Cuba isn't socialist? So what?

[Lower Case S]

I've always been confused by one specific argument against the Cuban Revolution made by some Marxists. It goes something like this: Cuba is not socialist, therefore, we should struggle/support struggles to overthrow the existing Cuban state, which is a capitalist one more or less like any other--maybe even worse in some interpretations. In this analysis, the very real gains made by the Revolution are brushed aside because there's still commodity production, money, a state, etc.--as if anything short of full communism is meaningless and not worth defending.

However, there seems to be a logical contradiction at the heart of this argument. Whether or not people accept in theory the possibility of building socialism in one country (a point I don't care to argue here), it should be pretty obvious that a small island country like Cuba can't construct socialism under a global capitalist system. So, why then does it matter that Cuba hasn't managed to transcend capitalism? If something is assumed in the first place to be impossible, how can people be blamed for failing to achieve the impossible?

I'll assume here that some (or even many) people on this site either hold similar beliefs to the one I described here, or at least don't feel any particular affinity towards the Cuban Revolution. So, I'll ask this question. Given the obvious barriers to building socialism in isolation, what could the Cuban Revolution's leadership possibly have done along the way to gain your support? Maybe they just should've given up?

The people who make this argument appear to be setting up an intentionally unreachable standard in which it's accepted that building socialism is impossible under the conditions faced by the Cuban Revolution, yet the revolutionaries are still blamed for failing to do so. The assumption here is that the Cuban Revolution's leaders are/were dishonest, corrupt people rather than simply human beings constrained by objective circumstances, struggling to do the best they could with a set of very difficult obstacles. Arguments like this just seem really dishonest to me. It's as if people are simply looking for excuses to oppose any real life revolution that's ever occurred because it doesn't fit perfectly with their own conception of how things should be in an ideal world.

Hopefully the learning section is appropriate for this post. If not, mods should feel free to move this to a more relevant location.

[Comrade #138672]

If Cuba is not socialist, then this means we should not take Cuba as a model for socialism.

[Црвена]

Just because we think the current, capitalist Cuba must be overthrown doesn't mean that we blame individual revolutionaries rather than objective material circumstances for it being this way...

[Tim Cornelis]

So what? Well then it should be overthrow by a communist revolution by establishing a revolutionary proletarian dictatorship. This is the task in Cuba, the same as in the Netherlands, China, USA, DPRK. You seem to suggest that those advocating an overthrow wish to just return to the Batista-era for some reason, as in conceding defeat and handing power back to the previous holders -- no one does that. The Cuban leadership should have instituted a proletarian dictatorship and hold out until international salvation arrives. They didn't, so they are an enemy the same as any other bourgeois state.

[John Nada]

I've always been confused by one specific argument against the Cuban Revolution made by some Marxists. It goes something like this: Cuba is not socialist, therefore, we should struggle/support struggles to overthrow the existing Cuban state, which is a capitalist one more or less like any other--maybe even worse in some interpretations. In this analysis, the very real gains made by the Revolution are brushed aside because there's still commodity production, money, a state, etc.--as if anything short of full communism is meaningless and not worth defending.Positive progressive things, like democratic revolutions, can happen before communism. However these are but a prelude to the global proletarian revolution. Cuban Communists should support the overthrow of their existing state, because the end-goal of all Marxists is a classless, stateless society. Which should be supported by all Marxists Whether there's genuine Marxists in the party who view this current situation as temporary and less than ideal, or a movement to get closer to that end, is another thing.
However, there seems to be a logical contradiction at the heart of this argument. Whether or not people accept in theory the possibility of building socialism in one country (a point I don't care to argue here), it should be pretty obvious that a small island country like Cuba can't construct socialism under a global capitalist system. So, why then does it matter that Cuba hasn't managed to transcend capitalism? If something is assumed in the first place to be impossible, how can people be blamed for failing to achieve the impossible?Well, Marxists are good at pointing out contradictions.:lol:

If the PCC is genuinely Marxist, it should matter to them that they're trapped under capitalism encirclement. It should matter that that the workers in the rest of the world are still oppressed and haven't transcended capitalism.
I'll assume here that some (or even many) people on this site either hold similar beliefs to the one I described here, or at least don't feel any particular affinity towards the Cuban Revolution. So, I'll ask this question. Given the obvious barriers to building socialism in isolation, what could the Cuban Revolution's leadership possibly have done along the way to gain your support? Maybe they just should've given up?Unless they're Cuban, the Cuban Revolutionary leadership doesn't have to do anything to gain support from some random person on a message board. It's the Cuban proletariat they need.
The people who make this argument appear to be setting up an intentionally unreachable standard in which it's accepted that building socialism is impossible under the conditions faced by the Cuban Revolution, yet the revolutionaries are still blamed for failing to do so. The assumption here is that the Cuban Revolution's leaders are/were dishonest, corrupt people rather than simply human beings constrained by objective circumstances, struggling to do the best they could with a set of very difficult obstacles. Arguments like this just seem really dishonest to me. It's as if people are simply looking for excuses to oppose any real life revolution that's ever occurred because it doesn't fit perfectly with their own conception of how things should be in an ideal world.Well the majority of which haven't done something even close to any "actual existing" revolutions. They're are also humans constrained by objective circumstances. Most have good intentions. Some of them might be dishonest and corrupt. The same goes for the Cuban revolutionaries.:) And Cuban Communists have criticized other revolutionaries and themselves.

People will criticize everything. Hell, a lot of people would've criticized the Paris Commune or the October Revolution. Neither of which was perfect. It's just that Cuba is less than ideal(possibly even in their own view). We should criticize that which needs criticizing, and try to do better.

[mushroompizza]

I honestly don't care whatever government it is, I don't support it if it kills people who think differently, and force out people because of their lack of freedom. The Castro Brothers are leninists and traitors to freedom, and Che is a maniac hell bent on murder.

[VILemon]

I honestly don't care whatever government it is, I don't support it if it kills people who think differently, and force out people because of their lack of freedom. The Castro Brothers are leninists and traitors to freedom, and Che is a maniac hell bent on murder.

How's that sweet Miami kool-aid treating you? How someone so well propagandized about the Cuban situatio ends up on a revolutionary leftist website astounds me.

[Counterculturalist]

Che is a maniac hell bent on murder.

And here I thought he'd been dead for decades.


The people who make this argument appear to be setting up an intentionally unreachable standard in which it's accepted that building socialism is impossible under the conditions faced by the Cuban Revolution, yet the revolutionaries are still blamed for failing to do so.

Well, no, I don't think many leftists (besides mushroompizza, I guess) necessarily blame the Cuban revolutionaries for failing to establish true communism. As long as capitalism is a global hegemonic system, it is, unfortunately, going to negatively affect the outcome of any country claiming to be socialist or communist. Does that mean that Cuba made no important gains? Of course not. It just means that, eventually, their government, like all others, is gonna have to go.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I honestly don't care whatever government it is, I don't support it if it kills people who think differently, and force out people because of their lack of freedom. The Castro Brothers are leninists and traitors to freedom, and Che is a maniac hell bent on murder.
While I'm critical of Cuba, there's a difference between that and spewing right-wing talking points.

[ñángara]

Cuba is just stuck in the national liberation etap of a revolution in a backward country. The same happened to China and Vietnam.

[G4b3n]

No one is saying the Cuban regime ought to be opposed because it failed to transcend capitalism. It ought to be opposed because it was never constructed in a manner that is consistent with everything we know about what it takes for the international proletariat to transcend capitalism based on the lessons learned by the outright failure of Marxism-Leninism as an ideology and the material conditions of Cuba up to the present.

[mushroompizza]

Hmmm I see these Che humpers dont see my point. I have family in Cuba, I wish one day they can come to this evil capitalist country why, because here they can actually attain wealth. It is true capitalism is oppressive but the castroist system in Cuba is just creating mandated poverty. I am not arguing against Marxism just Castroism specifically. My relative is a nuclear scientist who frequently works for the UN, in Cuba he is also a taxi driver and birthday clown on weekends. This is ridiculous! Many of my family who were once Castro supporters now reject it because it is just as good as living under Batista but now with more pictures of Che everywhere.

[Sewer Socialist]

Who is a Che humper? Who is calling the USA evil? Your response has nothing to do with anything written since your last post.

[Cliff Paul]

Hmmm I see these Che humpers dont see my point

Let's be honest. Che is quite the looker.

[Antiochus]

I don't support it if it kills people who think differently

Then why are you here? What is a Revolution but the killing (if they don't submit, which they rarely do) of those who "think and act differently".

Don't get me wrong, I am not an advocate for wanton violence for the fuck of it. Robespierre should be criticized; but not for decapitating Louis.

[John Nada]

Hmmm I see these Che humpers dont see my point. I have family in Cuba, I wish one day they can come to this evil capitalist country why, because here they can actually attain wealth.Hahahahaha,:laugh::laugh: good one!:lol: April Fool's everybody!
It is true capitalism is oppressive but the castroist system in Cuba is just creating mandated poverty. I am not arguing against Marxism just Castroism specifically.That mandated poverty was created by the US, first from colonialism, then from the economic blockade.
My relative is a nuclear scientist who frequently works for the UN, in Cuba he is also a taxi driver and birthday clown on weekends. This is ridiculous!What's wrong with being a taxi driver and birthday clown? Too bad that's beneath you.
Many of my family who were once Castro supporters now reject it because it is just as good as living under Batista but now with more pictures of Che everywhere.That alone makes it a step up! Progress!

[Pancakes Rühle]

So what? Well then it should be overthrow by a communist revolution by establishing a revolutionary proletarian dictatorship. This is the task in Cuba, the same as in the Netherlands, China, USA, DPRK. You seem to suggest that those advocating an overthrow wish to just return to the Batista-era for some reason, as in conceding defeat and handing power back to the previous holders -- no one does that. The Cuban leadership should have instituted a proletarian dictatorship and hold out until international salvation arrives. They didn't, so they are an enemy the same as any other bourgeois state.

The problem is that leaders cannot institute proletarian class rule. Only the class itself can do that.

[RedMaterialist]

My relative is a nuclear scientist who frequently works for the UN, in Cuba he is also a taxi driver and birthday clown on weekends.

Nuclear scientist in Cuba? The SU was assisting with the construction of a nuclear plant until the collapse of the Soviet state. After that it was impossible for Cuba to get financing (as in, capital) to resume construction. The Cuban community in the US said a nuclear plant in Cuba would be a "Chernobyl" on our backstep.

Maybe you should contact your friends and have them invest $800 million in cash to restart the project.

[RedMaterialist]

hahahahaha,:laugh::laugh: Good one!:lol: April fool's everybody!that mandated poverty was created by the us, first from colonialism, then from the economic blockade.what's wrong with being a taxi driver and birthday clown? Too bad that's beneath you.that alone makes it a step up! Progress!

lol

[mushroompizza]

Not saying I dont like employment Im just pointing out the poor conditions that Castro has not improved in 50+ years.

[Vogel]

Cubans have some legit grievances against the Castro's. Unfortunately, like with all ''communist'' countries, they went the route of the USSR. They removed the private capitalist from power, and replaced him with a state commissar. Its simplified, but its what happened. The state took the position of the capitalist, and what do you know....

If you truly want to make a semi-successful communist revolution, you need to end the capitalist class structure above all. True, global capitalism will dictate how these businesses can operate, but they give people an alternative when capitalism's destructive tendencies flare up. No more employer/employee relationship. That's what we have to get rid of, like we got rid of the slave/master or serf/lord relationship. Cuba didn't do that, China sure as hell didn't do that, USSR didn't do that (Though i hear Lenin recognized the importance of allying with cooperatives like businesses).

[Cliff Paul]

That's what we have to get rid of, like we got rid of the slave/master or serf/lord relationship. Cuba didn't do that, China sure as hell didn't do that, USSR didn't do that (Though i hear Lenin recognized the importance of allying with cooperatives like businesses).

You know the majority of agriculture in Cuba is run by cooperatives.

[Comrade Jacob]

I honestly don't care whatever government it is, I don't support it if it kills people who think differently, and force out people because of their lack of freedom. The Castro Brothers are leninists and traitors to freedom, and Che is a maniac hell bent on murder.

Liberal. That's all I have to say.