Why do some people glorify Stalin and Castro?

[Ben Weissman]

As an anarcho-communist, my problem isn't with communism. But why would we glorify any leader who murders millions of dissidents and creates labor camps?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheMaroon]

I cannot justify the idealistic place that people hold Stalin or Stalin's Russia, neither are in line with the Communist view, Stalin was an Elitist Authoritarian who was either too prideful or too foolish to realize the true potential that he was oppressing. The Soviet State at it's peak had the ability to not only potentially perpetuate the revolution within it's own borders, but to also export the revolution to other countries. Instead it took by force, independent nations, installing not a truly self-sufficient and autonomous government but rather installed it's own centralized and authoritarian dictatorship, ultimately resulting in the formation of the "Soviet Bloc". A true abomination.

In Cuba however, it was different.

Cuba, previous to Castro's victory in 1959, was ripe for revolution, with the oppressive totalitarian government installed by foreign powers, groups and militias were forming all across the nation with people taking up arms and preparing to reclaim their land and their right to self-govern. On March 26th revolution erupted with a failed attack on government barracks. After this day Castro's M-26-7 would fight on, through many hardships and it's fair share of treacheries, and despite it's setbacks M-26-7 would win it's final victory in Santa Clara under the Command of Ernesto "Che" Guevara in 1959. Castro would soon be put into power, and until the bay of pigs invasion he wanted a true democracy. It was only after that he became a dictator; however he was not as bad as people say, most of his bad rep comes from cold war era anti-communist propaganda. Cubans enjoy great healthcare, great education, and a great court system. Today Cuba is considered the safest nation on earth, with zero foreign enemies and little to no crime. Were there political prisoners, yes; but they were not only allowed to leave, they posed a real threat to Cuba's stability.

Fidel furthermore only supported and received protection from Stalin's Russia due to the fact that Stalin was the only person willing and able and to protect Cuba's independence from the United States' Imperialism and self-interest. Castro was not a bad person, or a bad leader. He was a man, a Marxist-Leninist who saw an opportunity for revolution and seized it.

Ultimately we should not idolize Stalin, because at his core he truly was an awful person. Castro on the other hand had nothing but good intentions and given his circumstances and his country's place geographically did the best he could with a shitty situation. He gave Cuba independence, freedom, healthcare, education, housing and so much more. Without him, I doubt Cuba would be out from the truly tyrannical rule of dictators far worse than he. Idolize the man only if you want to, but you have to have some morsel of respect for what he did, and the good, progressive changes that he brought to Cuba.

[Ben Weissman]

I cannot justify the idealistic place that people hold Stalin or Stalin's Russia, neither are in line with the Communist view, Stalin was an Elitist Authoritarian who was either too prideful or too foolish to realize the true potential that he was oppressing. The Soviet State at it's peak had the ability to not only potentially perpetuate the revolution within it's own borders, but to also export the revolution to other countries. Instead it took by force, independent nations, installing not a truly self-sufficient and autonomous government but rather installed it's own centralized and authoritarian dictatorship, ultimately resulting in the formation of the "Soviet Bloc". A true abomination.

In Cuba however, it was different.

Cuba, previous to Castro's victory in 1959, was ripe for revolution, with the oppressive totalitarian government installed by foreign powers, groups and militias were forming all across the nation with people taking up arms and preparing to reclaim their land and their right to self-govern. On March 26th revolution erupted with a failed attack on government barracks. After this day Castro's M-26-7 would fight on, through many hardships and it's fair share of treacheries, and despite it's setbacks M-26-7 would win it's final victory in Santa Clara under the Command of Ernesto "Che" Guevara in 1959. Castro would soon be put into power, and until the bay of pigs invasion he wanted a true democracy. It was only after that he became a dictator; however he was not as bad as people say, most of his bad rep comes from cold war era anti-communist propaganda. Cubans enjoy great healthcare, great education, and a great court system. Today Cuba is considered the safest nation on earth, with zero foreign enemies and little to no crime. Were there political prisoners, yes; but they were not only allowed to leave, they posed a real threat to Cuba's stability.

Fidel furthermore only supported and received protection from Stalin's Russia due to the fact that Stalin was the only person willing and able and to protect Cuba's independence from the United States' Imperialism and self-interest. Castro was not a bad person, or a bad leader. He was a man, a Marxist-Leninist who saw an opportunity for revolution and seized it.

Ultimately we should not idolize Stalin, because at his core he truly was an awful person. Castro on the other hand had nothing but good intentions and given his circumstances and his country's place geographically did the best he could with a shitty situation. He gave Cuba independence, freedom, healthcare, education, housing and so much more. Without him, I doubt Cuba would be out from the truly tyrannical rule of dictators far worse than he. Idolize the man only if you want to, but you have to have some morsel of respect for what he did, and the good, progressive changes that he brought to Cuba.

I think that Che was a hero, and the batistas were terrible. My criticism of Castro isn't necessarily his policies, but his suppression of the freedom of speech. I may agree with his communism, but that doesn't mean that all capitalists should be killed in mass graves, or that the media should be controlled by a dictator.

[(A)]

State socialists are no better or worse for an anarchist then any Liberal, democrat, republican... they are all the same.

State power, Monopoly on violence, Media control, Prisons and police. I dont care if your a capitalist or a Socialist; If you are not an anarchist you are my opposition.

All of these Worker states are Liberal by the definition of Classic Liberalism. They all went threw revolutions (like america) they all claim to be of the people/worker.
They all honestly think that the economic system is the best for their "freedom".

If you are going to glorify Castro, Lenin, stalin, trotsky, mao, you might as well glorify Sanders or Clinton because the difference is only on paper (as in paper money.)
Their actions are the same. Murder, Lies and oppression in the name of liberty.

[CatTrap]

I don't think we should glorify anything, but I also don't think we should give any credit to the capitalist propaganda machine. We need to tread a fine line.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

While Castro is certainly coming from a Stalinist tradition, you cannot equate Cuba under his rule to the USSR under Stalin's.

[(A)]

No Cuba sounds like a half way decent place save for the police state. I would go if I had the means.

30% of the island is now covered in trees from 14%
Home ownership is up; stuff like that.

[Chertionok]

Because Stalin's Five year plan led the Soviets in massively industrializing the country, which if they didn't, they most definitely wouldn't have been able to withstand the German army.

[MJM_II]

Because Stalin defeated Nazism. And Castro sparked the fire of revolution globally. In a world that is on the brink of catastrophe due to the system they resisted why wouldn't you?

[Kamaradas]

The same people don't usually glorify Churchill, so it does usually involve some recognition that they are socialist in some way. Of course, they did kill quite a few people, like other regimes at the time.

It's not really a question of glorifying them in particular, but people do view the Soviet Union as paranoid because its revolution was under threat, which while this mostly took the form of flailing harshly did imply that they were threatened or trying something. As such, they don't necessarily feel the need to oppose the Soviet Union, although a lot of what they did was just taking on the traits of regimes which were passing away, like the colonial British state and so on. Still, they did things like invade Poland and such and got off scot free, meaning that they were conceding too much to the West and would likely not maintain their status as a state in opposition.

[Bluesteel]

Cuba, previous to Castro's victory in 1959, was ripe for revolution, with the oppressive totalitarian government installed by foreign powers, groups and militias were forming all across the nation with people taking up arms and preparing to reclaim their land and their right to self-govern. On March 26th revolution erupted with a failed attack on government barracks. After this day Castro's M-26-7 would fight on, through many hardships and it's fair share of treacheries, and despite it's setbacks M-26-7 would win it's final victory in Santa Clara under the Command of Ernesto "Che" Guevara in 1959. Castro would soon be put into power, and until the bay of pigs invasion he wanted a true democracy. It was only after that he became a dictator; however he was not as bad as people say, most of his bad rep comes from cold war era anti-communist propaganda. Cubans enjoy great healthcare, great education, and a great court system. Today Cuba is considered the safest nation on earth, with zero foreign enemies and little to no crime. Were there political prisoners, yes; but they were not only allowed to leave, they posed a real threat to Cuba's stability.

Fidel furthermore only supported and received protection from Stalin's Russia due to the fact that Stalin was the only person willing and able and to protect Cuba's independence from the United States' Imperialism and self-interest. Castro was not a bad person, or a bad leader. He was a man, a Marxist-Leninist who saw an opportunity for revolution and seized it.

Ultimately we should not idolize Stalin, because at his core he truly was an awful person. Castro on the other hand had nothing but good intentions and given his circumstances and his country's place geographically did the best he could with a shitty situation. He gave Cuba independence, freedom, healthcare, education, housing and so much more. Without him, I doubt Cuba would be out from the truly tyrannical rule of dictators far worse than he. Idolize the man only if you want to, but you have to have some morsel of respect for what he did, and the good, progressive changes that he brought to Cuba.

Great post! I must further add one point. Almost immediately after the revolution, the United States and their allies declared sanctions and embargos on Cuba. This greatly hurt Cuban's economy and position to trade with the western nations. Had the United States not have gotten involved, I believe things in Cuba would have been so much better. I further believe that Cuba would be the ideal state for Socialism/Communism.

[ComradeAllende]

As an anarcho-communist, my problem isn't with communism. But why would we glorify any leader who murders millions of dissidents and creates labor camps?

Well, first off the personality cults that developed around Stalin (and to a lesser extent Castro) weren't inherent in communistic theory itself. Quite the opposite, if you take historical materialism to its logical conclusion. But because of the various purges that Stalin initiated in the 1930s, as well as the triumph of Stalinism in the Comintern and its member parties, Stalinism became the default setting for traditional mass party-based action in most countries (France, Germany, and the US included). The cult of personality that developed around Stalin was in someways a key method of guaranteeing support amongst the masses in the USSR, given that Trotsky was the most recognizable and the most popular Old Bolshevik and Stalin's base of support was mainly concentrated in the bureaucracy and the party cadres. It spread to communists around the world who sought to defend the "worker's paradise" from the capitalist detractors and who bought into Stalin's lies about "Trotskyist subversion".

[Fellow_Human]

Some are gullible and believe that those actions really were in the best interests of the people; others just fantasize about attaining the same kind of power.

[(A)]

People who glorify these "great men" of history are Ideologues who care more for the idea then they do the workers.
As always~
19531

[General Winter]

Why do some people glorify Stalin and Castro?

That is what follows from any social economic system,ie from basis - superstructure. Ideology is a part of superstructure. Cuba and the USSR had communist social economic system (we can call them communist keeping in mind that it was a lower stage of communism usually named as socialism) so they had communist ideology. And the part of communist ideology were revolutionary leaders as organizers of revolutionary process.This personification of an ideal people fight for is very practical in fighting countries.

[BluComm]

As an anarcho-communist, my problem isn't with communism. But why would we glorify any leader who murders millions of dissidents and creates labor camps?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stalin was more of a fearsome gangster than a true communist. He killed off the successors of lennin to secure power; which led to the era Stalinist Communism which was truly an age of fear. Stalin was a bank robber before the revolution and killed forty people while stealing millions of rubles. So you can imagine the tactics he used to secure more and more power. He did manage to turn Russia's economy around and created millions of jobs taking a nation that built less than a thousand trucks a year and ramped up production to over 800,000 a year and in the face of anihilation figured out to defeat the Germans by practically by himself.There is also some evidence that it was false intelligence that started the Cold War not Stalin. So in this light there are some who view him as a great leader despite his other discrepancies. Just like the a good chunk of the Chinese people today like Mao for the same reason.
Castro tho is much different. He is well known for his guerilla resistance in the sierra Maestra mountains but he created a movement in Cuba with his failed attempt on July 26 1959 to take the Moncada Army barracks. This inspired other people like frank pias who were revolutionary saints. He was on the front lines with the students fighting the baptista regime and later would be the sole reason M-26 and Castro survived in the mountains bringing them supplies and food himself. So take them for the people they are and the things they've actually achieved and how they've impacted people and it's easier to keep in perspective why these people are still celebrated while being killers at the same time.

[Bolshevik 180]

I do not believe Stalin was a true communist, if he was why did he purge so many of the old guard?

However, I think it is a shallow view to simply dismiss him as a mass murderer. The Soviet state had enemies everywhere! Every capitalist country in the world wanted to destroy it, and even after ten years of industrialisation Germany almost succeeded, and that was including the huge donation from the US. Stalin was, above all, a pragmatist, and he could not allow anyone to get in the way of his mass industrial program.

[General Winter]

why did he purge so many of the old guard?


To let the revolution move along an ascending line.

[Raul Castro]

As an anarcho-communist, my problem isn't with communism. But why would we glorify any leader who murders millions of dissidents and creates labor camps?

WHAT????????? Castro doesn't have labor camps he brought prosperity to a poor and small nation and stopped it from imperialism

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=TheMaroon;2874823]I cannot justify the idealistic place that people hold Stalin or Stalin's Russia, neither are in line with the Communist view, Stalin was an Elitist Authoritarian who was either too prideful or too foolish to realize the true potential that he was oppressing. The Soviet State at it's peak had the ability to not only potentially perpetuate the revolution within it's own borders, but to also export the revolution to other countries. Instead it took by force, independent nations, installing not a truly self-sufficient and autonomous government but rather installed it's own centralized and authoritarian dictatorship, ultimately resulting in the formation of the "Soviet Bloc". A true abomination.

In Cuba however, it was different.

Cuba, previous to Castro's victory in 1959, was ripe for revolution, with the oppressive totalitarian government installed by foreign powers, groups and militias were forming all across the nation with people taking up arms and preparing to reclaim their land and their right to self-govern. On March 26th revolution erupted with a failed attack on government barracks. After this day Castro's M-26-7 would fight on, through many hardships and it's fair share of treacheries, and despite it's setbacks M-26-7 would win it's final victory in Santa Clara under the Command of Ernesto "Che" Guevara in 1959. Castro would soon be put into power, and until the bay of pigs invasion he wanted a true democracy. It was only after that he became a dictator; however he was not as bad as people say, most of his bad rep comes from cold war era anti-communist propaganda. Cubans enjoy great healthcare, great education, and a great court system. Today Cuba is considered the safest nation on earth, with zero foreign enemies and little to no crime. Were there political prisoners, yes; but they were not only allowed to leave, they posed a real threat to Cuba's stability.

Fidel furthermore only supported and received protection from Stalin's Russia due to the fact that Stalin was the only person willing and able and to protect Cuba's independence from the United States' Imperialism and self-interest. Castro was not a bad person, or a bad leader. He was a man, a Marxist-Leninist who saw an opportunity for revolution and seized it.

Ultimately we should not idolize Stalin, because at his core he truly was an awful person. Castro on the other hand had nothing but good intentions and given his circumstances and his country's place geographically did the best he could with a shitty situation. He gave Cuba independence, freedom, healthcare, education, housing and so much more. Without him, I doubt Cuba would be out from the truly tyrannical rule of dictators far worse than he. Idolize the man only if you want to, but you have to have some morsel of respect for what he did, and the good, progressive changes that he brought to Cuba.

Stalin died in 1953....Fidel Castro took power in 59'. So.........and Castro is not a 'dictator', lot's of people speak their mind in cuba you sound like a social democrat what you doin on revleft?

[Homo Songun]

As an anarcho-communist, my problem isn't with communism. But why would we glorify any leader who murders millions of dissidents and creates labor camps?

Are you kidding me right now? Who wouldn't be aroused by that incredible facial hair?

http://2happybirthday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/happy-gay-time-birthday.jpg

[Raul Castro]

long live fidel castro!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Homo Songun]

Further evidences

19554

[The Intransigent Faction]

I dunno, maybe people are sick and tired of waiting around for workers imbued with reactionary false consciousness to spontaneously liberate themselves.

Maybe, frustrated with the free reign given to contemporary private capital, they yearn for the days when workers were at least paid ideological lip service and had some kind of framework for coordinated collective action.

Maybe it raises red flags in their minds when people echo bourgeois media's mind-bogglingly hypocritical talking points about manmade famines, yet fail to hold their own capitalist rulers to anything resembling the same standard.


Now, personally, I can no longer buy into the idea of a "workers' state" whether "socialism in one country" or not, leading the international proletariat toward communism until its entrenched bureaucracy can simply be removed like the political equivalent of a vestigial organ. I can see why people would want to believe it could work that way, though.

[(A)]

long live fidel castro!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Secretly hopes that account actually belongs to Raul Castro.)


Castro is not a 'dictator', lot's of people speak their mind in cuba

I understand this is not wholly the case. Does Cuba not have extensive censorship policy's; even going as far as to ban books written by Anarchists?

•


I dunno, maybe people are sick and tired of waiting around for workers imbued with reactionary false consciousness to spontaneously liberate themselves.

Maybe, frustrated with the free reign given to contemporary private capital, they yearn for the days when workers were at least paid ideological lip service and had some kind of framework for coordinated collective action.

Maybe it raises red flags in their minds when people echo bourgeois media's mind-bogglingly hypocritical talking points about manmade famines, yet fail to hold their own capitalist rulers to anything resembling the same standard.


Now, personally, I can no longer buy into the idea of a "workers' state" whether "socialism in one country" or not, leading the international proletariat toward communism until its entrenched bureaucracy can simply be removed like the political equivalent of a vestigial organ. I can see why people would want to believe it could work that way, though.

^This^
Who among us is not still somewhat afflicted with the "love of Nation" drilled into us from childhood?
After I read Brad's post I saw he was from canada and I still internally pumped my fist and yelled OH Canada!
Its so hard to fight that conditioning. Its no surprise this uphill battle against reaction.

It is possible that the idolization of the U.S.S.R. and other socialist states is simply a reaction to the rejection of bourgeoisie conditioning.
As we are drilled that you must love your country, when we then reject that country, it is logical that people might latch on to a new national identity;
with the same zealous furor as they where taught is required for acceptance in their home Nation.

[Johnnymarxist]

Stalin was a great leader. Yes he served with an iron fist but you have to look at the context of the time.

He turned a backwards nation into a global power in a matter of years. Stalin rejected his cult of personality as he knew it wasn't communist. The party pushed this cult to unify the country against revisionists like Trotsky. They were on their own in a world of capitalists which he had to deal with in his own country as well as abroad.

Most of the anti Stalin rhetoric comes from Khrushchev and a lot of his secret speech is complete bull. The western media tries to vilify Stalin because of his popularity, and the same happened with Mao once he became popular too. Slander and lies of 'Stalin killed more than Hitler' 'Mao killed more people than Stalin' etc etc goes to shut down any communist thought in the west. In reality, it's far more complex.



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well, RIP Fidel Castro.
The Cuban revolutionary, who survived 638 assassination attempts and led Cuba through civil war and a decades-long embargo, has died.
Hasta la victoria siempre.

Really though, I take issue with his Leninist methods and ideology, but his presidency saw undeniable progress beyond what came before...The reactions of some of those expatriates in Miami is just cringeworthy.


Stalin rejected his cult of personality as he knew it wasn't communist. The party pushed this cult to unify the country against revisionists like Trotsky.

I'm familiar with this claim and the evidence for it...but how do you respond to claims that they pushed it because they were compelled to so Stalin could make it look like it was forced on him?

[Krymz]

because they tried.

[GLF]

"As an anarcho-communist". You're views on Stalin should have nothing to do with your silly factionalism. But I guess some people have a desperate need to belong.

As for your question, no one is glorifying Stalin. Just because some people (such as myself) can see the effect of decades of capitalist propaganda in regards to the Soviet Union doesn't mean we're "glorifying" Stalin.

[Johnnymarxist]

I'm familiar with this claim and the evidence for it...but how do you respond to claims that they pushed it because they were compelled to so Stalin could make it look like it was forced on him?

I can't really comment. Seems like conspiracy theory to me. The evidence suggests at every turn Stalin was against it.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[General Winter]

I explain for those who are weak in the head.

Stalin is glorified just like they would have glorify a captain of a ship that was damaged during a storm;the captain who rode hard his men in the icy wind, who forced them to dive into the holds to put a patch on the hole, who even lost a few people during this actions, but saved the ship, the crew and passengers.

Nobody wants to be on the board of the ship that was damaged in the storm, but it is quite natural for any sane person to respect the captain and to scorn bullshitters who cry: ".We are saved due to the crew and despite of the captain!"

[New Guard]

The glorification of individual leaders in anticapitalist revolutionary movements is, I want to suggest, a serious problem with no simple solutions. It is probably at one largely with the problems, which Lenin and Trotsky at least were explicit about, that seem to dictate the necessity of one-party governments. For there is clearly no principle of legitimacy that attends government by those who owe their power to having 'seized the state apparatus'. There is apparently a tendency to conflate the success of popular revolutions with election victories in 'liberal democracies', so that one of the most crucial post-revolutionary tasks–replacing bourgeois falsifications of democracy with the thing itself–is not even perceived. A truly radical revolution would be a revolution that sets out with this task at the fore of the program.

To be sure, it is not so easy to operate a radical revolution. I am inclined to agree with the piece of commonsense that the merely national scope of historical revolutions was a key contribution to their frequent failure, and it seems utterly incomprehensible to me at least that an anarchist revolution (which seems to be the cup of tea of several posters in this thread) could succeed short of overthrowing the capitalist mode of production in its global operation. Much more than some inconceivably orchestrated global revolution, however, I think we have better prospects in simply inverting Lenin's old strategem of attacking capitalism at its weakest link. We are more likely to succeed by attacking it at its strongest link, in the long-run if not sooner. Isn't this one of the crystal-clear lessons of the twentieth century, in which so many nascent radical governments were cut down by CIA operatives and trade embargoes? To speak like Carl Schmitt (a legal theorist who contributed to the rationalization of suspending the Weimar constitution in inter-war Germany and handing theoretically unlimited power to the Nazis), the Soviet state was was its own exception–that is, it was constituted by permanent existential emergency. One doesn't expect such an 'experiment' to succeed.

That said, there is some strategic benefit in singing the praises of twentieth century Communism. Though I am myself probably much too bourgeois by the standards of a Stalin or a Castro to be entirely comfortable advertising for their regimes, and am indeed horrified by many of the appalling abuses committed by the likes of Stalin (but also to a lesser extent by Lenin and company at Kronstadt, etc), so much more is at stake than the moral condemnation of individuals who happened to be at the helm of revolutionary rule. The success of the Soviet Union's socialist institutions should in part be judged by the remarkable collective achievements of the Russian people, as well as by the diminished alienation attested to by so much recent grumbling about the soullessness of post-Soviet Russia. So I would not count myself among the 'sane', at least as they are described by the previous poster. To the extent that there is socialism at all, it is socialism of the collective, and not of those who happen to be in charge. That much ought to be clear to a genuine Marxist.

[criticalrealist]

Stalin moved the USSR to the right. In the case of Castro, the Cuban revolution was a response to U.S. imperialism. As the U.S. has done over and over again, it placed its own puppet in charge of Cuba. When the Cuban people revolted, we repeatedly tried to assassinate Castro.

[Raul Castro]

As an anarcho-communist, my problem isn't with communism. But why would we glorify any leader who murders millions of dissidents and creates labor camps?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Wow, you see I want unity with Trots and tankies but with you guys no! You are not socialists you listen to everything that liberal media says. Who the fuck did castro kill? Seriously the only people he executed were war criminals, you guys are little children! Stalin I understand because of multiple accusations of genocide, and how he was a brutal dictator, but Castro allows freedom of speech, he allowed workers to protest he eradicated illiteracy freed peasants from back breaking work, etc. He committed no crimes. You anarcho-communists just say "oh wow comminism is so cool I am so edgy, but liberal media says cuba is bad evil dictatorship, they are evil dictators. Why even be a communist when you think every single successful or semi-successful movement was just a dictatorship.

[Raul Castro]

People speak freely in cuba, and I really doubt the cuban governement bans anarchist books, as it is a dead ideology that really nobody would pick up in Cuba. BEing that the people already own the means of production, independently and collectively that they understand that with an anarchistic governement U.S. imperialism would strike through it immediatley

[The Intransigent Faction]

People speak freely in cuba, and I really doubt the cuban governement bans anarchist books, as it is a dead ideology that really nobody would pick up in Cuba. BEing that the people already own the means of production, independently and collectively that they understand that with an anarchistic governement U.S. imperialism would strike through it immediatley

How so? The problem seems more to be barriers in the way of an anarchistic system than its alleged vulnerability to imperialism.
If anything, an anarchistic society where revolutionary consciousness does not depend on a single, central authority sounds harder to crush, or for revisionists to seize control over, than one with a clear, singular target. A revolutionary movement cannot depend on any central leading figure or party. It must be sustainable if and when that figure or party is gone.

The issue is more that there's a lack of revolutionary consciousness in terms of a movement for autonomous working class organization. Of course, history shows us beyond doubt that bourgeois imperialism has been by far the greatest barrier to such a movement.

In short, the issue is not some inherent flaw in anarchistic organization, it's that there seems to be no room for such a strategy in building an effective movement of workers today. Any discussions of workers' control of the means of production, even "control" via representatives with all the admitted flaws this brings, will be relegated to the furthest margins of society as long as private capital is running the show. While there is a media, education system, and series of other institutions promoting private ownership and the ideology that goes with it, capital will simply be able to continue drowning out revolutionary voices. A vanguard of workers is the best we're going to get until that changes, so trying to win over a majority of workers in that context will see us continuing to spin our wheels in the mud.

If, however, anarchists did manage to win over the majority, expropriate the means of production and manage them through autonomous, democratic structures, that would deserve support from any revolutionary worth being called such.

[Raul Castro]

Well, first off the personality cults that developed around Stalin (and to a lesser extent Castro) weren't inherent in communistic theory itself. Quite the opposite, if you take historical materialism to its logical conclusion. But because of the various purges that Stalin initiated in the 1930s, as well as the triumph of Stalinism in the Comintern and its member parties, Stalinism became the default setting for traditional mass party-based action in most countries (France, Germany, and the US included). The cult of personality that developed around Stalin was in someways a key method of guaranteeing support amongst the masses in the USSR, given that Trotsky was the most recognizable and the most popular Old Bolshevik and Stalin's base of support was mainly concentrated in the bureaucracy and the party cadres. It spread to communists around the world who sought to defend the "worker's paradise" from the capitalist detractors and who bought into Stalin's lies about "Trotskyist subversion".


There was no personality cult, the myth of state owned media is bullshit their is plenty of independent news in cuba like the havana timessearch it up. There is not one building or anything named after castro, and castro is not mentioned as a hero in school. The only cult of personality is people choosing to have a cult of personality about him, nothing that the state of cuba forced