The Republic of Cuba

[RedMaterialist]

The Cuban state is on the verge of withering away. With no shots being fired, no invasion, no coup, no violence, the Cuban state will collapse within two-three years. The official date of its collapse will be the day of Castro's funeral. The Cuban state has survived invasion, assassination attempts against its leader, the threat of nuclear annihilation of the entire world, a boycott by the most ferocious capitalist country in history, horrible economic conditions after the collapse of the SU. Yet, through all this, the state has survived.

When in history has a state simply collapsed? It has happened once, in the Soviet Union. Cuba has repressed out of existence, on the island of Cuba, the capitalist class. It no longer exists in Cuba. With no class left to suppress there is no function , no basis for the state, it collapses (cf. Marx and Engels.)

However, as in the case of the SU, on the date of the collapse of the Cuban state capital from the US will flood in. Cuba has repeated the history of the Soviet Union: Socialism in one state is possible, but it cannot last forever in a capitalist world because a socialist state is doomed to collapse. As Trotsky said, the socialist revolution can succeed only in a world revolution. But, what we have now is socialism in a few countries.

Who is going to take credit for the "defeat" of Cuban socialism? Barak Obama, of course, just as Reagan took credit for the "defeat" of the USSR.

[Tim Cornelis]

Not this shit again. Fucking hell. I thought you had given up on this ludicrous theory -- wishful thinking apparently. Stalinism makes a million times more sense than this "theory".

Other states that withered away:

Somalia*; Mayan Empire; Albania 1994.

Withering away is not the fucking same thing as collapse, and liberalising politically is not collapse. Your reading comprehension is shit.

*Bad example, this will probably feed his laughable theory because it was a Stalinist state as well.

[Creative Destruction]

But, what we have now is socialism in a few countries.

good god, you're an idiot.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Now just the money, private property, and looming trade deals with the capitalist world to deal with...:rolleyes:

This is seriously insane.

[Tim Cornelis]

There's so much wrong with this pathetic excuse for a "theory" that you are married to for who knows what reason, I don't even know where to begin.

Leaving aside the mischaracterisation of these countries as "socialist" and the supposed non-existence of a bourgeoisie, it still doesn't make an ounce of sense. The state collapses because the capitalist class is repressed: why? What social forces cause this? Of course, you give no answer and no reasonable answer can be given. It can only be a metaphysical force exerting itself on the state causing it to "collapse". The state is not some metaphysical formation, why would the members of the state allow for it to collapse knowing full-well that it would lead to foreign capital taking over? This doesn't make a lick of sense!

Second major theoretical problem: you don't know what withering away of the state means. It is dying off, gradually, not collapsing. The workers' state has coercive features to repress the bourgeois counter-revolution and consolidate social control over the economy. As the counter-revolution is repressed, there is simply no need for armed force, and so armed force disappears. And once social control is consolidated, there is no need for, let's say taxes, because it will be obsolete. The withering away of the state does not mean that the state transitions from one model to another where police, army, taxes will still exist but will now answer to new political masters, as was the case in Russia. So, the workers' state is stripped of its coercive features, and what is left is the free association of equal producers. Where is the free association of equal producers in Cuba? Where is the withering away of taxes, of police, of the armed forces?

Then empirical problems: the counter-revolution in Cuba was beaten decades ago, why collapse now? Why are taxes, or commodity exchange, etc. not withering away? It also presupposes the absence of class antagonisms, how do you explain mass protests, strikes, etc. The USSR was not flooded by foreign capital, but rather state bureaucrats, by and large, became the individual owners of resources. The collapse of the USSR started outside of its borders, in Poland. In Poland a workers' trade union with millions of members demanding better work conditions managed to force free elections, once these were won by liberal parties, reforms were implemented to transition to a liberal democracy -- how is this even remotely close to the state withering away?! Are you nuts?

Your "theory" cannot be reconciled with facts, theory, or logic even a bit. Some wrong theories are plausible but still wrong, but yours isn't even close.

Of course, this is only scratching the surface of why this "theory" is wrong, but I have already explained that in more detail previously, which you ignored probably because you want to be the next big socialist theorist so badly you are just ignoring logical and facts. You do not have a basic grasp of Marxism, of what the DOTP means, of communism, of what withering away means and you come up with outright laughable "theories". Join us down on earth please.

[tuwix]

Who is going to take credit for the "defeat" of Cuban socialism?

To be any defeat of socialism, there must be socialism firstly. But someone must be blind, if s/he has seen any socialism in Cuba except times of primitive communism there..

[Rafiq]

Leaving aside the mischaracterisation of these countries as "socialist" and the supposed non-existence of a bourgeoisie, it still doesn't make an ounce of sense. The state collapses because the capitalist class is repressed: why? What social forces cause this? Of course, you give no answer and no reasonable answer can be given. It can only be a metaphysical force exerting itself on the state causing it to "collapse". The state is not some metaphysical formation, why would the members of the state allow for it to collapse knowing full-well that it would lead to foreign capital taking over? This doesn't make a lick of sense!


I generally agree with you, but these states are in nature temporal. Not because they represent the transition to a stateless society, but because they represent the transition to a capitalist society - that is to say, the state does collapse as a result of the repression of the spontaneous predispositions it already has to capitalism, and the more powerful and extensive the political apparatus, the more catastrophic the collapse. Unless of course we speak of the Chinese or Vietnamese model...

These societies, though, were never able to transcend the predispositions to capitalist relations to production because the social foundations for socialism were non-existent in them. They therefore had to hold themselves to even developing capitalist countries whom they were behind, not to supersede capitalism but to compete with it. Another problem is hte necessity to intregate into a larger world economy, and there mere trade-interactions with other states sows the seeds for the necessity of capitalist production. Even the most 'successful' small capitalist states, the Asian tiger states, are primarily successful because of their industrial exports - being more inclusive in the world capitalist totality and spear-heading globalization for third world countries (well, in the favorable sense...). The collapse of the state occurs when the social foundations for the power of the state are rendered obsolete: Which is, in effect, the backward economy of which the state's only function was to eliminate in the first place, of which the whole structural edfiice of the state was systemically designed and built to address.

[Antiochus]

If you honestly think Cuba crushed the Capitalist class within its political borders, perhaps you should look at the state officials who drive expensive cars, live within the mansions once owned by American businessmen and further push for more liberalization of the economy. Cuba was never remotely "Socialist".


But, what we have now is socialism in a few countries.

Name 2. I mean seriously if your perception of "Socialism" is Venezuela or China (lols...) you have a lot more problems than these theories.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

If you honestly think Cuba crushed the Capitalist class within its political borders, perhaps you should look at the state officials who drive expensive cars, live within the mansions once owned by American businessmen and further push for more liberalization of the economy. Cuba was never remotely "Socialist".



Name 2. I mean seriously if your perception of "Socialism" is Venezuela or China (lols...) you have a lot more problems than these theories.

Much more than that - new laws over the last 3 decades and especially the last 6 years since the global financial crisis, have blatantly reinstated domestic goods production, small trade, petty-bourgeois vendor salesmen and even market agents now. The problems of social inequity in Cuba have long surpassed the "opportunist bureaucrat" phase!

If you truly think that Cuba was "never remotely Socialist", I find that very curious. Besides the social revolutionary characteristics logically associated with Socialism, Socialism means and has always meant the end to private property for social or collective property. While Cuba (still is and) was a very poor country during the political takeover of the coalition government of July 24th movement and PSP, to deny the proletarian character of the political changes in Cuba during the late 1950's and 60's is silly.
The real power for enforcing the radical policies of social change which occurred in Cuba (nationalization of industry, creation of workers' cooperatives, universal cultural access, free education, universal healthcare, massive publication of marxist literature, substantial material/military aid to revolutionary movements [in Africa, Latin America, Asia] etc. etc.) came from the radical urban movements of the July 4th movement, unions and especially the PSP.

The real policy making and policy enforcing apparatus of the Cuban revolution was the PSP, the communist Party of Cuba. That's not to dispel the heavy, even dominant, peasant character of the Cuban revolution. But the PSP was a party which many honorable proletarian men and women gave their lives to build and grow for decades before the rebellion of the july 24th movement ever opened the opportunity to political power. You can look over the history of the party and the biographies of the many leaders of that movement. These were mostly people who understood the Marxist viewpoint and teachings of the goal of the international Proletariat thoroughly, who looked forward to the communist world revolution and its bright message of liberation just as we do.

The fact that Cuba was a very backward country in which agriculture comprised the majority of the people's lives, and that reactionary sentiment broods easily in the endless toil and "stupidity of rural life" (Marx), isn't the fault of those worker comrades who indeed changed Cuban society for the better and if nothing more left an interesting footnote in history. What a sad fate it must be and have been for the communists in Cuba to see concession after concession handed to the enemies of Socialism, to be stuck in a country so far back with no sign of hope from their impotent working class friends of the rich northern countries.

[Rafiq]

If you honestly think Cuba crushed the Capitalist class within its political borders, perhaps you should look at the state officials who drive expensive cars, live within the mansions once owned by American businessmen and further push for more liberalization of the economy. Cuba was never remotely "Socialist".


Capitalism doesn't amount to having luxurious privileges, and if the capitalist class exists in Cuba, it is what bordiga called, something like "between the lines" of social relationships to production - not the state bureaucracy. Again, stop confusing your moral connotations of the bourgeoisie with the actual bourgeoisie. Do those state officials make profit off of the Cuban planned economy? No, they don't. Do they re-invest this profit into their own private enterprises? No, they don't. Their privileges are contingent upon their ADMINISTRATIVE positions, but their administrative positions don't systemically exist to bolster their luxuries, even if this is an unavoidable effect of it.

[Antiochus]

First off, its the 26th of July, not 24th, but whatever.


Do those state officials make profit off of the Cuban planned economy? No, they don't.

Ummm, yes they do actually.


Their privileges are contingent upon their ADMINISTRATIVE positions, but their administrative positions don't systemically exist to bolster their luxuries, even if this is an unavoidable effect of it.

The fact that these positions aren't explicitly made to benefit a class means what exactly? There are plenty of examples were the administrative bureaucracy became a class unto itself, even if that wasn't the original intent. For example, Han China.



Capitalism doesn't amount to having luxurious privileges


Agree, but that isn't what I was saying. Cuba's planned economy functions in many ways similar to Iran's central economy where the clergy control important sectors of the economy and certainly profit off of them.


Do they re-invest this profit into their own private enterprises? No, they don't.

Some of Cuba's state sectors operate under certain families of high-ranking officials, and while it isn't "hereditary", it is a kleptocracy.

As to the rest of WCOP's comment, I never denied there were (maybe even substantial) social and economic changes in Cuba, but don't try to bring down Socialism to the level of "free healthcare and free education", which makes me cringe. There is a lot more to it than that, which I am sure you know. As to the worker's cooperatives, as far as I understand, most of these cooperatives were neutered from the start, given very little autonomy from the economic decision making, although that could perhaps be a more recent phenomenon.

Finally, my quip about it never being Socialist makes sense. Maoists for example agree that China stopped being Socialist once Mao died, whether one agrees or not, it is a somewhat logical argument. But Fidel and Raul and many other of the original party members are still alive, and as you yourself noted Cuba is well on its way to neo-liberalism. So what? Did they magically stop being Marxists overnight?

[Rafiq]

The fact that these positions aren't explicitly made to benefit a class means what exactly? There are plenty of examples were the administrative bureaucracy became a class unto itself, even if that wasn't the original intent. For example, Han China.


Except of course, the administrative bureaucracy was never a ruling class in itself, and a Landlord class, and a gentry existed within the empire. A ruling class doesn't mean who has the most power, but whose rule defines the process of production, who possesses hegemony with regard to productive relations. Even China's so-called "Ancient socialist" emperors more or less simply re-organized land distribution while keeping relations to production and land intact. So this is a completely nonsensical comparison, and furthermore, they don't constitute a class because classes are defined by their relationships to private property and production, not simply to production itself. It's almost like saying that government officials in Fascist Italy, leaders of corporates constituted a "different class". One could argue that the state-bureaucracy in Cuba constitutes a caste of some sort, or a distinct group, but not a class and furthermore not a capitalist class. Cuba, like all other previous Communist states, had no affirmative social constitution, it was a political regime with a purely negative existence (to destroy old social bonds, primarily feudal bonds). That's why market reforms are now being introduced.

The whole reason "intent" is being brought up is because yes, the capitalist class IS defined by the intent to make a profit privately, this is't the case as far as the Cuban bureaucracy goes. It doesn't constitute a relationship of private property because in Cuba, property owned by the state is owned in common.


Some of Cuba's state sectors operate under certain families of high-ranking officials, and while it isn't "hereditary", it is a kleptocracy.


Which we all know is a stupid and painfully desperate example. This doesn't amount to the "rule" of different families but nepotism being a systemic side effect of the Cuban state.

[mushroompizza]

:laugh:Haha wow! Turn off Michael Moore and take off your Che shirt, if Cuba was that great why where people constantly fleeing? Anyway it will probably just turn into a quasi "Socialist" state like Venezuela, then it could either stay or become another failing capitalist reformed dictatorship (Ukraine 2012) or a failing capitalist democracy (Puerto Rico).

[BIXX]

I hate this thread so much.

[Rafiq]

:laugh:Haha wow! Turn off Michael Moore and take off your Che shirt, if Cuba was that great why where people constantly fleeing?

Are they fleeing to live the good life in actually comparable states like Jamaica, Dominican or Guatemala? Or is the US, one of the most advanced capitalist economies on Earth, within swimming distance, not supposed to be a tempting alternative? I mean, what do you expect?

[Comrade Jacob]

:laugh:Haha wow! Turn off Michael Moore and take off your Che shirt, if Cuba was that great why where people constantly fleeing? Anyway it will probably just turn into a quasi "Socialist" state like Venezuela, then it could either stay or become another failing capitalist reformed dictatorship (Ukraine 2012) or a failing capitalist democracy (Puerto Rico).

You are worse than the left-coms. At least they come up with something more than bourgeois b.s.
They "flee" because America is the most advanced country and it's close. It's not because they hate the revolution. This is why you hippies annoy most actual communists.