Castro- socialist or communist? [Archive]

Blackguard

19th February 2005, 17:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 02:27 PM
do you think there's a great differenc between these two 'isms?

i feel both these 'isms can be treated as synonims(i dunno the exact spelling of sinonim)......................
Well just for starters:
Scientific definition: communism
A classless society with no exploitation. No state machine used by one section of the population to oppress another section. No need for professional armies or police forces. No use of production for profit or exchange. Society runs in accord with the principle: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Scientific definition: socialism
A society run by the working class rather than the bourgeoisie. The state machine is used to defend working class interests against those who still have wealth or power and who will attempt to return society to the capitalist system and bourgeois rule. Socialism is the period of transition between the overthrow of bourgeois rule and the development of a classless, communist society.

After this you can start reading Marx and Engels and then... Well you have a lot of homework ;)

shyam

19th February 2005, 17:15

There are so many persons don’t know the difference between these two 'isms.
some Marxist also doesn't know about the differece.

Communism is "Bringing virtual Haven to the Real World".

Wiesty

19th February 2005, 17:37

Castro was communist, Che was socialist, and they were working towards a communist society, and socialism was a step in the right direction, like the ussr

alex d kid

19th February 2005, 17:44

I've read some speeches and interviews with Castro today, and he says that it was the Americans and the priest who called him and Guevara communists/marxists because most people thinks of this as something negative. He says he doesn't feel the need to be callled anything at all, because it doesn't make any difference to him. What matters is that the people live in a free country that isn't rules by capitalism.

I have read Marx, but it took me long enough because he uses so many dificult words, so I had to use a dictionary to be able understand the complete context of the book.

shadows

19th February 2005, 18:18

It is essential that the remaining workers states be defended, despite whatever deformations they exhibit. Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, even China. These states fail to be fully socialist, for their bureaucracies expropriate much of the surplus from labor, and each buys into 'socialism in one country' to a greater or lesser degree. Yet, they each represent great gains for the world working class. When the USSR collapsed, the shift in power toward the US meant tremendous suffering for the world's people, not least those in the former Eastern Bloc. But even in the West, the welfare state, a temporary expedient of the Cold War, has diminished and left millions out in the cold, with little to no social safety net.

The distinction one can draw between socialism and communism is not only the existence or nonexistence of a state, but primarily that in the former 'to each according to her/his labor' is an economic principle, while in the latter 'to each according to her/his need' is the guide. That is, some stratification continues under socialism, at least until differences are eradicated (bourgeois residues, like gender, nationality, and geographical inequalities). The proletarian dictatorship not only defends the workers by actively suppressing the bourgeoisie, but also by diminishing these inequalities. As the economy develops, and this occurs not within the confines of the nation-state but internationally, social strata fade, and humanity fully realizes its potential.

Nothing Human Is Alien

19th February 2005, 21:33

Some of the things I've seen written here are ridiculous. Che and Fidel were/are both MARXISTS.

This might clear up alot of your questions, ie. Socialism, Communism and there differences, How Cuba is Ruled, Is Cuba a Dictatorship, Is Cuba Socialist? here: http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/faq.html

Karl Marx's Camel

19th February 2005, 21:38

Castro was communist, Che was socialist, and they were working towards a communist society, and socialism was a step in the right direction, like the ussr

Che was a communist.

Why would you say that Guevara was anything else than that?

rahul

20th February 2005, 06:50

che - communist
castro- communist
me-communist
what about you?

bunk

20th February 2005, 09:38

Actually reportedly Castro wasn't a communist but he turned one becuase he would get help from USSR and cause a lot of people in his group were communists

alex d kid

20th February 2005, 10:41

So basicly no one on this forum knows how Castro is ruling Cuba, and no one knows what the people of Cuba thinks of him.

Hiero

20th February 2005, 12:09

Cuba is socialist. Most industry are owned by the state. The would of course be like in ever socialist society small sectors of a markets system.

The majority of people in Cuba are pro Castro.

bolshevik butcher

20th February 2005, 19:54

You cannpt have a communist country, you could have socialism in one country, although it would be very hard to establish.

h&s

20th February 2005, 20:43

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 20 2005, 07:54 PM
You cannpt have a communist country, you could have socialism in one country, although it would be very hard to establish.
I find it funny to see that written by someone who has 'Stalinism sucks' as their signature. :P
Personally I don't think that Castro is a Marxist - I really doubt he has any intention to give the power to the people and to progress towards communism. He is 'good' for his people - a lot better than any borgeois 'democratic' regime, and denying that he is a socialist would be as stupid as saying that the world is run by a secret conspiracy of a minority oppressing and living parasitcally of the mass of the people....
(joke - he is a socialist, but as a Marxist, not the type I like)

bolshevik butcher

20th February 2005, 21:16

Originally posted by h&s+Feb 20 2005, 08:43 PM--> (h&s @ Feb 20 2005, 08:43 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 20 2005, 07:54 PM
You cannpt have a communist country, you could have socialism in one country, although it would be very hard to establish.
I find it funny to see that written by someone who has 'Stalinism sucks' as their signature. :P
Personally I don't think that Castro is a Marxist - I really doubt he has any intention to give the power to the people and to progress towards communism. He is 'good' for his people - a lot better than any borgeois 'democratic' regime, and denying that he is a socialist would be as stupid as saying that the world is run by a secret conspiracy of a minority oppressing and living parasitcally of the mass of the people....
(joke - he is a socialist, but as a Marxist, not the type I like) [/b]
What i meant is that socialism could temperarily be established in one country, to spread the revolution, as it was in russia from 1917-1923.

h&s

20th February 2005, 21:26

I know - it was a joke.

rice349

27th February 2005, 20:58

Castro's Cuba is socialist-- socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism -- in fact, there has never actually been a real "communist state," this is a term coined by the capitalists to denounce and degrade communism/socialism. SOcialism calls for a strong government by the workers, while communism is a stateless society. Althouhg this is a very simplified response it basically addresses the main point of your question :)

KuliNeMeL

28th February 2005, 20:13

^ word :)

Mitch Flo

28th February 2005, 20:37

Cuba is socialist, like marx says...
socialism is to communism
as
capiltalism is to globalization

:D

Castro's Cuba is socialist-- socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism -- in fact, there has never actually been a real "communist state," this is a term coined by the capitalists to denounce and degrade communism/socialism. SOcialism calls for a strong government by the workers, while communism is a stateless society. Althouhg this is a very simplified response it basically addresses the main point of your question smile.gif

Kinda like what he said....

rebelworker

1st March 2005, 01:47

A few critiques of cuban on the ground from many lefty friends who have visited there.

First on the opression of women, the cuban govenrment has a very contradictory policy towards tourism and this has a huge affect on the free movement of women. Dependant on tourist dollars Cubas has a duel economy were cuban citizens are not supposed to use foreign currency, tourists are charged more for things than locals. A side part of this is I guess for fear of bad press prositution is strongly repressed more so than other "illegal" activities, the effect of this is due to shortages of everything poor cubans try and run a black market to buy stuff(more on this later). One of the traditional well paying jobs for poor women is ofcourse prostitution.

In practice, women walking alone are often targeted as prostitutes, no proof nessesary, ofthen entire town centers will be swept by police and dozens of women will be forced to spend the night in prison without trial.
I have heard from first hand accounts that women walking with foreigners(without a local male escort) are just about automatically picked up.

As for homosexualls they are targeted systematically for police harrasment and wrongfull imprisonment.

Youth subcultures/movments atre also systematically targeted. Youth with long hair are routeenly picked up by police and their parties raided.

Underground hip hop culture (cuba has a growing and very politically radical hip hop scene including an annuall havana hip hop fest) is also not sanctioned by the state.

On top of all this members of the communist party are treated much better than average cubans.

back to the black market, cubas hve very little disposable income to purchase "luxury items" like musical insterments and condoms(the lack of acess to condoms is a large health problem, most peoiple can't get them" I wa told by a nurse, this is having a disasterous impact on the spread of sexually transmittred diseases.

I think that the life of the average cuban is better than their counterparts in most of latin america, especially countires of relative size and income, but there are still real problems related to the undemocratic nature of the cuban state, people have very little or no say in hte politicall process.

As for most cubans liking Castro its hard to sayin popular jokes, people are afraid to evebn mention his name, they simply mokingly stroke invisible beards when cracking shots at the regeim. I have heard a good one about castro and the pope, slamming them both, but I'll save it for another time...

PS Castro never identafied as a communist during the onset of the revolution (his brother Raul and che were both members of the communist party) he even tried cosying up the the US, when rejected he eventually was forced to side with the USSR for trade reasons. HE was originally a petty-bourgeois nationalist. Now i think thats no longer the case, more socialist/anti imperialist.

Severian

23rd March 2005, 11:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 07:47 PM
A side part of this is I guess for fear of bad press prositution is strongly repressed more so than other "illegal" activities,
Cuba's really damned if they do and damned if they don't on this prostitution stuff, aren't they?

As for homosexualls they are targeted systematically for police harrasment and wrongfull imprisonment.

I'm not going to say it never happens, but systematically? That hasn't been policy for quite some time. The state of gay rights in Cuba is arguably better than anywhere else in Latin America...maybe Mexico is ahead in some respects.

article on this (http://www.blythe.org/bnf.html)

more detailed version (http://www.blythe.org/arenas.html)

back to the black market, cubas hve very little disposable income to purchase "luxury items" like musical insterments and condoms(the lack of acess to condoms is a large health problem, most peoiple can't get them" I wa told by a nurse, this is having a disasterous impact on the spread of sexually transmittred diseases.

Yeah, if you consider it disastrous to have an AIDS infection rate far, far lower than the U.S, or many other countries'....

As for most cubans liking Castro its hard to sayin popular jokes, people are afraid to evebn mention his name, they simply mokingly stroke invisible beards when cracking shots at the regeim.

That's odd...I've even seen people on TV openly criticizing Castro, saying there's no freedom, etc. Dan Rather on the streets of Havana stuff, like that. That's also what I've heard from people who've visited Cuba, that they met some people who were against the revolution and they didn't hesitate to say so.

PS Castro never identafied as a communist during the onset of the revolution

True...and it's to his credit that he was never part of the pro-Moscow PSP. That party had to be bypassed in order to make a revolution. Basically it preached what Redstar is always going on about, that the objective conditions weren't right for socialism, therefore support some allegedly progressive bourgeois faction.

(his brother Raul and che were both members of the communist party)

False. Raul was once part of the PSP's youth group, but had to leave it to participate in the Moncada attack, etc. Che considered himself a communist from early on, but AFAIK was never a member of any party before the July 26th movement.

he even tried cosying up the the US,

False. He wanted normal relations (still does), of course, and why not? But the July 26th movement had an anti-imperialist program from the beginning, including an agrarian reform program which inevitably struck at U.S. corporate property. More importantly, they actually carried it out...rabid U.S. hostility to Cuba begins with the first agrarian reform.

when rejected he eventually was forced to side with the USSR for trade reasons.

Not just trade, but weapons, and defense of the revoluton generally.

HE was originally a petty-bourgeois nationalist.

With a difference from most...that the July 26th Movement was determined to carry out its nationalist, revolutionary-democratic program by any means necessary. They relied on the workers and peasants, and were never afraid that working people might go to far. And when it turned out that "by any means necessary" meant a socialist revolution...they became communists.

workersunity

23rd March 2005, 18:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 10:35 AM
Castro himself is a marxist-leninist. Cuba is not socialist or communist. It is state-capitalist, just not as bad as the USSR or North Korea, etc.
i couldnt have said it bettere myself.
Cuba is not socialist

RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog

26th March 2005, 18:43

Originally posted by workersunity+Mar 23 2005, 06:54 PM--> (workersunity @ Mar 23 2005, 06:54 PM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 10:35 AM
Castro himself is a marxist-leninist. Cuba is not socialist or communist. It is state-capitalist, just not as bad as the USSR or North Korea, etc.
i couldnt have said it bettere myself.
Cuba is not socialist [/b]
I have read certain of the things stated here with astounishment.

In particular these two: 1: Cuba is state-capitalist!
2: Communism and socialism are almost alike!

For one; Cuba isn't a state-capitalist system (the term state-capitalism is nonsense in itself, because capitalism will never exist without a permanent state, so in fact the term doesn't have any added value; and it is theoretically wrong), because Cuba hasn't suffered from a counter-revolution.

Cuba is a deformed workers' state in the tradition of stalinism, with a strong burocracy, no real workers' democracy, hardly any planned economy, the prohibition of all forms of private property (not only of the means of production) and the idea that socialism in one state is possible.

Second point: Communism and socialism are not almost alike. Socialism is a system which still needs a (dying) STATE, where communism does not, because the class struggle has ended; socialism still needs a money currency, communism does not; in a socialist society the amount of wage (there's still wage labour unlike in communism) depends on the amount you produce, in communism everyone produces according to his/her abilities and recieves according to his/her (reasonable) needs.

refuse_resist

27th March 2005, 01:28

Cuba is socialist and Fidel Castro is a Marxist-Leninist. Along with the DPRK, both of these nations have been able to keep themselves from becoming capitalist colonies and have great equality amongst their people.

To the person who brought up the whole prositution thing. Prostitution is illegal there and banned. And no, the Cubans are not homophobes. This is yet another blatant yankee lie.

The collapse of the USSR was a serious blow to Cuba since they were one of their main trading partners and suppliers. To top that off the US is now tightening the embargos on them. You really can't blame them for some of the things they've done to keep themselves from becoming another colony. With the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez has stregthened ties with Cuba and Castro, so things will only go in the right direction from here on out.

Severian

27th March 2005, 03:00

Originally posted by RevolutionarySocialist [email protected] 26 2005, 12:43 PM
Cuba is a deformed workers' state in the tradition of stalinism, with a strong burocracy, no real workers' democracy, hardly any planned economy, the prohibition of all forms of private property (not only of the means of production) and the idea that socialism in one state is possible.
Well, ya started off good.

But this is just as false as the "state capitalism" idea. (Which, in addition to the problems you pointed out, gives capitalism way too much credit. Even the antifeudal and antiimperialist actions of the Cuban Revolution are far beyond anything a capitalist class would do in the modern world.)

For starters, the Cuban revolutionary leadership does not preach or practice "socialism in one country." On the contrary, it is notable for its consistent efforts to aid the world revolution, including its opposition to the reformist position of the Moscow-oriented parties in Latin America. It has pursued such policies even though they've brought down more intense imperialist hostility against Cuba and involved real risk for the Cuban state.

So you gotta ask, how could it be in the interests of a privileged bureaucratic caste to carry out such policies? What interest of such a caste could be served by, for example, Cuba's bold actions in defense of Angola? Answer: none.

That's just for starters: one could move on to domestic policy, attitudes of Cuban workers, etc.

For its part, the capitalists, with their usual keen perception of their basic class interests, recognize that Cuba is not just another Stalinist state: even north Korea they hope to do some deal with, but when it comes to Cuba, forget it.

RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog

27th March 2005, 10:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:00 AM

But this is just as false as the "state capitalism" idea. (Which, in addition to the problems you pointed out, gives capitalism way too much credit. Even the antifeudal and antiimperialist actions of the Cuban Revolution are far beyond anything a capitalist class would do in the modern world.)

You should READ....I'm not saying the leadership in Cuba is that of a capitalist class....I'm just saying there's no real planned economy, no workers' democracy (there are no comittees of workers and/or farmers).

Even under Stalin the USSR tried at first to spread the revolution, but in the end their efforts to do this were diminishing. I'd like to know where you get the information that Castro is doing anything differently: which effective measures have Castro and his government taken to spread the world revolution?

Severian

27th March 2005, 11:03

Originally posted by RevolutionarySocialist [email protected] 27 2005, 04:22 AM

You should READ....I'm not saying the leadership in Cuba is that of a capitalist class....I'm just saying there's no real planned economy, no workers' democracy (there are no comittees of workers and/or farmers).

You should READ....I'm not saying you did.

Even under Stalin the USSR tried at first to spread the revolution,

No, in fact, they didn't. The Stalinized Comintern sabotaged one revolution after another.

RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog

27th March 2005, 11:09

Originally posted by Severian+Mar 27 2005, 11:03 AM--> (Severian @ Mar 27 2005, 11:03 AM)

[/b]

RevolutionarySocialist [email protected] 27 2005, 04:22 AM

You should READ....I'm not saying the leadership in Cuba is that of a capitalist class....I'm just saying there's no real planned economy, no workers' democracy (there are no comittees of workers and/or farmers).

You should READ....I'm not saying you did.

Well actually you DID...read the next few sentences that you wrote....

But this is just as false as the "state capitalism" idea. (Which, in addition to the problems you pointed out, gives capitalism way too much credit. Even the antifeudal and antiimperialist actions of the Cuban Revolution are far beyond anything a capitalist class would do in the modern world.)

Even under Stalin the USSR tried at first to spread the revolution,

No, in fact, they didn't. The Stalinized Comintern sabotaged one revolution after another.

True of course, but (if I am not mistaken) in the beginning the failure of the German revolution, was (in the beginning of the stalinist regime) one of the main direct causes for the formation of the idea of socialism in one country.

Free Spirit

27th March 2005, 12:45

Originally posted by alex d [email protected] 20 2005, 10:41 AM
So basicly no one on this forum knows how Castro is ruling Cuba, and no one knows what the people of Cuba thinks of him.
Well all I know is after ten bewildered years without help from Soviet, a lot of Cubans make it only though being in the business of making dollars through tourism. It’s said to be in a much better use for working in a candy store and getting dollar played then for doctors with Cuban pesos. They hope for a new society with the American richness and the Cuban justness. There’s a question of what will happen after Fidel Castro death, he’s 72, “not that old” but that they wonder about his death and hope for the American richness which will never happen if they hope for Cuban justness, sounds not like all of the Cubans don’t have that love for Castro. The citizens are prepared to turn their back form the revolution if they get the chance.

A lot of them explain that they know the speech by heart when Fidel Castro’s voice, placed around the corners in the bigger cities, once again is talking about the statistic that defends the revolution “Cuba has one teacher per 42nd inhabitant, 98 procreant of all children (I think he said 98%) under two years of age are vaccinated against 10 diseases”, so on and so on. (lol :D they seem to wanna break those speaker) It’s perhaps Castro’s and the revolutions problem that only 1/3 of the citizens during Batista have experienced that the schools and the healthcare was at the rope from a fall because of the revolution, which is also the 1/3 of the people of Cuba that have the biggest support for Castro.

And because of him, Cuba has developed more of a socialist equality. All the way to the late 50s racism was spread all over Cuba; black people weren’t welcome at restaurants, bars, hotels and they where underpaid. From that they to the other, Castro outlawed that which leaves Cuba of being free from racism. He’s pretty much walking toward the “new socialist people”. He’s made a lot of changes in healthcare and school by heavily butting a lot of money in it. I thing according that subject he’s made it 20 times better and the Cubans get free healthcare today. From this there might be a little bigger picture of how Cuba looks like today. And I’ve read somewhere that the children are celebrating their heroes and every morning the school kids say, “ We want to be like Che”. I guess only 1/3 of the Cuban people have Castro as their hero.

It makes me wonder what could Castro possibly have done during Batista do make it better for more then I/3 of the population? He did what he could do or?

NovelGentry

28th March 2005, 01:41

socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism

Cuba is socialist, like marx says...
socialism is to communism
as
capiltalism is to globalization

For one; Cuba isn't a state-capitalist system (the term state-capitalism is nonsense in itself, because capitalism will never exist without a permanent state, so in fact the term doesn't have any added value; and it is theoretically wrong), because Cuba hasn't suffered from a counter-revolution.

My god... this stuff is interesting. Let me start by saying, you don't have to agree with my definitions, but at least think about where I'm coming from.

In response to the first quote.

Socialism is NOT the transitional stage between capitalism and communism alone. Socialism is defined by a socialized mode of production -- that is to say worker's democratic control over production and distribution, thereby determining free and equal property relations.

In response to the second quote.

If socialism is to communism as capitalism is to globalization than fuedalism is to communism in the very same way. Indeed all of these occur before communism, however, you have generalized socialism into a position and destroyed from it any semblance that is, in and of itself, a socio-economic system. You have done nothing more but call socialism a time period -- this is wrong, and futher destroys your analogy as capitalism is not simply a "time period." It is a definable and distinguishable political-economy.

Oh, and btw, where did Marx make this analogy?

In response to the third quote.

State capitalism does not mean "capitalism with a state." It means capitalism with state ownership. Much like Free market capitalism means capitalism we free market (complete private and decentralized ownership). Regulated capitalism being the mix.

Pretending state capitalism is some newfangled term with no relevance is complete and utter nonsense. Both Cuba and the USSR can easily fall under the definition of state capitalism -- as they have yet to actually strip property relations under capitalism, but have only transferred a portion of that relation over to state focus.

I do, however, agree the USSR broke down into a deformed workers state. It could very well be considered this AFTER Stalin decided to destroy what had effectively become the capitalist elements that mixed the private ownership and the state ownership. When he effectively decided to actually "collectivize" things rather than just keeping tabs and enforcing state quotas.

Cuba, however, has not collectivized anything in a traditional sense. It is all state run and state controlled, and the quotas go directly to the state.

NovelGentry

28th March 2005, 01:45

I'd like to add that when I say "free and equal property relations," I am in no way talking about the abolition of private property. Indeed, socialism does not destroy, this, but communism does.

What I am speaking of is very simply that private property cannot be used as a means to subjugate labor.

RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog

28th March 2005, 10:49

In response to the third quote.

State capitalism does not mean "capitalism with a state." It means capitalism with state ownership. Much like Free market capitalism means capitalism we free market (complete private and decentralized ownership). Regulated capitalism being the mix.

I know what it means, but state ownership in a society which has not fully implemented all principles of socialist economy, doesn't necessary mean that capitalism has returned to this country. The most important thing is whether or not most of the means of production are in private property..as long as they haven't been reclaimed by a upcoming capitalist class...you can't speak of capitalism.

Pretending state capitalism is some newfangled term with no relevance is complete and utter nonsense. Both Cuba and the USSR can easily fall under the definition of state capitalism -- as they have yet to actually strip property relations under capitalism, but have only transferred a portion of that relation over to state focus.

Furthermore a capitalist system stays capitalist, no matter if some economic sectors are in hands of the state (railway-system for instance). Are societies with a social-democratic regime all of a sudden state-capitalist instead of just regular capitalist countries?

Cuba, however, has not collectivized anything in a traditional sense. It is all state run and state controlled, and the quotas go directly to the state.

And therefore you completely deny the fact that there has been a uprising of workers and a socialist revolution on the one hand or that no counterrevolution has taken place on the other hand?

NovelGentry

28th March 2005, 11:32

I know what it means, but state ownership in a society which has not fully implemented all principles of socialist economy, doesn't necessary mean that capitalism has returned to this country.

I never claimed it did return. It never went away -- and socialism has yet to be seen.

The most important thing is whether or not most of the means of production are in private property..as long as they haven't been reclaimed by a upcoming capitalist class...you can't speak of capitalism.

Capitalism says nothing about class distinctions of who owns property -- in fact, it would rather you not even know they exist.

Power was removed from the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is not "the capitalist class" -- it is A capitalist class. It is also a class which emerges out of feudalism to become the ruling class. This in no way determines whether or not capitalism exists.

Your core principles of capitalism could be said to be as follows:

1) Private ownership of the means of production

Cuba has this. The government is in full control, and as much as these means might serve their workers, their workers do not OWN them.

2) The generation of capital.

Cuba has this too -- as such the capital expands to create *gasp* more capital. Again, the capital itself and any product of capital may serve the workers, but it is still privately owned and it still seeks to grow the means of production itself.

Furthermore a capitalist system stays capitalist, no matter if some economic sectors are in hands of the state (railway-system for instance). Are societies with a social-democratic regime all of a sudden state-capitalist instead of just regular capitalist countries?

No, they are a mix. It is regulated capitalism. Portion of the means is owned by the bourgeoisie and a portion of the means is owned by the state. Capitalism does not determine who owns the means of production, ONLY that it is privately owned and controlled. It is.

And therefore you completely deny the fact that there has been a uprising of workers and a socialist revolution on the one hand or that no counterrevolution has taken place on the other hand?

I do not deny that a revolution has taken place... I do not even deny that it was a socialist revolution, in that it's goal was socialism. The only thing I deny is the flawed idea that they have achieved it -- if you ask me, it's still going on.

I'm not sure why you think a revolution with socialist intent automatically creates socialism upon overthrowing the OLD rulers/owners/controllers. I don't make any claim that Cuba has collapsed into state capitalism, but I'm not going to pretend it EVER actually escaped capitalism itself.

It, like the USSR, only changed who was the boss.

Hiero

28th March 2005, 11:53

In practice, women walking alone are often targeted as prostitutes, no proof nessesary, ofthen entire town centers will be swept by police and dozens of women will be forced to spend the night in prison without trial.

What are you sources for this.

Most of your other lies people have refuted.

As for homosexualls they are targeted systematically for police harrasment and wrongfull imprisonment.

http://www.ratb.org.uk/html/cspeaks/face_to_face.html

Youth subcultures/movments atre also systematically targeted. Youth with long hair are routeenly picked up by police and their parties raided.

Your sources? I have seen pictures from Cuba, and movie clips and people have long hair.

Your seem full of shit rebelworker.

NovelGentry

28th March 2005, 12:39

instead of just regular capitalist countries?

I'd like to put across another point on this quote, which I honestly find quite disturbing. You presume that "regular capitalism" has a form with respect to who should own the private property. Where I see capitalism as determining no such construct, but merely the economic system itself and none of the political or class distinctions.

This argument maintains that capitalism has a distince form that is inclusive of these. As such, it is little better than the argument put across by most right-wingers here that "free market capitalism" IS capitalism, and that the minute you step out of that you cannot call it capitalism. You have merely inversed it, yet strangely, I can only presume, you will see the US (which is indeed regulated capitalism) as capitalism. If this is the case, you would have to stretch the other way too? In saying state capitalism cannot be considered capitalism, then too free market capitalism would not be able to be considered capitalism.

This simply isn't the case. Capitalism is an all inclusive word, which we use, and most people here respect, as a definitive economic system. No implication or indication can be made from it's usage as to what form the political or ruling class power takes.