness to demand at least the basics as far as business goes. 8 years no taxes.
Amazing.

[RedSonRising]

Why are you continuing to defend them?

Call a spade a spade ffs.

I think the move is necessary because economic isolation has Cuba experiencing dire scarcity of raw materials and basic goods, and we've already been through the discussions about why you think Cuba is capitalist and why I don't.

[Ismail]

Why are you continuing to defend them?

Call a spade a spade ffs.I don't really know why you take issue with what Cuba's doing when you've attacked Socialist Albania for prohibiting joint ventures and foreign investments in its 1976 Constitution.

Not that Cuba was or has ever been socialist, of course. Fidel Castro and his brother have been praising "socialism with Chinese characteristics" since the 90s.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't really know why you take issue with what Cuba's doing when you've attacked Socialist Albania for prohibiting joint ventures and foreign investments in its 1976 Constitution.

Not that Cuba was or has ever been socialist, of course. Fidel Castro and his brother have been praising "socialism with Chinese characteristics" since the 90s.

I don't think i've ever attacked anyone for prohibiting joint ventures and foreign investment. I attack Socialist Albania for its ridiculous isolationism and cult of personality, not to mention Hoxha's illiberal social attitudes.

[KurtFF8]

Why are you continuing to defend them?

Call a spade a spade ffs.

There's no question that many of the reforms in Cuba over the past few years have reintroduced aspects of capitalist property relations, although mostly just through infusion of capital from foreign companies rather than the creation of a new bourgeoisie in Cuba like what we've seen in China.

But Cuba is still, in my opinion, a socialist country and is quite clearly one of the major anchors against US dominance in Latin American in general. It most certainly should be defended.

I've had many arguments about this on RevLeft and have yet to see anything even remotely convincing to back up the claim that Cuba is capitalist.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Here we go.

Cuba clearly isn't socialist. The "cooperatives" in Cuba are driven by profit motive which disproportionately benefits the bourgeois class.

However, Cuba has significantly progressive policies that should be admired on their own merits. Particularly their healthcare is top notch and their willingness to send more doctors to give foreign aid than any other country. Not to mention their carbon footprint is impressively low.

As for these "market developments", is anyone really surprised? Those that hold onto Cuba as some kind of socialist model are deluding themselves. I'd argue that Cuba was never on a road to socialism to begin with, they just made significant economic reforms.

[Per Levy]

I've had many arguments about this on RevLeft and have yet to see anything even remotely convincing to back up the claim that Cuba is capitalist.

exactly, there were many discussions on that matter on this site and so far i have not seen anything remotly that could convince me that cuba is socialist. well except of course socialism for you is some kind of social democracy than i can see that but social democracy isnt socialism. in the end, for the peeps who think cuba is "socialist", it comes down to "i want to belive" stuff and mental gymnastics of all kinds get used to define a capitalist country as socialist.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There's no question that many of the reforms in Cuba over the past few years have reintroduced aspects of capitalist property relations, although mostly just through infusion of capital from foreign companies rather than the creation of a new bourgeoisie in Cuba like what we've seen in China.

But Cuba is still, in my opinion, a socialist country and is quite clearly one of the major anchors against US dominance in Latin American in general. It most certainly should be defended.

I've had many arguments about this on RevLeft and have yet to see anything even remotely convincing to back up the claim that Cuba is capitalist.

I'm interested to hear what your definition of socialist is, if a country that has capitalist property relations and foreign capital investment (for profit) can be counted as 'socialist'.

[KurtFF8]

Here we go.

Cuba clearly isn't socialist. The "cooperatives" in Cuba are driven by profit motive which disproportionately benefits the bourgeois class.


What bourgeois class? Who are these Cuban bourgeoisie besides the exiles who fled shortly after the revolution who are living in Miami?



As for these "market developments", is anyone really surprised? Those that hold onto Cuba as some kind of socialist model are deluding themselves. I'd argue that Cuba was never on a road to socialism to begin with, they just made significant economic reforms.

These are very strange claims considering the role the working class has played in post-revolutionary Cuba at pretty much every stage.


well except of course socialism for you is some kind of social democracy than i can see that but social democracy isnt socialism. in the end, for the peeps who think cuba is "socialist", it comes down to "i want to belive" stuff and mental gymnastics of all kinds get used to define a capitalist country as socialist.

I would love for you, and the previous poster that I quoted above, to actually point out who the bourgeoisie of Cuba are. Who are the property owners who are employing workers using their surplus value to expand their market share, etc.?

Hint: you will have a very tough time with this.


I'm interested to hear what your definition of socialist is, if a country that has capitalist property relations and foreign capital investment (for profit) can be counted as 'socialist'.

I said before that some of the reforms have certain aspects of capitalist property relations, but not that Cuba overall has capitalist property relations. In fact, even with these reforms it is simply not the case that capitalist property relations dominate the economy.

I think it's more helpful to look at these reforms as a certain kind of NEP program (although even compared to the NEP, they aren't as far reaching) of relief in a period of isolation.

[RedSonRising]

What bourgeois class?

I'm still waiting for evidence of this domestic class of private property owners in Cuba who don't have to sell their labor, hire people who do in order to produce goods before extracting the surplus from their labor, and then sell those goods on the market for a profit, to the re-invest and expand in order to compete with the same members of their class. Aside from foreign employers hiring Cuban labor in restricted zones, this is nonexistent. Cooperatives and individual licenses reintroduce certain market dynamics, but they do not reintroduce exploitative capitalist relations.

[Ismail]

I don't think i've ever attacked anyone for prohibiting joint ventures and foreign investment. I attack Socialist Albania for its ridiculous isolationismTo quote a post from you:

Going it alone, to the detriment of the general population to enact their will upon the organs of power of the state, seems pig-headed and extreme to me.

You simply cannot have Socialism in one country, as self-reliance ultimately leads to a vicious cycle of self-unreliance. It is ridiculous to think that a small country as Albania could really prosper under self-reliant autarky.And yet what "isolationism" did Albania pursue? Hoxha stated multiple times that Albania never pursued an autarkic economic policy, that Albania traded with various countries in Western and Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America. The only countries Albania absolutely did not trade with were the USA, USSR, Israel, South Africa and the like.

While Albania was doing this, Cuba had plenty of faux-"internationalism," its forces serving as mercenaries for Soviet social-imperialism in Angola and Ethiopia while the Cuban revisionists extolled the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To quote a post from you:
And yet what "isolationism" did Albania pursue? Hoxha stated multiple times that Albania never pursued an autarkic economic policy, that Albania traded with various countries in Western and Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America. The only countries Albania absolutely did not trade with were the USA, USSR, Israel, South Africa and the like.

While Albania was doing this, Cuba had plenty of faux-"internationalism," its forces serving as mercenaries for Soviet social-imperialism in Angola and Ethiopia while the Cuban revisionists extolled the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.

So you're dividing the world into a binary situation where anybody who does not support the failed, antiquated doctrine of Socialism In One Country automatically supports capitalism and foreign capital investment? Nice. As if you're going to get away with that one.

Then you contradict yourself; if Albania traded with various capitalist countries, but only absolutely did not trade with the USA, USSR, Israel, South Africa etc., then that points to not a doctrinal issue of 'foreign capital vs SIOC', but a political issue that Hoxha had with the countries listed.

So yeah, it's pretty hypocritical to call Cuba out on faux-'internationalism' whilst not doing the same for Albania. At least Cuba also has sent doctors all over the world to where they have been needed in times of crisis, too. Even if those countries play 'jungle music', eh? What would Hoxha have said? Tell me, it's my birthday..!

[Chris]

This isn't particularly new. When I was in Cuba in 2011, the CPC was already pursuing foreign investment within sectors such as tourism and petroleum (with similar terms as the legal act does now). Its really just making de jure what was already de facto. And sadly, it is necessary. The Cubans I spoke with regarding it (among others, the speaker of the popular assembly) compared it to the NEP in the Soviet Union, in that they hope it'll be a temporary (along the lines of several decades) policy. Whether or not it'll get out of hand is another matter entirely.

[Ismail]

So you're dividing the world into a binary situation where anybody who does not support the failed, antiquated doctrine of Socialism In One Country automatically supports capitalism and foreign capital investment? Nice. As if you're going to get away with that one.No, I'm saying that you aren't consistent.

I also do not see how the possibility of constructing socialism in one country failed. It succeeded in the USSR and Albania. Of course, as Lenin and Stalin pointed out, the danger of capitalist restoration would continue to exist so long as capitalism existed.


Then you contradict yourself; if Albania traded with various capitalist countries, but only absolutely did not trade with the USA, USSR, Israel, South Africa etc., then that points to not a doctrinal issue of 'foreign capital vs SIOC', but a political issue that Hoxha had with the countries listed.Actually it pointed to the fact that, on the one hand, the USA and USSR would never trade with Albania in conditions of equality, and on the other that not just Albania, but various other countries refused to trade with Israel and South Africa.

Of course there were those who continued to trade with Israel, such as those resolute foes of "isolationism," Ceaușescu and (until 1973 when he sought to shore up support for himself in the "Non-Aligned Movement") Castro.

Albania did not maintain relations with either the UK or West Germany for political reasons, but was willing to restore them. In the first case the British had broken off diplomatic relations on their own initiative, in 1946, and acted in a hostile fashion to the country over the next few years. The British had also interned Albanian gold which they had taken from the Italians (who had taken it from Albania) during WWII. As for West Germany, Albania called for it to pay reparations.


So yeah, it's pretty hypocritical to call Cuba out on faux-'internationalism' whilst not doing the same for Albania.You haven't actually demonstrated that Albania pursued a policy of faux-internationalism. It took a consistent, principled stand: opposition to capitalism and imperialism in all their guises, opposition to the plans of the superpowers, and support for proletarian revolutions and national liberation struggles. Cuba, by contrast, was a neo-colony of the Soviet revisionists and covered for its social-imperialist adventures abroad, while Castro praised Gorbachev as a man who "struggled to perfect socialism," praised Dengist China, and sought to promote the revisionist formulations of focoism against Marxism-Leninism.


At least Cuba also has sent doctors all over the world to where they have been needed in times of crisis, too.Doctors in Cuba are used as pawns for the interests of the state-capitalist regime. There's a SWP book praising Cuban doctors in Equatorial Guinea, as well as its reactionary President (who evidently enjoys fairly good relations with Cuba.) It is similar to how black Cubans were sent into Angola not only to serve the interests of the Soviet social-imperialists in occupying the country, but to alleviate problems of unemployment at home. Not to mention that the USA, Canada, and most every Western European country sends doctors to countries abroad, I doubt you'd cite this as an example of internationalism.

The Soviet revisionists and their Eastern European satellites provided similar "aid" to countries in Asia and Africa. It wasn't a demonstration of internationalism, but self-interest.

[KurtFF8]

I'm still waiting for evidence of this domestic class of private property owners in Cuba who don't have to sell their labor, hire people who do in order to produce goods before extracting the surplus from their labor, and then sell those goods on the market for a profit, to the re-invest and expand in order to compete with the same members of their class. Aside from foreign employers hiring Cuban labor in restricted zones, this is nonexistent. Cooperatives and individual licenses reintroduce certain market dynamics, but they do not reintroduce exploitative capitalist relations.

I agree with this, I wonder why you wrote it as if it was disagreeing with my post. I didn't say that capitalist property relations had been restored, just that aspects of capitalism have been reintroduced via these reforms. Those are of course quite different things.

[RedSonRising]

I agree with this, I wonder why you wrote it as if it was disagreeing with my post. I didn't say that capitalist property relations had been restored, just that aspects of capitalism have been reintroduced via these reforms. Those are of course quite different things.

I know you agree, I was adding on to your statement. Sorry for the mix up.

[KurtFF8]

Castro praised Gorbachev as a man who "struggled to perfect socialism," praised Dengist China, and sought to promote the revisionist formulations of focoism against Marxism-Leninism.

Yet Castro completely rejected many of the reforms going on in the USSR and refused to implement them in Cuba.

Sure you can pull a quotes by Castro that are likely no more than mere formalities, but you'd have a hard time showing that Cuban policy in any way emulated Gorbachev's in the USSR.

Edit: I know this is Wikipedia but I feel that your narrative about Cuba as simply a colony of the USSR during the Gorbachev era is just demonstrably false: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_relations#Foreign_Relati ons_in_the_Gorbachev_Era

Granted I think it's false for all of the era's of their relations but since we're talking about this particular period we should focus on this claim of yours.


I know you agree, I was adding on to your statement. Sorry for the mix up.

Ah perhaps I misread your post

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yet Castro completely rejected many of the reforms going on in the USSR and refused to implement them in Cuba.

Sure you can pull a quotes by Castro that are likely no more than mere formalities, but you'd have a hard time showing that Cuban policy in any way emulated Gorbachev's in the USSR.

Edit: I know this is Wikipedia but I feel that your narrative about Cuba as simply a colony of the USSR during the Gorbachev era is just demonstrably false: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_relations#Foreign_Relati ons_in_the_Gorbachev_Era

Granted I think it's false for all of the era's of their relations but since we're talking about this particular period we should focus on this claim of yours.



Ah perhaps I misread your post

He may not have gone along with Gorbachev's reforms, but what about the periodo especial? And what about the reforms of this decade?

[Ismail]

Sure you can pull a quotes by Castro that are likely no more than mere formalities,It would be a formality had it occurred when Gorbachev was actually in power, but Castro made those remarks in a 1992 interview.


but I feel that your narrative about Cuba as simply a colony of the USSR during the Gorbachev era is just demonstrably falseI wasn't arguing that Cuba was a Soviet neo-colony under Gorbachev because he praised the man, but Cuba was certainly a neo-colony throughout the 1960s-80s. When Soviet state-capitalism collapsed, Cuba's economy was put into a crisis, something attributable directly to the monoculture sugar economy encouraged by the revisionists.

As as I've said, both Fidel and Raúl Castro have praised "socialism with Chinese characteristics" before. See for instance: http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/contemp/leftover/Castro1993Zemin.htm

[KurtFF8]

He may not have gone along with Gorbachev's reforms, but what about the periodo especial? And what about the reforms of this decade?

What does the special period have to do with Gorbachev? And in what way are the reforms in Cuba over the past decade like Perestroika?


It would be a formality had it occurred when Gorbachev was actually in power, but Castro made those remarks in a 1992 interview.

So a quote from a single interview in 1992 over the actual internal and international positions of Cuba in the 80s and early 90s...


I wasn't arguing that Cuba was a Soviet neo-colony under Gorbachev because he praised the man, but Cuba was certainly a neo-colony throughout the 1960s-80s. When Soviet state-capitalism collapsed, Cuba's economy was put into a crisis, something attributable directly to the monoculture sugar economy encouraged by the revisionists.

Who is arguing that Cuba's economy was put into crisis because of the collapse of the USSR? This is something that Cuba itself is obviously quite well aware of. I'm not sure what point your making here. Just adding "it's because of revisionists!" isn't really an argument, it's just re-starting a claim.


As as I've said, both Fidel and Raúl Castro have praised "socialism with Chinese characteristics" before. See for instance

That's nice, but it's quite a stretch (to say the least) to claim that Cuba's reforms mirror China's in any way.

[Ismail]

So a quote from a single interview in 1992 over the actual internal and international positions of Cuba in the 80s and early 90s...Well considering that the Albanians attacked Gorbachev's policies while Cuba was continuing to shower the USSR with praise, to the extent that Fidel Castro was praising Gorbachev even after the Soviet Union broke apart, it would seem that Cuba was quite close to the USSR under Gorbachev, with the exception of some measures which, for its own purposes, it had no interest in adopting.


Who is arguing that Cuba's economy was put into crisis because of the collapse of the USSR? This is something that Cuba itself is obviously quite well aware of. I'm not sure what point your making here. Just adding "it's because of revisionists!" isn't really an argument, it's just re-starting a claim.You apparently forgot to read the part where I mentioned the monoculture economy encouraged under the revisionists, which perpetuated neo-colonialism on the island.


That's nice,No doubt an important aspect of Cuban "internationalism" involves encouraging the world's working-class to look towards Dengist China as a fraternal socialist country, just as was Cuba's policy in regards to the USSR under the revisionists.


but it's quite a stretch (to say the least) to claim that Cuba's reforms mirror China's in any way.They're clearly influenced by China's "market socialism." Vietnam's economic policies are in some respects relatively "moderate" compared to China's, yet I don't think anyone would deny that they were carried out in a vacuum as well.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I said before that some of the reforms have certain aspects of capitalist property relations, but not that Cuba overall has capitalist property relations. In fact, even with these reforms it is simply not the case that capitalist property relations dominate the economy.


It doesn't? What does it have then? Why does it have them? What is different about the Cuban economy and the U.S. economy, save the overt declarations of its ruling party?


I think it's more helpful to look at these reforms as a certain kind of NEP program (although even compared to the NEP, they aren't as far reaching) of relief in a period of isolation.

Fair, but NEP was capitalism, and nothing else.

[Rafiq]

The NEP was established by a proletarian dictatorship in response to the problem of the peasantry. What is different about Cuba's reforms and those by the Eastern Bloc during the late 1980's? Not that I blame the Cuban state, of course they have no other option. But they are not a proletarian dictatorship, that much should be recognized.

[Roach]

The NEP was established by a proletarian dictatorship in response to the problem of the peasantry. What is different about Cuba's reforms and those by the Eastern Bloc during the late 1980's? Not that I blame the Cuban state, of course they have no other option. But they are not a proletarian dictatorship, that much should be recognized.

Well it all comes to wether the leadership that it is implementing is proletarian or not, and futhermore to what extent those economic policies are really temporary or just a manner to justify capitalist restoration within a false pretense of socialism. In the end it is ridiculous after decades in power, those communist parties like the ones in Cuba, DPRK or Vietnam to use an economical program of a young bolshevik regime that had just come out of the biggest war that region had seen in centuries to destroy any pretense of socialism they ever had, just because there is no more Soviet economic help.

[KurtFF8]

Well considering that the Albanians attacked Gorbachev's policies while Cuba was continuing to shower the USSR with praise, to the extent that Fidel Castro was praising Gorbachev even after the Soviet Union broke apart, it would seem that Cuba was quite close to the USSR under Gorbachev, with the exception of some measures which, for its own purposes, it had no interest in adopting.

Again we're talking about empty jestures and pronouncements versus actual action being taken. I've pointed out various ways that Cuba did not implement the reforms going on in the USSR (and explicitly rejected them). Cuba even banned the USSR's main publications within the island because they opposed the reforms at one point.

Yet all you can do is point to Fidel saying a nice thing or two about Gorbachev as if that's somehow more significant than the actual policies of Cuba at the time.


You apparently forgot to read the part where I mentioned the monoculture economy encouraged under the revisionists, which perpetuated neo-colonialism on the island.

How did I "forget" that at all? I mentioned how Cuba is quite well aware that relying on one crop and trading partner has been devastating for them in various periods.


No doubt an important aspect of Cuban "internationalism" involves encouraging the world's working-class to look towards Dengist China as a fraternal socialist country, just as was Cuba's policy in regards to the USSR under the revisionists.

In what significant ways has Cuba done this? (Please offer something other than "Fidel once said a nice thing about China one time")


They're clearly influenced by China's "market socialism." Vietnam's economic policies are in some respects relatively "moderate" compared to China's, yet I don't think anyone would deny that they were carried out in a vacuum as well.

Perhaps they are influenced by China's to some extent, but they've also criticized China and have rejected that they are attempting to emulate them. They are of course very different models.


It doesn't? What does it have then? Why does it have them? What is different about the Cuban economy and the U.S. economy, save the overt declarations of its ruling party?

Are you serious about this? What is similar? The entire economic and political structures of both are drastically different. I'm surprised to see a claim like this on RevLeft.


Fair, but NEP was capitalism, and nothing else.

Indeed, but this isn't even as drastic as the NEP relative to the overall economy, which is something that many are failing to point out.


But they are not a proletarian dictatorship, that much should be recognized.

What are they then?

[Ismail]

Again we're talking about empty jestures and pronouncements versus actual action being taken. I've pointed out various ways that Cuba did not implement the reforms going on in the USSR (and explicitly rejected them). Cuba even banned the USSR's main publications within the island because they opposed the reforms at one point.It's significant because it demonstrates the utterly wrong course the Cubans had embarked upon. In 1988 Castro also told one interviewer that the idea of Gorbachev endorsing bourgeois democracy and instituting a multi-party system was ridiculous.

The fact that Castro could say in 1992 that Gorbachev "struggled to perfect socialism" is still a pretty astounding comment though. It's certainly not what I'd expect a communist to say.


Yet all you can do is point to Fidel saying a nice thing or two about Gorbachev as if that's somehow more significant than the actual policies of Cuba at the time.I bring them up not because I argue that Castro liked Gorbachev (neither did Kim Il Sung, Ceaușescu or Honecker), but because it demonstrates the servility of Cuban foreign policy to Soviet social-imperialism. Castro sending troops into Angola and Ethiopia to further the aims of the Soviet revisionists under Brezhnev was, of course, a much worse offense, and constituted the "actual policies of Cuba at the time." Not to mention the endorsement of aggression in Czechoslovakia.


How did I "forget" that at all? I mentioned how Cuba is quite well aware that relying on one crop and trading partner has been devastating for them in various periods.It's easy to admit that after the fact, although the effectiveness of this admission is lessened by the fact that you don't admit the neo-colonial relationship between the USSR and Cuba, just that it was somehow devastating regardless.


In what significant ways has Cuba done this? (Please offer something other than "Fidel once said a nice thing about China one time")I already cited a speech by Fidel praising the Chinese state as socialist. There are many others like it.

[Rafiq]

What are they then?

A remnant of the distinct, (I am almost tempted to say "non mode of production") tendency that was 20th century Communism. In order for something to be categorized as a distinct mode of production, it must constantly reinforce conditions of productions for a sustainable amount of time. It is clear that these communist states were not only incapable of doing this in the long term, they were also unable to adequately develop and establish ideological hegemony and legitimacy (hence the rampant cynicism). Cuba's abandonment of socialism is something that is long overdue.

A proletarian dictatorship is not something that can be forged through policy. It is not something a state can simply ask of it's workers.

[KurtFF8]

It's significant because it demonstrates the utterly wrong course the Cubans had embarked upon. In 1988 Castro also told one interviewer that the idea of Gorbachev endorsing bourgeois democracy and instituting a multi-party system was ridiculous.

The fact that Castro could say in 1992 that Gorbachev "struggled to perfect socialism" is still a pretty astounding comment though. It's certainly not what I'd expect a communist to say.

This sound bites that you're fixating on are no more than that: posturing between heads of state. The actual actions of Cuba in this period seem to be less important to you than these out of context quotes from Fidel you keep bringing up.

If Cuba was so supportive of the reforms in the USSR, why were they not adopted with open arms in Cuba?


I bring them up not because I argue that Castro liked Gorbachev (neither did Kim Il Sung, Ceaușescu or Honecker), but because it demonstrates the servility of Cuban foreign policy to Soviet social-imperialism. Castro sending troops into Angola and Ethiopia to further the aims of the Soviet revisionists under Brezhnev was, of course, a much worse offense, and constituted the "actual policies of Cuba at the time." Not to mention the endorsement of aggression in Czechoslovakia.Oh dear, this "soviet imperialism" and "Cuba was just a pawn of the USSR" stuff again. These claims that you've made multiple times also don't really align with the actual history of not only Cuba-USSR relations, but of relations that Cuba had with countries like Angola, Namibia, and the South African resistance.


It's easy to admit that after the fact, although the effectiveness of this admission is lessened by the fact that you don't admit the neo-colonial relationship between the USSR and Cuba, just that it was somehow devastating regardless.Well I think your characterization of their relationship as neo-colonial is misleading and is an inappropriate/inaccurate label (on top of being a misuse of the term)


I already cited a speech by Fidel praising the Chinese state as socialist. There are many others like it.Still not really sure why you're so fixated on these quotes as opposed to examining the actual actions of Cuba.


A remnant of the distinct, (I am almost tempted to say "non mode of production") tendency that was 20th century Communism

A tendency or political history is not the same thing as a mode of production, nor does it explain the dynamics of what class is in power.


Cuba's abandonment of socialism is something that is long overdue.Cuba's abandonment of socialism has yet to happen and hopefully will not happen.


A proletarian dictatorship is not something that can be forged through policy. It is not something a state can simply ask of it's workers.

I absolutely agree with this, and to steal a quote by the Monthly Review on Cuba (http://monthlyreview.org/2010/04/01/how-to-visit-a-socialist-country) that I really like:


Socialism is not a thing but a process, the process by which the working classes of the city and countryside and their allies seize the reins of society to satisfy their shared needs.

I highly recommend that article to folks who keep claiming that Cuba is not socialist.

[Ismail]

This sound bites that you're fixating on are no more than that: posturing between heads of state. The actual actions of Cuba in this period seem to be less important to you than these out of context quotes from Fidel you keep bringing up.They aren't out of context. In the case of Castro's speech heaping praise upon China, I quoted the entirety of said speech. As for his comments on Gorbachev see his "spoken autobiography": http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4H45OczqPYC&pg=PA364&lpg=PA364&dq=castro+%22A+man+of+great+ability,+with+good+int entions%22&source=bl&ots=ZRpFIQcj44&sig=d6jRKWJw3KBihNNa8jtExyNzoBg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GCdTU-7fCIHQsQSJuYHgDg&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=castro%20%22A%20man%20of%20great%20ability%2C%20 with%20good%20intentions%22&f=false

And these words do carry weight because, as MIM pointed out when it quoted Castro's 1993 speech to the Chinese, "Of the Chinese party's mistakes he says, 'it's up to them, not us to judge.' This is a typical unscientific cop-out. China is either socialist or it is not. The road it took at various times was either good for socialism or it was not and the answer does not depend on whether one is standing in Havana or Shanghai." Khrushchev and Hua/Deng took the same line in regards to Yugoslavia, praising it as socialist while prefacing said praise with "we don't agree with everything they're doing, but it's not up to us to tell them to how build socialism in their own country."

It supposes that the validity of the economic laws of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the need to smash the bourgeois state apparatus, and various other subjects all depend on the subjective wishes of the party in power.


If Cuba was so supportive of the reforms in the USSR, why were they not adopted with open arms in Cuba?I never said the Cubans were "supportive of the reforms in the USSR," I said that the Cubans covered for Soviet revisionism, which they did, not just under Gorbachev but from Khrushchev onwards as well. What example can such a state set for the international working-class movement, leaving aside their clearly mistaken "foco" theories on warfare?

[KurtFF8]

They aren't out of context. In the case of Castro's speech heaping praise upon China, I quoted the entirety of said speech. As for his comments on Gorbachev see his "spoken autobiography": http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4H45OczqPYC&pg=PA364&lpg=PA364&dq=castro+%22A+man+of+great+ability,+with+good+int entions%22&source=bl&ots=ZRpFIQcj44&sig=d6jRKWJw3KBihNNa8jtExyNzoBg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GCdTU-7fCIHQsQSJuYHgDg&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=castro%20%22A%20man%20of%20great%20ability%2C%20 with%20good%20intentions%22&f=false

And these words do carry weight because, as MIM pointed out when it quoted Castro's 1993 speech to the Chinese, "Of the Chinese party's mistakes he says, 'it's up to them, not us to judge.' This is a typical unscientific cop-out. China is either socialist or it is not. The road it took at various times was either good for socialism or it was not and the answer does not depend on whether one is standing in Havana or Shanghai." Khrushchev and Hua/Deng took the same line in regards to Yugoslavia, praising it as socialist while prefacing said praise with "we don't agree with everything they're doing, but it's not up to us to tell them to how build socialism in their own country."

I'm still just not following why it's so important what Fidel said or didn't say in a particular speech. You can't seem to answer why it is more important to look at something that the MIM thinks is important from a speech in the 1990s than to look at the actual policies and structure of Cuban society.



I never said the Cubans were "supportive of the reforms in the USSR," I said that the Cubans covered for Soviet revisionism, which they did, not just under Gorbachev but from Khrushchev onwards as well. What example can such a state set for the international working-class movement, leaving aside their clearly mistaken "foco" theories on warfare?

So in other words, Cuba maintaining relations with the USSR via a few words said in a speech says more to you about Cuba society than actually examining how the working class expresses itself politically in Cuba.

Considering that the two countries had close ties, it makes sense that Cuba would say positive things about their ally, even when they didn't 100% agree. Thus is the world of actually existing politics, especially when warfare (see: African theaters) is involved indeed.

And what does the foco theory have to do with this?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

you about Cuba society than actually examining how the working class expresses itself politically in Cuba.


And your way of examining how the working class expresses itself is reading some official documents on the political organisation, which are about as reliable as those same things in the United States?

[KurtFF8]

And your way of examining how the working class expresses itself is reading some official documents on the political organisation, which are about as reliable as those same things in the United States?

It is?

[Ismail]

I'm still just not following why it's so important what Fidel said or didn't say in a particular speech.I just said why.


So in other words, Cuba maintaining relations with the USSR via a few words said in a speech says more to you about Cuba society than actually examining how the working class expresses itself politically in Cuba.Cuba didn't merely maintain relations with the USSR, it was a neo-colony of Soviet social-imperialism. There are a number of works on the subject, Cuba: The Evaporation of a Myth is one of the better-known examples: http://revolutionaryspiritapl.blogspot.com/2012/06/cuba-evaportion-of-myth-from-anti.html


And what does the foco theory have to do with this?As Hoxha noted (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1968/10/21.htm), "The Cuban revolution did not begin on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and was not carried out on the basis of the laws of the proletarian revolution of a Marxist-Leninist party. After the liberation of the country, Castro did not set out on the Marxist-Leninist course, either, but on the contrary, continued on the course of his liberal ideas. It is a fact, which nobody can deny, that the participants in this revolution took up arms and went to the mountains, but it is an undeniable fact also that they did not fight as Marxist-Leninists... the theory that the revolution is carried out by a few 'heroes' constitutes a danger to Marxism-Leninism, especially in the Latin-American countries."

He continued,

The authors of the theory that the "starter motor" sets the "big motor" in motion pose as if they are for the armed struggle, but in fact they are opposed to it and work to discredit it. The example and tragic end of Che Guevara, the following and prorogation of this theory also by other self-styled Marxists, who are opposed to the great struggles by the masses of people, are publicly known facts which refute their claims: We must guard against the people lest they betray us, lest they hand us over to the police; we must set up "wild" isolated detachments, so that the enemy does not get wind of them and does not retaliate with terror against the population! They publicize these and many other confusing theories, which you know only too well. What sort of Marxism-Leninism is this which advocates attacking the enemy, fighting it with these "wild" detachments, etc. without having a Marxist-Leninist party to lead the fight? There is nothing Marxist-Leninist about it. Such anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist theories can bring nothing but defeat for Marxism-Leninism and the revolution, as Che Guevara's undertaking in Bolivia did.

This trend brings the theses of the armed uprising into disrepute. What great damage it causes the revolution! With the killing of Guevara, the masses of common people, contaminated by the influences of these anarchist views, will think: "Now there is no one else to lead us, to liberate us!" Or perhaps a group of people with another Guevara will be set up again to take to the mountains to make the "revolution," and the masses, who expect a great deal from these individuals and are burning to fight the bourgeoisie, may be deceived into following them. And what will happen? Something that is clear to us. Since these people are not the vanguard of the working class, since they are not guided by the enlightening principles of Marxism-Leninism, they will encounter misunderstanding among the broad masses and sooner or later they will fail, but at the same time the genuine struggle will be discredited, because the masses will regard armed struggle with distrust. We must prepare the masses politically and ideologically, and convince them through their own practical experience. That is why we say that this inhibiting, reactionary theory about the revolution that is being spread in Latin America is the offspring of modern revisionism and must be unmasked by the Marxist-Leninists.Also of note is his comment that, "Certain leaders of some Latin-American states put in the odd word in a veiled 'opposition' to the Soviet Union, but we cannot infer from this that they are really opposed to it. Those words are only pressure and blackmail for the purpose of gaining some advantage, on the one hand, of deceiving the naive, on the other. If the advocates of these theories were to stop serving the Soviets in their imperialist-revisionist expansion, the latter would cut off all aid to them. We know the Soviets only too well. However, this will not occur, because they serve the Soviets admirably. This is why the Soviet revisionists continue to give them aid and keep them alive."

[KurtFF8]

Ah I see, Hoxha claimed that it wasn't a Marxist-Leninist revolution and was liberal so what else needs to be said?

[Ismail]

Ah I see, Hoxha claimed that it wasn't a Marxist-Leninist revolution and was liberal so what else needs to be said?"The Cuban Revolution was made not by any class, but rather by the youth. They began it, and the people joined in. The peasants were the first to join forces with the youth. The Revolution was made without class hatred, and it never appealed to class hatred. However, it is a revolution of social justice...

The victory of the Revolution was not accidental. It was due to not making it into a class struggle, so that it got the support of 95 percent of the people at the end. There is no other case of such unanimity of opinion behind a regime as that behind the Cuban revolutionary regime....

Previous social revolutions were made by force and terror. The revolution was made by a minority, as in the French and Russian revolutions, and so the revolutionaries established the terror. However, this has not been the Cuban method, which is based on public opinion, because it is a revolution of the majority... The only hope of [the counter-revolutionaries] is to sell the idea that the revolutionary leaders are Communists and that the Communists have much influence....

The Cuban movement is no coup d'etat. It is a real revolution. It is summed up thus: In the world, there is a struggle of capitalism against Communism. One sacrifices freedom; the other sacrifices the needs of the people. The Cuban revolutionary idea is to preserve freedom and take care of the people's needs. They therefore call their movement 'humanist.' It will give the right to earn a living, the right not to die of hunger, All the classic rights of press, religion, and opinion are not useful if a man is hungry. But to meet material needs, it is not necessary to sacrifice freedom. They are doing all of this with the support of the majority, and without dictatorship."
(Talk by Fidel Castro in Princeton, New Jersey, April 20, 1959 in Alexander, Robert J. Presidents of Central America, Mexico, Cuba, and Hispaniola: Conversations and Correspondence. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. 1995. pp. 173-175.)

[KurtFF8]

Why are quotes from Fidel in the early 1990s the only important factor here for you instead of the actual course of Cuban development from the 80s on?

You like to get the "gotcha" quotes here and there but when asked to show their relevance, you have to point to some other small quote instead of how it reflects actual development/policy/structures/etc.

[Ismail]

Why are quotes from Fidel in the early 1990s the only important factor here for you instead of the actual course of Cuban development from the 80s on?

You like to get the "gotcha" quotes here and there but when asked to show their relevance, you have to point to some other small quote instead of how it reflects actual development/policy/structures/etc.I already explained the relevance of Fidel's gushing praise for Chinese "socialism" earlier.

As for the quote I just gave, if Fidel says his revolution had nothing to do with communism or "class hatred" in general, then it's probably a good idea to take him at his word, especially since the Cuban revolution certainly had no vanguard, no Marxist ideology guiding it, no particular working-class basis, and an economic program that was clearly bourgeois-democratic rather than remotely socialist.

[synthesis]

There should be some kind of board moratorium (boratorium?) on bringing up Hoxha in threads not about Hoxha.

[Ismail]

There should be some kind of board moratorium (boratorium?) on bringing up Hoxha in threads not about Hoxha.People bring up Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky when discussing Cuba, I don't see why Hoxha (who actually commented on Castro) should be exempt.

[synthesis]

People bring up Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky when discussing Cuba, I don't see why Hoxha (who actually commented on Castro) should be exempt.

Uh, a lot of people have commented on Castro. That doesn't make them relevant to the topic at hand.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

People bring up Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky when discussing Cuba, I don't see why Hoxha (who actually commented on Castro) should be exempt.

They were kind of important world historical figures, though.

As much as i'm not a particular fan of any of them, it's like the difference between a football conversation where a load of people continually refer to Pele, and one person keeps referring to Andy Goram, a minor footnote in football history, as some sort of authority on world football.

[Ismail]

Uh, a lot of people have commented on Castro. That doesn't make them relevant to the topic at hand.Considering that Hoxha founded a communist party, led a revolution, and actually witnessed the rise of Castro, I'd say his words have some relevance, especially since he was addressing a delegation of Ecuadorian Marxist-Leninists who visited Albania for the purpose of discussing Cuba and other Latin American subjects with the Albanians.

No one would object to some Trot or what have you commenting on Cuba. What matters is the message, not the messenger.

[synthesis]

Considering that Hoxha founded a communist party, led a revolution, and actually witnessed the rise of Castro, I'd say his words have some relevance, especially since he was addressing a delegation of Ecuadorian Marxist-Leninists who visited Albania for the purpose of discussing Cuba and other Latin American subjects with the Albanians.

No one would object to some Trot or what have you commenting on Cuba. What matters is the message, not the messenger.

But you made the debate about Hoxha not because of anything Enver himself said or did, but because of something that Innit apparently said about Hoxha in a different thread. It's kind of like Rosa Liechtenstein turning everything into an argument about whether or not dialectics is hocus pocus. I really don't understand how you don't see a problem with this. Anyways, I'm going to stop posting in this thread for now, so as not to contribute further to the derailing.

[Comrade Jacob]

I hardly think this is necessary anymore. Cuba needs to set another example to the word and give the workers more control of the means of production.
That is all.

[KurtFF8]

I hardly think this is necessary anymore. Cuba needs to set another example to the word and give the workers more control of the means of production.
That is all.

Well there are certainly signs that even with these "privatizations" that Cuba is making sure that the mode of production isn't quite capitalist (e.g. look at the recent articles about the role of coops in these economic reforms).

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Well there are certainly signs that even with these "privatizations" that Cuba is making sure that the mode of production isn't quite capitalist (e.g. look at the recent articles about the role of coops in these economic reforms).

I don't know why everyone is arguing with you on a theoretical basis when all I have to do is point out that much of their economy is privatized now. Yes, there are "free market" mechanisms in Cuba. Could you explain what type of socialism it is where the government allows capitalism to co-exist with state controlled industry? Because we have that in the U.S….

[RedSonRising]

I don't know why everyone is arguing with you on a theoretical basis when all I have to do is point out that much of their economy is privatized now. Yes, there are "free market" mechanisms in Cuba. Could you explain what type of socialism it is where the government allows capitalism to co-exist with state controlled industry? Because we have that in the U.S….

Where is the bourgeoisie? Where? Where is the class of proprietors who extract the surplus generated by their subordinate workers' labor and then sell the product on the market while re-investing in their capital? Aside from a few restricted zones where foreign investors hire Cuban labor, there is no exploitative private property class in Cuba.

[synthesis]

Where is the bourgeoisie? Where? Where is the class of proprietors who extract the surplus generated by their subordinate workers' labor and then sell the product on the market while re-investing in their capital? Aside from a few restricted zones where foreign investors hire Cuban labor, there is no exploitative private property class in Cuba.

There is a class of people who generate value with the means of production but do not own them, and there is a class of people who own the means of production and use the value created by the other class for their own ends. You're working with a bourgeois definition of capitalism, which works out wonderfully for the ruling classes of state capitalist regimes.

[genjer]

... Cuba was certainly a neo-colony throughout the 1960s-80s. When Soviet state-capitalism collapsed, Cuba's economy was put into a crisis, something attributable directly to the monoculture sugar economy encouraged by the revisionists.
There is some merit to the argument that Cuba was a neo-colony, but every good point you've made also applies to postwar Eastern Europe: domination by the USSR, starting off as nominally bourgeois republics before expropriating the bourgeoisie, facing economic crisis in the 1990s (including Albania), etc.

One could even argue on that basis that the Central Asian republics were outright colonies under Stalin (maybe even Lenin). Not only did Moscow push them toward monoculture, in the late 30's there was cultural Russification and the national leaderships were violently purged to keep them in line.


What bourgeois class? Who are these Cuban bourgeoisie besides the exiles who fled shortly after the revolution who are living in Miami?
A real bourgeoisie can never emerge in an oppressed country though. The early exiles tended to be reactionaries ideologically, but they were not a true bourgeoisie, economically speaking. Under Batista, they had only been petty bourgeois - managers, shopkeepers, officers, political puppets and so on - working for the state and/or US companies.

In terms of mode of production, the anti-Castro exiles were hardly more bourgeois than the Castro brothers themselves. Not to mention all the military officers and bureaucrats who make up Cuba's elite today, and increasingly dabble in the private sector. Income inequality and small business activity have been on the rise in Cuba since the special period, along with foreign investment, austerity, and their side-effects, prostitution and crime. I'm not saying the Cuban leadership wanted things to get this bad, but they are definitely accommodating themselves to foreign capital and taking the Chinese route to remain in power.

[RedSonRising]

There is a class of people who generate value with the means of production but do not own them, and there is a class of people who own the means of production and use the value created by the other class for their own ends. You're working with a bourgeois definition of capitalism, which works out wonderfully for the ruling classes of state capitalist regimes.

There's far too much evidence on the institutions through which Cuban workers contribute to the formation of an economic plan, both nationally and municipally, to classify the political bureaucrats of Cuba as a ruling class. Given decades of economic isolation, there's barely enough wealth produced on the island for there to be an exploitative leeching ruling class while also funding housing, education, food rationing, and healthcare to the point that everyone is literate, housed, cared for, and fed.

[synthesis]

There's far too much evidence on the institutions through which Cuban workers contribute to the formation of an economic plan, both nationally and municipally, to classify the political bureaucrats of Cuba as a ruling class.

:lol:


Given decades of economic isolation, there's barely enough wealth produced on the island for there to be an exploitative leeching ruling class while also funding housing, education, food rationing, and healthcare to the point that everyone is literate, housed, cared for, and fed.

I really, really fail to see how you think that's evidence that Cuba is not capitalist.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Sherritt International owns 33% of Energas, a joint venture with SOE's that provides 11% of Cuba's electricity. Under the new law, it will be legal for Sherritt to purchase a majority stake in Energas, instantly privatizing 11% of Cuba's electricity production.

Sherritt also has a 50% stake in Moa Joint Venture, a nickel mining company in Cuba, and operates an oil and gas exploration business, which has grown "to an intermediate exploration and production business that contributes significantly to the success of the Corporation." In other words, it has a large stake in Cuba and is looking forward to expanding its investments in the country.

And while Cuba might not decide to sell off its state enterprises, the case of China clearly shows that that simply doesn't matter. When capitalism is legalized, the private sector will outgrow the state sector as proportionally. Capitalism is now legal in Cuba.

[RedSonRising]

:lol:

Alright then.


I really, really fail to see how you think that's evidence that Cuba is not capitalist.

It's not the primary basis for that conclusion, but it's certainly a factor.

Meanwhile there's no evidence that an exploitative ruling class exists in Cuba. If you want to make the state capitalist argument, you'd have to ignore the existence of Teachers' Federations, Worker Unions, Farmers' Organizations, and other such institutions which participate in the political & planning processes regularly. Which you've apparently done with a smiley emoticon.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

It's not the primary basis for that conclusion, but it's certainly a factor.

Meanwhile there's no evidence that an exploitative ruling class exists in Cuba. If you want to make the state capitalist argument, you'd have to ignore the existence of Teachers' Federations, Worker Unions, Farmers' Organizations, and other such institutions which participate in the political & planning processes regularly. Which you've apparently done with a smiley emoticon.

As far as I know, there certainly are decisions that are made with participation of the various working-class bodies, like I remember a story about how they needed to cut spending and would go through universities and workplaces etc, to discuss how it could be done. There is a certain degree of democracy there.

But there are also decisions that are too important or too obvious to be made with the participation of the workers. Like, I also remember that I've read somewhere that "infant mortality" is a sacred statistic in Cuba and they would force you have an abortion if there is a chance that a newborn might die. My point being that one could easily find many decisions that are made without participation of these bodies or despite their participation.

I also recall Castro making a comment that the reason why he wouldn't hand more power to the workers was that he was convinced that all the decisions that he made were in the interest of the workers.

I think it's not all black and white, but calling Cuba communist is just over the top, I think.

[RedSonRising]

As far as I know, there certainly are decisions that are made with participation of the various working-class bodies, like I remember a story about how they needed to cut spending and would go through universities and workplaces etc, to discuss how it could be done. There is a certain degree of democracy there.

But there are also decisions that are too important or too obvious to be made with the participation of the workers. Like, I also remember that I've read somewhere that "infant mortality" is a sacred statistic in Cuba and they would force you have an abortion if there is a chance that a newborn might die. My point being that one could easily find many decisions that are made without participation of these bodies or despite their participation.

I also recall Castro making a comment that the reason why he wouldn't hand more power to the workers was that he was convinced that all the decisions that he made were in the interest of the workers.

I think it's not all black and white, but calling Cuba communist is just over the top, I think.

I've never heard such a story about abortion, but there are definitely elements of the Cuban structure that centralize decision-making in some respects that are not accessible to workers. In this way, there is a bureaucracy, a political elite of sorts, but they do not and cannot operate in isolation of the will of these working class organs. An imperfect workers' democracy, but too much of the plan anchored in those bodies to tolerate the existence of a proper ruling class.

I would never call Cuba communist, far from it, but I consider it a state socialist model that is currently undergoing processes which half look like an experiment with bottom-up decentralized decision-making, and half like a capitulation to foreign capital investment foreshadowing a possible full-scale privatization. I'm hoping this process is carefully safeguarded, because while a break from economic isolation is necessary, for all the Cuban people might complain about in terms of restriction and scarcity, they don't want to lose the gains made by the revolution that hold that sustain that country's population.

[genjer]

Meanwhile there's no evidence that an exploitative ruling class exists in Cuba.
A Cuban ruling class did not even really exist before the 1959 revolution. Under Batista, US companies owned Cuba's land and industrial resources. The right-wing exiles who fled to Miami were not a real Cuban bourgeoisie who owned the means of production; they were just the hired managers, shopkeeps and cops of foreign capital.

The Soviet Union wasn't directly economically exploiting Cuba during the Cold War, but today the foreign companies that increasingly invest in Cuba are definitely there to exploit its people and resources. Obviously any country needs foreign trade to survive, but over the last few years the Cuban state has gone further than that with right-wing "reforms". Cuba's leaders are becoming the agents of foreign capital by implementing austerity measures and encouraging the growth of the private sector.

[synthesis]

Meanwhile there's no evidence that an exploitative ruling class exists in Cuba. If you want to make the state capitalist argument, you'd have to ignore the existence of Teachers' Federations, Worker Unions, Farmers' Organizations, and other such institutions which participate in the political & planning processes regularly. Which you've apparently done with a smiley emoticon.

Show me the evidence that these institutions can actually have a substantive effect on the structure and activity of the state and then we can talk about whether the Castros are nothing more than materializations of the the will of the proletariat.

[Tim Cornelis]

Where is the bourgeoisie? Where? Where is the class of proprietors who extract the surplus generated by their subordinate workers' labor and then sell the product on the market while re-investing in their capital? Aside from a few restricted zones where foreign investors hire Cuban labor, there is no exploitative private property class in Cuba.

You're mistaken in that you conflate individual and private ownership. There doesn't need to be a legalistic private property to define capitalism, which is an inversion of materialist analysis anyway. The Cuban workers confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property, and sell their labour-power to the state whom employs them. As such the party-state is the functional bourgeoisie who own and control private property but not individual property.

Otherwise we might as well claim the US military is socialist, or the post office. State ownership is not social ownership.


There's far too much evidence on the institutions through which Cuban workers contribute to the formation of an economic plan, both nationally and municipally, to classify the political bureaucrats of Cuba as a ruling class.

I do not necessarily deny this, but this is hardly proof of socialism. Contributing to an economic plan for capital management is not socialism. In any case, consultative management (where workers give input for economic conduct) and co-determination is a feature that is perfectly compatible with capitalism, liberal capitalism even. The works' councils that exist throughout Western Europe is sufficient evidence of this. Or in fact, workers' cooperatives which are self-managed capitalism.

[RedSonRising]

If the Cuban workers control (or are at least represented in) the state with regards to political decision-making and economic planning, then the process mirrors the transition state described by Marx as a dictatorship of the proletariat. The existence of a bureaucracy is in tension with the notion that the workers control the economy, but there is plenty of literature on how workers help manage the economy through the institutions of the state (which I'd be happy to dig up again in the next few days after getting some work out of the way, and which I'm sure other posters have access to). How people can sit there and call it capitalism is beyond me. Holding a country to the standard of the end-stages of communism is oxymoronic. There is still a state, there is still currency, there is still a wage system, but that is because Cuba is not developed to its capacity, is not economically supported by a global network of countries or regions that have seized the means of production and redistributed wealth, and must defend itself from a world in which capitalist states still dominate the rest of the world.

[Prof. Oblivion]

If the Cuban workers control (or are at least represented in) the state with regards to political decision-making and economic planning, then the process mirrors the transition state described by Marx as a dictatorship of the proletariat. The existence of a bureaucracy is in tension with the notion that the workers control the economy, but there is plenty of literature on how workers help manage the economy through the institutions of the state (which I'd be happy to dig up again in the next few days after getting some work out of the way, and which I'm sure other posters have access to). How people can sit there and call it capitalism is beyond me. Holding a country to the standard of the end-stages of communism is oxymoronic. There is still a state, there is still currency, there is still a wage system, but that is because Cuba is not developed to its capacity, is not economically supported by a global network of countries or regions that have seized the means of production and redistributed wealth, and must defend itself from a world in which capitalist states still dominate the rest of the world.

Do you think that it is possible for a worker-controlled state to legalize capitalism? Because that is what the Cuban state just did.

[Tim Cornelis]

If the Cuban workers control (or are at least represented in) the state with regards to political decision-making and economic planning, then the process mirrors the transition state described by Marx as a dictatorship of the proletariat.

If workers possess political and economic power, then indeed the process mirrors the transition state described by the Marxist method as a dictatorship of the proletariat. I reject, however, that workers in Cuba are in any meaningful way empowered, or at least not more so than proletarians in Spain.

Quote: "All in all, the electoral process is so tightly controlled that the final phase, i.e. the voting itself, could be dispensed with without the final result being substantially affected". Source: Report on United Nations Commission on Human Rights - Inter American Comission on Human Rights. http://www.cubaverdad.net/iachr_cuba_elections.htm


The existence of a bureaucracy is in tension with the notion that the workers control the economy, but there is plenty of literature on how workers help manage the economy through the institutions of the state (which I'd be happy to dig up again in the next few days after getting some work out of the way, and which I'm sure other posters have access to).

The key here is "help manage". I've mentioned works councils in Western Europe. Quote: "A works council is a "shop-floor" organization representing workers, which functions as local/firm-level complement to national labour negotiations." (...) The model is basically as follows: general labour agreements are made at the national level by national unions (...) and national employer associations (...), and local plants and firms then meet with works councils to adjust these national agreements to local circumstances. Works council members are elected by the company workforce for a four year term. They don't have to be union members; works councils can also be formed in companies where neither the employer nor the employees are organized.
Works council representatives may also be appointed to the Board of Directors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council

Co-determination does not negate wage-labour.


How people can sit there and call it capitalism is beyond me.

Marxist analysis, really. You have the dispossess working class of Cuba, whom sell their labour-power to state enterprises, they produce commodities to be sold on the market (although competitive markets are absent due to a state monopoly), the surplus value derived from this act is reinvested, through the buying of commodities, to generate future profits, which in total is in essence the economic growth realised by the Cuban national economy. It possesses all the qualifications of the capitalist mode of production.


Holding a country to the standard of the end-stages of communism is oxymoronic.

I'm not holding Cuba to the standard of the "end stages of communism", I'm holding Cuba to the standard of the capitalist mode of production as analysed through the Marxist method. (nor is it oxymoronic as there's no contradiction).


There is still a state, there is still currency, there is still a wage system, but that is because Cuba is not developed to its capacity, is not economically supported by a global network of countries or regions that have seized the means of production and redistributed wealth, and must defend itself from a world in which capitalist states still dominate the rest of the world.

There is a state, there's a wage system, there's currency, there's generalised commodity production, there's wage-labour, there's profits and losses, there's managers, there's capital accumulation, and of course capital. Hence, there's capitalism. They keyword of socialism is association: no enterprises, no wage-labour, no commodity production. Each subsection of the association is equally part of the whole association of productive establishments and its free producers, there are no individual enterprises, no selling and buying. This does not exist in Cuba, nor is there any evolution in that direction, nor had there been, nor could there have been. Cuba is more something alike a corporatist* social-democracy with a dysfunctional democracy.

*One of the provisions of the [electoral] Law is that lists of candidates are drawn up by the Candidature Commissions, made up of representatives of the Cuban Workers' Federation, the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution, the Federation of Cuban Women, the National Small Farmers' Association, the University Students' Federation and the Federation of Secondary School Students.

[RedSonRising]

Do you think that it is possible for a worker-controlled state to legalize capitalism? Because that is what the Cuban state just did.

I think it's a possible for state controlled by both a political bureaucracy and strong worker institutions to capitulate to foreign capital in a restricted fashion for the sake of ending crippling economic isolation.


If workers possess political and economic power, then indeed the process mirrors the transition state described by the Marxist method as a dictatorship of the proletariat. I reject, however, that workers in Cuba are in any meaningful way empowered, or at least not more so than proletarians in Spain.

Quote: "All in all, the electoral process is so tightly controlled that the final phase, i.e. the voting itself, could be dispensed with without the final result being substantially affected". Source: Report on United Nations Commission on Human Rights - Inter American Comission on Human Rights. http://www.cubaverdad.net/iachr_cuba_elections.htm



The key here is "help manage". I've mentioned works councils in Western Europe. Quote: "A works council is a "shop-floor" organization representing workers, which functions as local/firm-level complement to national labour negotiations." (...) The model is basically as follows: general labour agreements are made at the national level by national unions (...) and national employer associations (...), and local plants and firms then meet with works councils to adjust these national agreements to local circumstances. Works council members are elected by the company workforce for a four year term. They don't have to be union members; works councils can also be formed in companies where neither the employer nor the employees are organized.
Works council representatives may also be appointed to the Board of Directors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council

Co-determination does not negate wage-labour.



Marxist analysis, really. You have the dispossess working class of Cuba, whom sell their labour-power to state enterprises, they produce commodities to be sold on the market (although competitive markets are absent due to a state monopoly), the surplus value derived from this act is reinvested, through the buying of commodities, to generate future profits, which in total is in essence the economic growth realised by the Cuban national economy. It possesses all the qualifications of the capitalist mode of production.



I'm not holding Cuba to the standard of the "end stages of communism", I'm holding Cuba to the standard of the capitalist mode of production as analysed through the Marxist method. (nor is it oxymoronic as there's no contradiction).



There is a state, there's a wage system, there's currency, there's generalised commodity production, there's wage-labour, there's profits and losses, there's managers, there's capital accumulation, and of course capital. Hence, there's capitalism. They keyword of socialism is association: no enterprises, no wage-labour, no commodity production. Each subsection of the association is equally part of the whole association of productive establishments and its free producers, there are no individual enterprises, no selling and buying. This does not exist in Cuba, nor is there any evolution in that direction, nor had there been, nor could there have been. Cuba is more something alike a corporatist* social-democracy with a dysfunctional democracy.

*One of the provisions of the [electoral] Law is that lists of candidates are drawn up by the Candidature Commissions, made up of representatives of the Cuban Workers' Federation, the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution, the Federation of Cuban Women, the National Small Farmers' Association, the University Students' Federation and the Federation of Secondary School Students.

I think the comparisons to Spain are hardly appropriate. Cuba isn't a country in which private owners employ wage workers and sell the produce of the goods on the market. The state is the employer, the state produces an economic plan developed by the working class and its representatives (with a political class heavily invested in the outcomes of these decisions, of course).

This article, which is critical of the management of the Cuban economy, points out just such a distinction:

http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=73935

"Worker self-management has important implications that need to be fully explored. The worker self-management model adopted in Argentina and elsewhere in Latin America has been a courageous and self-confident response to prolonged strikes, employer lockouts and bankruptcies, which has led to the formation of democratically administered cooperatives.

But they are a local and defensive tactic. These coops exist and are part of a capitalist economy that they do not control. Consequently, the workers’ self-directed activity remains fundamentally constrained by capitalist competition and the market.

This model is not relevant to a Cuba where worker self-management is being proposed for the whole economy, or, at least, for its dominant sectors. However, it is important to realize that what happens in each self-managed factory or work center is directly and closely interdependent with what happens in other economic units."

The terminology is starting to become confused, I think. Cuba has not rid itself of every feature of capitalism, it has not perfected and completely democratized its mode of production, but after exproprating landowners and the industrial bourgeoisie, the state, with the backing of both peasants and workers, seized the land and means of production and redistributed the wealth while incorporation institutions which represent different sectors of the ruling class. Whether this is "socialism" or "still capitalism but in a state of transition (which is arguably reversing)", it is not industrial capitalism as we know it in the rest of the world.

And CubaVerdad? Really? Have you seen what else that site has to offer?

[Prof. Oblivion]

I think it's a possible for state controlled by both a political bureaucracy and strong worker institutions to capitulate to foreign capital in a restricted fashion for the sake of ending crippling economic isolation.


I don't think you understand what this law is, then, because this isn't in a "restricted sense" at all, it completely legalizes 100% private ownership of businesses by foreign investors, though of course they don't get the same tax advantages as joint ventures (boo hoo).

The Cuban state legalized capitalism. The Cuban state, then, is most certainly not controlled by workers, or working in their best interests. There is no more debate to be had about this topic anymore, as it's now completely clear. This law settles the matter once and for all - Cuba is open for business.

[Prometeo liberado]

Quote:*"All in all, the electoral process is so tightly controlled that the final phase, i.e. the voting itself, could be dispensed with without the final result being substantially affected".*Source: Report on United Nations Commission on Human Rights - Inter American Comission on Human Rights.*http://www.cubaverdad.net/iachr_cuba_elections.htm



Are we really going to start quoting the U.N. now?
A new low, even by revleft standards.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I don't think you understand what this law is, then, because this isn't in a "restricted sense" at all, it completely legalizes 100% private ownership of businesses by foreign investors, though of course they don't get the same tax advantages as joint ventures (boo hoo).

The Cuban state legalized capitalism. The Cuban state, then, is most certainly not controlled by workers, or working in their best interests. There is no more debate to be had about this topic anymore, as it's now completely clear. This law settles the matter once and for all - Cuba is open for business.

But why wouldn't isolated workers' state make such law? I think there is a serious discussion to be had whether it's better to have some sort of workers state, which is isolated or have some sort of managed capitalism. Maybe I am putting it wrong, but I currently have an idea in my head that if you have workers state, but are economically isolated from world's market, hence, your life sucks materially and there are no revolutions in sight, why wouldn't you try to integrate in the world's market even if it takes capitalism to be restored?

In other words, I think it might makes sense for workers to adopt capitalism if their country is isolated. Or in other words, for socialism to work it must be global.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think the comparisons to Spain are hardly appropriate. Cuba isn't a country in which private owners employ wage workers and sell the produce of the goods on the market.

Yes it is. I already explained to you why this is the case:

You're mistaken in that you conflate individual and private ownership. There doesn't need to be a legalistic private property to define capitalism, which is an inversion of materialist analysis anyway. The Cuban workers confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property, and sell their labour-power to the state whom employs them. As such the party-state is the functional bourgeoisie who own and control private property but not individual property.


The state is the employer, the state produces an economic plan developed by the working class and its representatives (with a political class heavily invested in the outcomes of these decisions, of course).

The state is the employer, with workers confronting the objective conditions of their labour as alien-property, as such the state owns private property in Marxist terms. Communism is summarised as the end to private property, which includes state property.

Quote: "Of course, Marx called for the abolition of private property. But what makes property private, in his view, is not individual ownership, but the separation of the direct producers, workers, from the property they produce. Thus, in the German Ideology, he and Frederick Engels noted that “ancient communal and State ownership … is still accompanied by slavery,” and they referred to the communal ownership of slaves as “communal private property” (emphasis added).
In volume 2 of Capital, Marx wrote, “The social capital is equal to the sum of the individual capitals (including … state capital, in so far as governments employ productive wage-labour in mines, railways, etc. and function as industrial capitalists.” Similarly, in his notes on Adolph Wagner’s critique of Capital, Marx wrote that “[w]here the state itself is a capitalist producer, as in the exploitation of mines, forests, etc., its product is a ‘commodity’ and hence possesses the specific character of every other commodity.”
Most importantly, in volume 1 of Capital, he implicitly addressed the issue of what would happen if the state’s role as capitalist producer expanded to such a point that it completely crowded out other capitalists. He argued that the tendency toward monopoly, the process of centralization of capitals, “would reach its extreme limit … n a given society … only when the entire social capital was united in the hands of either a single capitalist or a single capitalist company.” As Raya Dunayevskaya noted, Marx’s text implies that such a society “would remain capitalist[;] … this extreme development would in no way change the law of motion of that society.” Engels thus seems to have been stating Marx’s view as well as his own when he wrote, in Anti-Dühring,
“state ownership … does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. … The more [of them the state takes over], 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.”" /Quote

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/video-the-incoherence-of-transitional-society.html

Cuba is capitalist. Moreover, the empowerment of Cuban workers is greatly exaggerated in official papers. Again, I think Spanish workers are more empowered than Cuban workers. Spanish workers have their functional works councils for co-determination, functional elections, collective bargaining and collective action rights, independent trade unions and labour representation, more workers' rights.

To reiterate, the Cuban government employs wage-workers to produce commodities to be sold on the monopolised market, with surplus value used to reinvest in buying commodities with the intent of generate future surplus value. This is the capitalist mode of production undoubtedly.


This article, which is critical of the management of the Cuban economy, points out just such a distinction:

http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=73935

[I]"Worker self-management has important implications that need to be fully explored. The worker self-management model adopted in Argentina and elsewhere in Latin America has been a courageous and self-confident response to prolonged strikes, employer lockouts and bankruptcies, which has led to the formation of democratically administered cooperatives.

But they are a local and defensive tactic. These coops exist and are part of a capitalist economy that they do not control. Consequently, the workers’ self-directed activity remains fundamentally constrained by capitalist competition and the market.

This model is not relevant to a Cuba where worker self-management is being proposed for the whole economy, or, at least, for its dominant sectors. However, it is important to realize that what happens in each self-managed factory or work center is directly and closely interdependent with what happens in other economic units."

Can we assume from this that workers' self-management does not yet exist in Cuba, at least not predominantly (outside a few cooperatives)? I think this article says so, which undermines your earlier point about worker's empowerment in Cuba.

Workers' self-management as proposed either in Argentina or Cuba does not overcome capitalism at all. It does not negate, in and of itself, commodity exchange, production for markets, enterprises.


The terminology is starting to become confused, I think. Cuba has not rid itself of every feature of capitalism, it has not perfected and completely democratized its mode of production, but after exproprating landowners and the industrial bourgeoisie, the state, with the backing of both peasants and workers, seized the land and means of production and redistributed the wealth while incorporation institutions which represent different sectors of the ruling class. Whether this is "socialism" or "still capitalism but in a state of transition (which is arguably reversing)", it is not industrial capitalism as we know it in the rest of the world.

The terminology, to me, is perfectly clear. Your ideological baggage is obfuscating the class nature and character of Cuban society. Cuba has not rid itself of ANY feature of capitalist society. It bares all the hallmarks of it, and I've listed them in earlier posts as well as this one: private class property (direct producers separated from the objective conditions of their labour as wage-workers), markets (the whole of the buying and selling of commodities, even if it's a state monopoly -- which isn't even universal), etc., etc., etc.

Cuban "democracy" is highly dysfunctional, see the previous quote. It's a class dictatorship of a minority.

It has expropriated landowners and the industrial bourgeoisie and has replaced them with itself.

Redistribution of wealth is not inconsistent with social-democracy. Cuba is a dysfunctional corporatist social-democracy.

It is not "industrial capitalism" as we know it in the rest of the world, which is liberal capitalism. Your unwarranted preoccupation with the phenomenal characteristics of Cuban society is typical of idealists and Stalinists (whom are generally idealists). “there is no reason to think … that Western capitalism, as it appears on the surface at a particular epoch, is the unique form of the capitalist mode of production, and that any economy (or society) that does not manifest similar phenomenal characteristics cannot be considered capitalist ... one has to go behind the phenomenal forms which, though necessarily manifesting the essence, do as well as conceal the latter ... [capitalism, which] through innumerable different circumstances can phenomenally show unending variations and gradations.” (The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). The unique character of Cuban society, and other self-proclaimed socialist states, whether it be Portugal, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Soviet Union, or Venezuela, are mere variations of the same mode of production: capitalism.

Cuba is capitalist, and the only transition it's making is toward liberal capitalism and away from state capitalism.


And CubaVerdad? Really? Have you seen what else that site has to offer?

I expected this really, the ad hominem. They're merely citing the human rights group, an external source.


Are we really going to start quoting the U.N. now?
A new low, even by revleft standards.

Another ad hominem. I suppose we should only cite sources that confirm our ideological biases, or "propaganda", correct?


But why wouldn't isolated workers' state make such law? I think there is a serious discussion to be had whether it's better to have some sort of workers state, which is isolated or have some sort of managed capitalism. Maybe I am putting it wrong, but I currently have an idea in my head that if you have workers state, but are economically isolated from world's market, hence, your life sucks materially and there are no revolutions in sight, why wouldn't you try to integrate in the world's market even if it takes capitalism to be restored?

In other words, I think it might makes sense for workers to adopt capitalism if their country is isolated. Or in other words, for socialism to work it must be global.

Because it's not a workers' state. The upper layers of the Communist Party possess political power and as capital is not abolished they seek to manage capital, they're the functional bourgeoisie owning and controlling private class property, judicially expressed as state property. Workers are not empowered in any meaningful way.

[KurtFF8]

You're mistaken in that you conflate individual and private ownership. There doesn't need to be a legalistic private property to define capitalism, which is an inversion of materialist analysis anyway. The Cuban workers confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property, and sell their labour-power to the state whom employs them. As such the party-state is the functional bourgeoisie who own and control private property but not individual property.

The idea that you can have capitalism without capitalists is a bit non-Marxist to say the least. The way in which Cuban workers are tied to the production process is fundamentally different than the capitalist mode of production not only because of the ownership structure in Cuba but because of how working class organizations interact with that very state that you claim is the step in for the bourgeoisie. I.e. the Cuban working class expresses political leadership through various mechanisms in Cuba which is how the plan of the economy is formulated.

Folks like yourself always point to "well look, Cuban workers do work and receive a wage!" as if that explains the capitalist mode of production.

If that were the case, then Capital could have been much shorter and we should wonder why Marx took his time to lay out how complex the system is. We should also wonder why many of those aspects that he described as inherent to the system are quite clearly absent in Cuba.


Otherwise we might as well claim the US military is socialist, or the post office. State ownership is not social ownership.

Even Marx never claimed that a nation/country/system is not "wholly" private or public. But the Cuban system is not one based on the capitalist mode of production/logic/or ownership in any meaningful way. You're kind of contradicting yourself here. You say "oh well the post office existing in the US doesn't mean that it's not capitalist" and I would say to that: the existence of some free market mechanisms in a limited way in Cuba don't make it capitalist.



I do not necessarily deny this, but this is hardly proof of socialism. Contributing to an economic plan for capital management is not socialism. In any case, consultative management (where workers give input for economic conduct) and co-determination is a feature that is perfectly compatible with capitalism, liberal capitalism even. The works' councils that exist throughout Western Europe is sufficient evidence of this. Or in fact, workers' cooperatives which are self-managed capitalism.

But you have yet to show where Cuba's overall system is based on the capitalist logic or the mode of production. So far all you've provided are vague analogies and have focused on facile concepts of what capitalism is (for example when you say "well they have a wage so therefore they must be capitalist!")

[Tim Cornelis]

The idea that you can have capitalism without capitalists is a bit non-Marxist to say the least.

I'm wondering if you've actually read what I wrote. Clearly I've used the word "functional bourgeoisie" to describe the capitalist class in Cuba. It is a functional bourgeoisie because it performs the functions of the bourgeoisie without individual ownership over private property, but it commands capital nonetheless. Nor is this notion "non-Marxist to say the least". The Marxist method discovered that capitalism is not based on individual private property, but rather the disappearance of individual private property: as capital becomes concentrated it destroys individual ownership, as Engels noted:

"Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later in by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees." (Socialism: Utopian and Scientific).

A CEO (one such salaried employee whom has made the bourgeoisie superfluous according to Engels) doesn't need to hold individual ownership of a business to be considered bourgeois in my book. Judicially he is not bourgeois, functionally he is as he performs its functions and commands capital.


The way in which Cuban workers are tied to the production process is fundamentally different than the capitalist mode of production not only because of the ownership structure in Cuba but because of how working class organizations interact with that very state that you claim is the step in for the bourgeoisie. I.e. the Cuban working class expresses political leadership through various mechanisms in Cuba which is how the plan of the economy is formulated.

You assume the initial point, namely that Cuban is non-capitalist, and proceed from there: circular reasoning. Cuban society is phenomenally quite unique, yes, but we cannot deduce from this that therefore it is "fundamentally different [from] the capitalist mode of production". As I've quoted Chattopadhyay: “there is no reason to think … that Western capitalism , as it appears on the surface at a particular epoch, is the unique form of the capitalist mode of production, and that any economy (or society) that does not manifest similar phenomenal characteristics cannot be considered capitalist ... one has to go behind the phenomenal forms which, though necessarily manifesting the essence, do as well as conceal the latter ... [capitalism, which] through innumerable different circumstances can phenomenally show unending variations and gradations.” (The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). You cannot hold Cuba up to liberal capitalism and conclude that since its phenomenal manifestations are qualitatively different from it that therefore it's not capitalism.


the Cuban working class expresses political leadership through various mechanisms in Cuba which is how the plan of the economy is formulated.

As I've pointed out earlier, Cuban workers are merely nominally empowered. They possess no meaningful political power. Political and economic power is concentrated in the upper layers of the Communist Party, whom dictate the direction of the economy and its policies.



Folks like yourself always point to "well look, Cuban workers do work and receive a wage!" as if that explains the capitalist mode of production.

This is an utter misrepresentation of my argument, and doesn't even scratch the surface. Again, I'm questioning whether you actually read what I write or not, it appears you do not. I will quote myself: "There is a state, there's a wage system, there's currency, there's generalised commodity production, there's wage-labour, there's profits and losses, there's managers, there's capital accumulation, and of course capital. Hence, there's capitalism."

This is the only time I've mentioned that Cuban workers work for a wage and this was only in response to someone saying "There is still a state, there is still currency, there is still a wage system" and I was reiterating them. I mentioned it in concert with all the other hallmarks of the capitalist mode of production which are present in Cuban society.

Or maybe you're misunderstanding what wage-labour and wage-workers mean. It does not mean that producers receive a wage for the labour performed, it means they are employed by the capitalist as per them selling their labour-power. Here, the wage-system means being remunerated in some form, and wage-labour refers specifically to capital hiring labour. Even if you did make this mistake, then I've explained why Cuba is capitalist beyond this: "to reiterate, the Cuban government employs wage-workers to produce commodities to be sold on the monopolised market, with surplus value used to reinvest in buying commodities with the intent of generate future surplus value. This is the capitalist mode of production undoubtedly" and "You have the dispossess working class of Cuba, whom sell their labour-power to state enterprises, they produce commodities to be sold on the market (although competitive markets are absent due to a state monopoly), the surplus value derived from this act is reinvested, through the buying of commodities, to generate future profits, which in total is in essence the economic growth realised by the Cuban national economy. It possesses all the qualifications of the capitalist mode of production."


If that were the case, then [I]Capital could have been much shorter and we should wonder why Marx took his time to lay out how complex the system is. We should also wonder why many of those aspects that he described as inherent to the system are quite clearly absent in Cuba.

As I've already mentioned none of those features are absent in Cuba. I will again have to quote myself: " Your ideological baggage is obfuscating the class nature and character of Cuban society. Cuba has not rid itself of ANY feature of capitalist society. It bares all the hallmarks of it, and I've listed them in earlier posts as well as this one: private class property (direct producers separated from the objective conditions of their labour as wage-workers), markets (the whole of the buying and selling of commodities, even if it's a state monopoly -- which isn't even universal), etc., etc., etc." the etc. referring to the characteristics described above (the two quotes).
Now you may disagree that these features or characteristics exist in Cuba, but then you need to come up with arguments to refute mine, rather than ignore them.


Even Marx never claimed that a nation/country/system is not "wholly" private or public. But the Cuban system is not one based on the capitalist mode of production/logic/or ownership in any meaningful way.

This is a blank statement without explanation as to why you believe the capitalist mode of production does not exist in Cuba "in any meaningful way" even though I've explained a couple of times to the other bloke why it does apply.


You're kind of contradicting yourself here. You say "oh well the post office existing in the US doesn't mean that it's not capitalist" and I would say to that: the existence of some free market mechanisms in a limited way in Cuba don't make it capitalist.

Again you are misrepresenting my position. My position is not that because the "free market" exists to a limited degree that Cuba is capitalist, so I have no idea why you think that makes for an argument against me. I'm saying, again, Cuba is the capitalist because (see the various quotes above).


But you have yet to show where Cuba's overall system is based on the capitalist logic or the mode of production. So far all you've provided are vague analogies and have focused on facile concepts of what capitalism is (for example when you say "well they have a wage so therefore they must be capitalist!")

Actually I have (see the various quotes above and my previous posts) but you ignored them and focused on merely one aspect of it (me mentioning wage-labour) and even manage to misrepresent my position on that. Again, my argument is not that Cuban workers receive a wage. My argument is that Cuban workers neither own nor control the means of production, and as such are dispossessed. As a consequence of these circumstances they confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property by the act of them selling their labour-power to the owners and controllers of the means of production, the state. The Cuban state employs productive wage-labour and direct this toward the production of various commodities: for individual and collective consumption, consumer and capital goods. These commodities are sold by the state and bought by consumers, which is a market. The state uses the profits derived from the sale of commodities, to buy additional commodities to generate future profits and thereby it sustains economic growth (or attempts to at least). Cuba does not share a mere one feature of the capitalist mode of production (wages, or wage-labour), but all fundamental and defining features of the capitalist mode of production (generalised commodity production for the market, profits and losses, capital accumulation, wage-labour, extraction of surplus value reinvested in commodities to generate future profits -- capital accumulation, private property -- again, private property need not be expressed judicially, state property is private property if the workers are separated from the objective conditions of their labour as is the case with Cuba, or a US post office).

Workers being (nominally) involved in the management of workplace affairs through co-management with the enterprise management does not negate any of these fundamental characteristics (again, workers in Western Europe are entitled to co-management via works councils). Workers being (nominally) involved in the planning of capital accumulation does not negate, well, capital accumulation (for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Planning_in_Kerala or direct participation by the population in deciding how funds are used in development and projects as in Cambodian communes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjCnRajR6E ).

[KurtFF8]

I'm wondering if you've actually read what I wrote. Clearly I've used the word "functional bourgeoisie" to describe the capitalist class in Cuba. It is a functional bourgeoisie because it performs the functions of the bourgeoisie without individual ownership over private property, but it commands capital nonetheless. Nor is this notion "non-Marxist to say the least". The Marxist method discovered that capitalism is not based on individual private property, but rather the disappearance of individual private property: as capital becomes concentrated it destroys individual ownership,

Even in the concentrated systems of monopoly capital that Engels is refering to here, there exists and actually existing capitalist class. You, and everyone else on this forum I've had this same argument with, have yet to demonstrate how an actual bourgeoisie exists in Cuba.



A CEO (one such salaried employee whom has made the bourgeoisie superfluous according to Engels) doesn't need to hold individual ownership of a business to be considered bourgeois in my book. Judicially he is not bourgeois, functionally he is as he performs its functions and commands capital.

Please explain how those who manage the industries of Cuba are like CEOs.



You assume the initial point, namely that Cuban is non-capitalist, and proceed from there: circular reasoning. Cuban society is phenomenally quite unique, yes, but we cannot deduce from this that therefore it is "fundamentally different [from] the capitalist mode of production". As I've quoted Chattopadhyay: “there is no reason to think … that Western capitalism [i.e. liberal capitalism], as it appears on the surface at a particular epoch, is the unique form of the capitalist mode of production, and that any economy (or society) that does not manifest similar phenomenal characteristics cannot be considered capitalist ... one has to go behind the phenomenal forms which, though necessarily manifesting the essence, do as well as conceal the latter ... [capitalism, which] through innumerable different circumstances can phenomenally show unending variations and gradations.” (The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience).

This is about the Soviet expierence as per the name of what you're quoting from.


You cannot hold Cuba up to liberal capitalism and conclude that since its phenomenal manifestations are qualitatively different from it that therefore it's not capitalism.

I'm holding Cuba up to the characteristics of the capitalist mode of production, and when held up to that, it is quite bizarre to call it capitalist in a meaningful way.



As I've pointed out earlier, Cuban workers are merely nominally empowered. They possess no meaningful political power. Political and economic power is concentrated in the upper layers of the Communist Party, whom dictate the direction of the economy and its policies.

You assume that the Communist Party is thus completely divorced from the working class. This is the same circular reasoning you accuse me of. Your conclusion is essentially assumed in your argument.


I'm saying, again, Cuba is the capitalist because (see the various quotes above).

Those quotes do not demonstrate that Cuba is capitalist.

[Prof. Oblivion]

I don't even know why you two are arguing about this anymore, the matter has already been settled by this new law.

[Tim Cornelis]

Even in the concentrated systems of monopoly capital that Engels is refering to here, there exists and actually existing capitalist class. You, and everyone else on this forum I've had this same argument with, have yet to demonstrate how an actual bourgeoisie exists in Cuba.

You just keep repeating yourself, then so will I:

I'm wondering if you've actually read what I wrote. Clearly I've used the word "functional bourgeoisie" to describe the capitalist class in Cuba. It is a functional bourgeoisie because it performs the functions of the bourgeoisie without individual ownership over private property, but it commands capital nonetheless. You say I have yet to demonstrate how there's an actual bourgeoisie in Cuba. What is a bourgeoisie? Those who command capital through private property. I've explained how the party-state functions as bourgeoisie by commanding capital in Cuba.



Please explain how those who manage the industries of Cuba are like CEOs.

The managers aren't, they are like managers.



This is about the Soviet expierence as per the name of what you're quoting from.

Read the quote:

“there is no reason to think … that Western capitalism , as it appears on the surface at a particular epoch, is the unique form of the capitalist mode of production, and that any economy (or society) that does not manifest similar phenomenal characteristics cannot be considered capitalist ... one has to go behind the phenomenal forms which, though necessarily manifesting the essence, do as well as conceal the latter ... [capitalism, which] through innumerable different circumstances can phenomenally show unending variations and gradations.” (The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience).

It's not about the USSR and applies to the same arguments about why Cuba supposedly is socialist or non-capialist.


I'm holding Cuba up to the characteristics of the capitalist mode of production, and when held up to that, it is quite bizarre to call it capitalist in a meaningful way.

This is a statement [I]without arguments.


You assume that the Communist Party is thus completely divorced from the working class. This is the same circular reasoning you accuse me of. Your conclusion is essentially assumed in your argument.

No it's not. I've shown you why I think that:

Quote: "All in all, the electoral process is so tightly controlled that the final phase, i.e. the voting itself, could be dispensed with without the final result being substantially affected". Source: Report on United Nations Commission on Human Rights - Inter American Comission on Human Rights. http://www.cubaverdad.net/iachr_cuba_elections.htm

So it's not circular reasoning.


Those quotes do not demonstrate that Cuba is capitalist.

Explain why those quotes don't demonstrate that Cuba is capitalist. Again, you don't even bother giving arguments you just make statements and don't bother refuting anything.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I don't even know why you two are arguing about this anymore, the matter has already been settled by this new law.

Cuba Apologists will continue to make excuses, no matter what egregious things the future brings for Cuba. As long as the party in power claims to be socialist, there will be people to whom clinging to Cuba is, it would seem, like their only tie to socialism. It's as if the absence of an existing practical example right now invalidates their own ideas, so they desperate cling to it, in the face of all available evidence. /amateur psychology 101

[KurtFF8]

I don't even know why you two are arguing about this anymore, the matter has already been settled by this new law.

In what sense has it been settled by this new law? Why is it this law that "settles it" rather than the various other periods of reforms and changes in Cuba over the decades? Or is it just that you've pronounced it settled so we should just take your word for it?


I'm wondering if you've actually read what I wrote. Clearly I've used the word "functional bourgeoisie" to describe the capitalist class in Cuba. It is a functional bourgeoisie because it performs the functions of the bourgeoisie without individual ownership over private property, but it commands capital nonetheless. You say I have yet to demonstrate how there's an actual bourgeoisie in Cuba. What is a bourgeoisie? Those who command capital through private property. I've explained how the party-state functions as bourgeoisie by commanding capital in Cuba.

I have read what you wrote. You have not explained that the party and state operate as a bourgeoisie in Cuba whatsoever, you've just repeated the claim.


The managers aren't, they are like managers.I don't understand this point.


It's not about the USSR and applies to the same arguments about why Cuba supposedly is socialist or non-capialist.Again you're just repeating a claim rather than explaining how a quote like that actually applies to the Cuban economy.


No it's not. I've shown you why I think that:

Quote: "All in all, the electoral process is so tightly controlled that the final phase, i.e. the voting itself, could be dispensed with without the final result being substantially affected". Source: Report on United Nations Commission on Human Rights - Inter American Comission on Human Rights. http://www.cubaverdad.net/iachr_cuba_elections.htm

So it's not circular reasoning.Fox News also says that Cuba is an evil dictatorship, but sometimes we should consider a source before we appeal to it. Quite strange to see a Leftist appealing to a website like that.


Explain why those quotes don't demonstrate that Cuba is capitalist. Again, you don't even bother giving arguments you just make statements and don't bother refuting anything. They're not even about Cuba! They aren't even really about the topic at hand. The point of them is "capitalism takes on various forms" which I agree with. It doesn't follow that Cuba is therefore capitalist as you seem to be implying. You keep making that claim (which goes against the grain of bourgeois and socialist thought of course) so I would say that you have to show how those quotes are relevant. So far you're just appealing to these quotes without actually applying them to what we're talking about.


Cuba Apologists will continue to make excuses, no matter what egregious things the future brings for Cuba. As long as the party in power claims to be socialist, there will be people to whom clinging to Cuba is, it would seem, like their only tie to socialism. It's as if the absence of an existing practical example right now invalidates their own ideas, so they desperate cling to it, in the face of all available evidence. /amateur psychology 101

And anti-Cuban "Leftists" will continue to claim that it's capitalist without even beginning to examine the actual system that Cuba has in place. I guess because Cuba isn't heaven on earth it can't possibly be socialist for some people.

[Prof. Oblivion]

In what sense has it been settled by this new law? Why is it this law that "settles it" rather than the various other periods of reforms and changes in Cuba over the decades? Or is it just that you've pronounced it settled so we should just take your word for it?

For the first time in "socialist" Cuba's history, complete privatization of business across the board has been legalized. This isn't partial "concessions" or whatever NEP analogy made about all of the other reforms, it is legalizing private business.

How does that not settle the matter?

[KurtFF8]

For the first time in "socialist" Cuba's history, complete privatization of business across the board has been legalized. This isn't partial "concessions" or whatever NEP analogy made about all of the other reforms, it is legalizing private business.

How does that not settle the matter?

This is a misrepresentation of what's happening. The new law is not a complete privatization as you are claiming here but is actually a partial privatization/allowance of foreign investment as you claim it's not.

From the article posted in the OP

The law is intended to promote foreign investment by offering an extensive and diverse portfolio of projects and opportunities in special development zones, in particular the recently opened Mariel special zone, the Minister said.

So no, it really doesn't settle the matter.

[Prof. Oblivion]

This is a misrepresentation of what's happening. The new law is not a complete privatization as you are claiming here but is actually a partial privatization/allowance of foreign investment as you claim it's not.

From the article posted in the OP


So no, it really doesn't settle the matter.

Except that simply isn't true. I think you are mistaken in what the quote you presented means. The law doesn't restrict foreign investment to special development zones at all. Excluding certain sectors - specifically healthcare and education - foreign private ownership is legal across the entire island. The Cuban special development zones, including the Mariel zone, are zones where Cuba is trying to attract that investment by offering tax and other advantages that foreign investors won't get across the rest of the island.

[KurtFF8]

Well find me the part of the article that says major industries are themselves open to private ownership now.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Well find me the part of the article that says major industries are themselves open to private ownership now.

It allows for foreign investment in all sectors except education, health and ‘armed institutions’ and will offer tax exemptions to overseas companies.

In a break with the past, the new law establishes foreign investment as a priority for the future development of Cuba; aiming to revive local industry; and making Cuban goods competitive on the world market through new financing, and access to advanced technology and know-how in key areas, such as agriculture, industry, tourism, biotechnology and renewable energy.

Under the new law investors will be exempted from paying tax on profits for eight years upon the signing of an agreement; investors will be exempted from income tax; 100% foreign ownership will be allowed, but such companies will be denied the same tax benefits afforded to joint ventures with the Cuban state or associations between foreign and Cuban companies; the new law does not specifically exclude Cubans living abroad; and state-run companies, private farm and non-farm cooperatives can be authorised to form ventures with foreign investors.
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2014/features/04/06/cubas-new-investment-law-far-reaching-implications/

[KurtFF8]

It allows for foreign investment in all sectors except education, health and ‘armed institutions’ and will offer tax exemptions to overseas companies.It does not say, however, that those industries are open to private ownership now, only that they are open to foreign investment. Those are different things.

It does indeed represent a sort of set back for socialism and is a more liberal reform (which does allow for some foreign ownership), but it is not privatization of the economy as you're implying. The first of Raul's major reforms was much more significant in terms of privatization (or at least a move away from state administration) than this reform.

Edit: I just want to be clear, I'm not defending this new investment law. I think it is a dangerous risk for socialist development in Cuba that opens the door to capitalist restoration. But to say that Cuba is clearly capitalist now because of this law is quite clearly a stretch.

[Prof. Oblivion]

It does not say, however, that those industries are open to private ownership now, only that they are open to foreign investment. Those are different things.

It does indeed represent a sort of set back for socialism and is a more liberal reform (which does allow for some foreign ownership), but it is not privatization of the economy as you're implying. The first of Raul's major reforms was much more significant in terms of privatization (or at least a move away from state administration) than this reform.

Edit: I just want to be clear, I'm not defending this new investment law. I think it is a dangerous risk for socialist development in Cuba that opens the door to capitalist restoration. But to say that Cuba is clearly capitalist now because of this law is quite clearly a stretch.

It allows for foreign investment in all sectors except education, health and ‘armed institutions’ and will offer tax exemptions to overseas companies.

In a break with the past, the new law establishes foreign investment as a priority for the future development of Cuba; aiming to revive local industry; and making Cuban goods competitive on the world market through new financing, and access to advanced technology and know-how in key areas, such as agriculture, industry, tourism, biotechnology and renewable energy.

Under the new law investors will be exempted from paying tax on profits for eight years upon the signing of an agreement; investors will be exempted from income tax; 100% foreign ownership will be allowed, but such companies will be denied the same tax benefits afforded to joint ventures with the Cuban state or associations between foreign and Cuban companies; the new law does not specifically exclude Cubans living abroad; and state-run companies, private farm and non-farm cooperatives can be authorised to form ventures with foreign investors.
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2014/fea...-implications/

[KurtFF8]

That does not say that the state run companies will be privatized and placed under foreign ownership. The idea of foreign investment is that new companies and industries will appear and that those will be the ones under private foreign ownership. I can't find anything that says that there are plans to place what are currently state owned industries into private hands. Unless I'm missing something in what you keep quoting, you seem to be conflating two things still.

[Prof. Oblivion]

That does not say that the state run companies will be privatized and placed under foreign ownership.

I never said the state run companies would necessarily be privatized. I already covered this in an earlier post in the thread:



Sherritt International owns 33% of Energas, a joint venture with SOE's that provides 11% of Cuba's electricity. Under the new law, it will be legal for Sherritt to purchase a majority stake in Energas, instantly privatizing 11% of Cuba's electricity production.

Sherritt also has a 50% stake in Moa Joint Venture, a nickel mining company in Cuba, and operates an oil and gas exploration business, which has grown "to an intermediate exploration and production business that contributes significantly to the success of the Corporation." In other words, it has a large stake in Cuba and is looking forward to expanding its investments in the country.

And while Cuba might not decide to sell off its state enterprises, the case of China clearly shows that that simply doesn't matter. When capitalism is legalized, the private sector will outgrow the state sector as proportionally. Capitalism is now legal in Cuba.

To sum this all up, Cuba may or may not sell some state owned enterprises, and may or may not transfer majority ownership of some to the private minority stakeholders, but that is beside the point. Now that 100% foreign private ownership in most industries is completely legal, Cuba is obviously not socialist. Further, we know from how China has gone that whether or not SOE's are sold off is really neither here nor there, as once private ownership is legalized, capital moves in and the private sector eclipses the state sector fairly rapidly once confidence/trust in the regime is gained.

Finally, state owned businesses aren't necessarily "socialist" so there's also that to consider. For example, the joint venture with Sherritt is going to be run like a business, as Sherritt would not be investing were it not making a profit. Something else to consider.

[KurtFF8]

Now that 100% foreign private ownership in most industries is completely legal, Cuba is obviously not socialist.

As I've said multiple times, this is quite a jump in logic. It simply does not follow. Cuban society is still a workers state. This reform most certainly threatens the socialist character of the Cuban state and economy, but socialism is not a decree or law. Just because this reform is passed doesn't mean over night (or in 2 months when it goes into affect) that Cuba is no longer socialist. That's a very silly way to analyze the situation in my opinion.


Further, we know from how China has gone that whether or not SOE's are sold off is really neither here nor there, as once private ownership is legalized, capital moves in and the private sector eclipses the state sector fairly rapidly once confidence/trust in the regime is gained.

It's most certainly a major risk that these reforms have produced, but it has not yet gone down that way in Cuba, so to say it is right now no longer socialist is just false.


Finally, state owned businesses aren't necessarily "socialist" so there's also that to consider.

Of course, but in the case of Cuba, I would say because of the history of how the working class interacts with the state and industry: the state run sector of the economy is indeed socialist.

[Prof. Oblivion]

As I've said multiple times, this is quite a jump in logic. It simply does not follow. Cuban society is still a workers state. This reform most certainly threatens the socialist character of the Cuban state and economy, but socialism is not a decree or law. Just because this reform is passed doesn't mean over night (or in 2 months when it goes into affect) that Cuba is no longer socialist. That's a very silly way to analyze the situation in my opinion.

One has to be delusional to think that a state that represents the interests of workers and stands in their interest would legalize private ownership of businesses. You are right - socialism isn't based on a single decree or law, but the fact that this law was even considered (it passed unanimously) shows the true character of the Cuban state.



Of course, but in the case of Cuba, I would say because of the history of how the working class interacts with the state and industry: the state run sector of the economy is indeed socialist.

So you think that the Cuban-Sherritt joint venture, from which Sherritt extracts profit, is socialist? Just how do the workers of Energas interact with the state and Sherritt that makes you convinced this is a socialist endeavor?

[KurtFF8]

One has to be delusional to think that a state that represents the interests of workers and stands in their interest would legalize private ownership of businesses. You are right - socialism isn't based on a single decree or law, but the fact that this law was even considered (it passed unanimously) shows the true character of the Cuban state.

This is just you saying "it's not socialist!" and not much more. As I said before, no this new law isn't socialist or a movement towards enhancing socialism (contrary to what their official line is), but should be seen as a sort of retreat in the fact of objective conditions of isolation from the world economy besides a few countries in Latin America.

Cuba can't rely on their favorable deals with Venezuela forever, especially considering that the future of those deals remains questionable with recent unrest and right wing opposition.

But to go as far as to say "well this proves Cuba isn't socialist!" is just an absurd conclusion that leaves out quite a bit. I don't know what more we can argue about on this topic in all honesty.



So you think that the Cuban-Sherritt joint venture, from which Sherritt extracts profit, is socialist? Just how do the workers of Energas interact with the state and Sherritt that makes you convinced this is a socialist endeavor?

I don't recall even mentioning the Cuban-Sherritt joint venture.

[Prof. Oblivion]

This is just you saying "it's not socialist!" and not much more. As I said before, no this new law isn't socialist or a movement towards enhancing socialism (contrary to what their official line is), but should be seen as a sort of retreat in the fact of objective conditions of isolation from the world economy besides a few countries in Latin America.

Cuba can't rely on their favorable deals with Venezuela forever, especially considering that the future of those deals remains questionable with recent unrest and right wing opposition.

But to go as far as to say "well this proves Cuba isn't socialist!" is just an absurd conclusion that leaves out quite a bit. I don't know what more we can argue about on this topic in all honesty.

No, it's not an absurd conclusion. Private property, wage labor and extraction of surplus value of proletarians by the bourgeoisie are now completely legal. There's nothing left out here.




I don't recall even mentioning the Cuban-Sherritt joint venture.

I brought it up to discuss your assertion about the relation between the workers and the state.