Cuba's economic recovery and socialist gains

[refuse_resist]

A new stage of development
Cuba’s economic recovery and socialist gains
By Ben Becker

In 2004, Cuba suffered two hurricanes, an enormous power failure, and the most disastrous drought in over a century.

To compound these problems, in October 2003, the Bush Administration announced a drastic plan to tighten the U.S. economic blockade, which has been in place since 1962. Not only did the new measures practically eliminate travel and cultural exchange, they also reduced the remittances that Cubans in the United States could send to family members in Cuba by 90 percent. The U.S. government now restricts Cuban families in the United States to one visit to Cuba every three years.

Despite the magnitude of these obstacles, the Cuban economy is moving forward. Due to cooperative agreements with Venezuela, strengthened ties with China and the discovery of oil off the northern coast, Cuban officials are now speaking of gradual economic recovery and a new stage in Cuba’s development.

The ‘Special Period’

The collapse of the socialist bloc in 1991 eliminated more than 85 percent of Cuba’s foreign trade. In the face of scarcity and a hostile world economy, the country was forced to declare a “Special Period,” in which tourism and foreign capital would play an increased role in stimulating economic activity.

Although the government continued to provide free education and health care, without its major trading partners it was unable to secure many foreign-produced goods. Most agricultural production and social services were still based on the regular peso.

To satisfy demand for additional goods, an informal, underground market grew. In this period, access to dollars and employment in the tourism industry greatly impacted one’s standard of living. The Cuban leadership explained the strategic shift toward introducing some capitalist-style reforms in order to “save the socialist gains.”

Recognizing that some inequalities would result from introducing dollars into the economy, the concessions were described to the whole population as a necessary move for economic survival. Tourism would enable the country to attract potentially millions of tourists as a new source of hard currency. With a 34.5 percent decline in the country’s production in the early 1990s, the value of Cuba’s national peso—the main currency used by the Cuban population—dropped drastically to 150 pesos for every U.S. dollar. The agricultural sector was reorganized and individual incentive was introduced through farmer’s markets, among other things.

But the Cuban government became increasingly concerned by the social differentiation that resulted from the two-tier economy over the next few years.

In 1994, the Cuban government established the convertible peso, a second Cuban currency that was pegged 1:1 to the dollar. This move represented Cuba’s institutionalization of the currency problem. In the short term, it accepted the power of the dollar with the long-term goal of “de-dollarizing” and, ultimately, returning to a unified Cuban peso.

Capitalist governments in the underdeveloped world often celebrate the “dollarization” of their economies. To them, it represents induction into the world economic order. Cuban officials, on the other hand, recognized the long-term structural contradictions caused by introducing dollars into the planned economy, and described the economic adjustments as temporary, but necessary, retreats.

Although the Cuban government stepped up its partnerships with foreign capitalist enterprises, the agreements always stipulated governmental control and majority ownership. Cuba rejected western neoliberalism, whereas other countries like Argentina and Ecuador suffered long-term devastating depressions because they submitted to the economic recipes cooked up by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

By 1996, tourism, reorganized agriculture, foreign investment in key industries like nickel and oil exploration and other changes sparked economic growth. The downturn of the “Special Period” was reversed. The value of the national peso increased from 150 per U.S. dollar to 26 per dollar.

Cuba strengthens currencies

In the last six months, the Cuban government has proven that it can make economic advances through its alliances with Venezuela and China. Its planned economy has demonstrated the ability to weather the worldwide economic downturn.

The Cuban government is reasserting greater control over the distribution of the nation’s resources.

Last fall, the U.S. Federal Reserve began to “crack down” on foreign banks that dealt in dollars with Cuba. In May 2004, the Fed fined the largest Swiss bank, UBS AG, $100 million. The Cuban government removed the dollar from circulation in response. It also imposed a ten percent commission on all dollar exchanges. The government now centralizes the transactions of other “hard currencies” through its Central Bank.

On March 18, 2005, Cuban President Fidel Castro announced a seven percent revaluation of the regular Cuban peso relative to the dollar. One week later, he announced that the convertible peso would be pegged to the euro and other hard currencies instead of the weakening dollar. This move amounts to an eight percent of revaluation of the convertible peso—now the predominant hard currency in the country—and the near complete “de-dollarization” of the Cuban economy.

New trade partnerships

Castro pointed to the economic engines driving the Cuban economy’s growth. “A new motor named China has emerged, as well as Chavez’s Bolivarian revolution,” he said. (Associated Press, Feb. 16, 2005)

Cuba has been able to reassert its economic sovereignty largely because of its strengthened ties with Venezuela and China. In the last year, Cuba has shored up agreements with resource-rich Venezuela, the world’s fifth-leading producer of oil, and China.

In mid-December 2004, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela visited Havana to complete a cooperative economic agreement with Cuba—the “Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean” (ALBA). The agreement is an alternative to U.S. imperialism’s FTAA—Free Trade Area of the Americas—or ALCA in Spanish. Under ALBA, both countries draw on the strengths of the other. The two countries have eliminated all taxes and import duties on the other’s products.

Every day, Venezuela sends to Cuba 53,000 barrels of crude oil at preferential rates. This satisfies roughly one-third of the island nation’s oil needs. The Cuban government has committed vast human resources—particularly doctors and literacy teachers—to assist in the unfolding process of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution in return.

Castro recently announced that, within 18 months, the power cuts and blackouts that characterized the “Special Period” will no longer be a feature of Cuban life. This is a result of the influx of Venezuelan oil and the facilitation of energy-efficient homes.

Over the last year, China has forged closer ties with Venezuela and has recently agreed to invest in and purchase nickel from Cuba. Nickel, used in steel production, represents a significant portion of Cuba’s economy. Cuban officials forecast the production of 77,000 tons of nickel in 2005. At the current market price, that would generate over a billion dollars.

China has also pledged to increase its involvement in tourism to Cuba, as well as its telecommunications system.

The three nations have also discussed a joint venture for the production of stainless steel in Venezuela. In the agreement, a refinery in Cuba’s Cienfuegos province that was partially constructed before the overthrow of the Soviet Union would be revived and co-owned by Venezuela.

Cuba helps the most vulnerable

Throughout the difficult “Special Period,” social services remained Cuba’s top priority. It retained one of the world’s leading health care systems, 98 percent literacy and free education. Infant mortality was reduced every year to the remarkable rate of 5.8 deaths per 1,000 live births. Overall social spending actually increased over the period.

Pensions remained relatively low in the “Special Period.” The small monthly payments were still enough for the great majority of Cuban retirees who live with their families. And dining halls were opened for the most vulnerable sectors of society, such as retirees without nearby family. Every retiree has a place to live in Cuba because the government fully subsidizes housing.

With Cuba’s resurgent economy, the government now has the ability to rectify some of the inequities produced by the “Special Period.” In his Feb. 24 speech, Castro said, “We are going to collect and redistribute what we have to improve Cuban salaries.”

The Cuban government is implementing a new Social Security plan to aid pensioners. Nearly 500,000 families receiving assistance will receive an additional 50 pesos per month. All pensioners earning less than 300 pesos per month will see substantial increases. The pensioners will benefit from the increased purchasing power of the regular Cuban peso.

Cuba has seized upon the first indicator of economic success to bolster its comprehensive Social Security program—at the same time that the Bush administration aims to hand over U.S. workers’ Social Security benefits to Wall Street and rob U.S. workers of their hard-earned retirement money.

Cubans are seeing other benefits as well. Castro announced on International Women’s Day that electric rice cookers and pressure cookers would be produced en masse and made available to every household at subsidized prices. The cookers are a staple of the Cuban kitchen, but during the “Special Period” they were imported and only available in “dollar stores.” The stores were too expensive for most Cubans.

Cuba is reasserting control over the production of such essential goods. It is no longer accepting the dominance of the “private sector” in consumer goods. Referring to the reliance on the “dollar stores,” Castro said, “We hated having to do that. It created so many inequalities.”

Castro also recently announced a plan to ship 40,000 tons of rice and grain to the eastern provinces of the country, which have suffered the most from the 2004 drought. Such efforts are commonplace. In the last two years, the Cuban government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop hydraulic works and industrial production in those provinces.

Cuba is not a wealthy country. Its leaders aren’t millionaires or oil tycoons. It does not possess a trillion-dollar budget or take in massive profits. The economic success that enabled these recent reforms was much humbler: Cuba simply registered a surplus for the first time in a decade.

Cuba continues to face many economic challenges, from the vicissitudes of the global capitalist market to the increased aggression of the U.S. blockade. The drought shows no sign of letting up. Of Cuba’s 235 dams and reservoirs, 114 have less than 25 percent of capacity.

But the example of what Cuba has done with relatively few resources shows the superiority of a social system that is organized to meet human needs.

http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/inde...65c1fb3129029b3 (http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=368&PHPSESSID=1cdb3ff37f68c8bca65c1fb3129029b3)

[GhostSoldier]

Excellent post! - I do not understand how people can say that what Cuba has done/is doing is wrong...

Cuba was (and is) a milestone in history, it has achieved things that the rest of Latin America are only just starting to catch up with. I cannot see why some refuse to officially recognise and support the remarkable things this tiny third - world nation has managed to do…

Why is that exactly? (Does anyone have any input)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by GhostSoldier
Why is that exactly?

Since you asked...

Castro Pays Homage to a Dead Pope (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1114436908&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

I have no problem with the idea that Cuba has achieved much...probably more than anyone had any reason to expect.

But where are the signs of any movement towards communism?

On the contrary, the growing role of foreign investment in Cuba "points" towards the open restoration of capitalism...that's the "direction" things are moving in.

If all goes well, Cuba may one day attain the status of a tropical "Sweden"...is that good enough? Is that "all" you or they want?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[chebol]

Oho, Redstar, so do you have any CONCRETE advice for Cuba to "move towards Communism" in a way more suited to your fancy?

Cuba is in a dicy situation, and is doing the (very near) the best it can to hold what it has and, yes, move towards Communism. (HINT. Communism can only work on a global scale, yes? Cuba has always had an internationalist perspective, and one only needs to look at Cuba's links with Venezuela, and the internal debates opening up about the building of socialism in that country, to know that your post is meaningless point-scoring).
The recent improvements in the Cuban economy and the social gains from that are proof in the positive for the marxist trajectory of the Cuban revolution. QED.

[viva le revolution]

I admire Fidel Castro's achievements. Tell me how many third world countries have achieved as much as Cuba has.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chebol
Communism can only work on a global scale, yes?

No.

A "communist federation" only requires sufficient productive resources to effectively withdraw from the global capitalist market, except on its own terms.

Granted, of course, that Cuba by itself is very far from being able to do that.

Nevertheless, we ought to see something that "points in the direction" of communism there.

And I don't see it. Indeed, what I do see points back to capitalism...mainly, as I noted, the growing role of foreign investment in the Cuban economy.

I don't get the impression that the Cubans take communism seriously. If they did, we'd see them discussing how to begin the "transition"...what initial steps would be most practical under their circumstances.

Instead, they seem mainly concerned with building an economy that's "half-socialist" and "half-capitalist".

If you want to argue that "that's all they can do at this point"...well, you may be right about that.

But you know what happens when "socialists" dismiss communism as "utopian"...they end up building capitalism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bolshevik butcher]

Cuba is in some ways very socilaist, i am still unsure about castro though, sometimes he seems great at other he just seems like a stalinist dictator.

[chebol]

Wrong, communism can only succeed on a global scale. (Note: I didn't say that it had to cover the entire globe, but it needs to be the dominate mode of society over a large enough part of the globe to withstand the pressures of military, economic and political attack from the surviving centres of capitalism- which at such a juncture would be desperate and violent indeed).

Such a "communist federation" would need to be a great beast indeed- truly on a global scale. (Or do you think that the USSR could easily have acheived communism by themselves, if only they had folllowed your suggestions?).

Cuba is indeed far from that.

On the cuban attitude to communism:
Your arguments are as credible as if you had said of Lenin when he introduced the NEP- "I'm very concerned, Comrade Lenin, that you don't take communism seriously enough."

Fucking self-righteous bullshit!

The cuban people have been struggling tooth and nail for over four decades against the worst that the world's greatest imperialist superpower can do to crush it, and you DARE to say they're not serious. Pompous pratt!!

The amount of foreign investment is not in and of itself the key to Cuba's "socialism" (or socialist trajectory, rather). More important are:

1. What is the nature of that investment, and who controls it? (ie majority state/ popular control)
2. Why is there so much foreign investment? (rebuilding an economy ruined by 46 years of economic blockade and terrorism, and more importantly, the loss of the major underwriter of the economy, the USSR)
3. What proportion of the economy is foreign controlled (and how does this compare, qualitatively and quantitatively, to the period of Soviet support). This at least provides a basis for assessing the political impact of the investment.
4. What are the stated aims of allowing such investment, and are they being reached? (rebuilding the economy, removing social divisions and malaises such as racism and homophobia, and improving the quality of life of all cubans whilst maintaining and extending their democratic control over the economic anfd political system. On these counts Cuba has excelled itself, whether you like to admit it or not. The figures speak for themselves.)
But, yes, there are problems in Cuba, and challenges to overcome. I wish them good luck, and will do what little I can to help in that.


QUOTE: "And I don't see it. Indeed, what I do see points back to capitalism."

Then you plainly don't know communism from capitalism, and have no business making silly judgements on the Cubans' "seriousness" (For fucks sake!!!!) in building communism. I know, I'll ask Fidel this July when I see him to send you a personal essay on how he thinks Cuba can build communism, and let you mark it.
I'd apologise for the sarcasm, but I actually think it's justified.

Where is the evidence that cuba has dismissed communism as a utopia? (Only in your head)
Where is the evidence that cuba is on a capitalist road? (ditto)
Where is the foreign investment in cuba coming from? (A large number of places, some more desirable than others, but the fastest growing source, right now, is Venezuela. That is, the Venezuelan government. The same government that is promoting the construction of............ socialism!!!)

Yes, you're right, Cuba has allowed elements of capitalism, strictly controlled, to be used to boost the economy out of it's 15 year slump. But that in and of itself poses a question. If the capitalist 'restoration' is on it's way, why is it so strictly controlled? Why is it being used primarily for social infrastructure? Why is democracy being EXTENDED further in Cuba? These things don't accord with the thesis of capitalist restoration.

Just because there aren't a whole lot of Redstar-inspired factory co-operatives all over Cuba, going on strike and placing the fragile economy in further jeopardy, doesn't mean the place is capitalist.

I can't help but wonder, Redstar, when you mouth the word "transition", whether you stop to think what the past 46 years have been in Cuba?????

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 02:23 PM
Indeed, what I do see points back to capitalism...mainly, as I noted, the growing role of foreign investment in the Cuban economy.

Without the early nineties tourist drive which now brings in significant revenue to the Island. Cuba was practically on it's knees - a financial ruin. She had always been a dependant of imperialist Russia and before that U.S.A and Spain. It's a balancing act such an isolated nation must learn just to survive and Fidel is nothing if not shrewd. On one hand he makes diplomatic moves toward Europe and on the other re-bans the dollar.

The poverty of the "special period" if continued would have been disasterous for any future agenda, dogmatic responses were not needed, the Cuban way is to invent. Inventar, conseguir y resolvar. With new oil discovered and excellant relations with emerging South American personalities and of course China, the kind of stability the revolution needs in order to progress further is now in place.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chebol
Wrong, communism can only succeed on a global scale. (Note: I didn't say that it had to cover the entire globe, but it needs to be the dominant mode of society over a large enough part of the globe to withstand the pressures of military, economic and political attack from the surviving centres of capitalism- which at such a juncture would be desperate and violent indeed).

How large is "large enough"?


Or do you think that the USSR could easily have achieved communism by themselves, if only they had followed your suggestions?

What is truly revealing about the USSR is that they never even tried.


On the Cuban attitude to communism:

Your arguments are as credible as if you had said of Lenin when he introduced the NEP- "I'm very concerned, Comrade Lenin, that you don't take communism seriously enough."

Fucking self-righteous bullshit!

Doesn't sound as if you're suffering any shortage of that malodorous commodity yourself.

The NEP was a (and maybe even "the") fundamental step towards the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. Had Lenin been able to get the foreign investment that he begged for at the time, that probably would have been the whole ballgame...the USSR would have been openly capitalist by 1930 or so.

Unfortunately for Lenin and fortunately for the USSR, the European and American capitalists "refused the bait".


The Cuban people have been struggling tooth and nail for over four decades against the worst that the world's greatest imperialist superpower can do to crush it, and you DARE to say they're not serious. Pompous pratt!!

I did not say the Cubans were "not serious" -- I said they were not serious about communism.

Before you start calling people names, how about taking a course or two in remedial reading.


Then you plainly don't know communism from capitalism, and have no business making silly judgments on the Cubans' "seriousness" (For fucks sake!!!!) in building communism. I know, I'll ask Fidel this July when I see him to send you a personal essay on how he thinks Cuba can build communism, and let you mark it.

You may not appreciate my views on Cuba...but your attitude suggests that I "farted in church". :o

Every communist revolutionary has an obligation to examine social reality critically. Not to do so is to cultivate the attitude of a fan...or worse, a worshiper.

I would certainly be interested in an essay by Castro on building communism in Cuba...but I strongly suspect that the subject is no longer of any interest to him.


Where is the evidence that Cuba has dismissed communism as a utopia? (Only in your head)

No, it's not "in my head" -- it's that they simply don't discuss it. It plays no role in the arena of public discourse in Cuba.


Where is the evidence that Cuba is on a capitalist road?

The direct evidence is in the growing importance of foreign (capitalist) investment in Cuba?

Do you imagine that when capitalist multi-national corporations own 49% of the Cuban economy that they will "stop right there" and say "that's all we want"?


Why is democracy being EXTENDED further in Cuba?

Where did that come from? As far as I know, the leadership of the Communist Party of Cuba "runs the show"...as has always been the case.

On what grounds do you suggest otherwise?


Just because there aren't a whole lot of Redstar-inspired factory co-operatives all over Cuba, going on strike and placing the fragile economy in further jeopardy, doesn't mean the place is capitalist.

That idea of workers having real power really sticks in your throat, doesn't it?

Good heavens, if people started thinking like that, there'd be no "leading role" for you.

Horrors!


I can't help but wonder, Redstar, when you mouth the word "transition", whether you stop to think what the past 46 years have been in Cuba?????

Mostly "welfare-ism", I'm afraid. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Paradox]

I would certainly be interested in an essay by Castro on building communism in Cuba...but I strongly suspect that the subject is no longer of any interest to him.

I was wondering about that myself. I know there's some book I saw on Barnes & Noble's website by Castro called In Defense of Socialism, and I have a couple of books which are collections of his speeches and interviews, and he talks about Socialism and defending the Socialist gains made in Cuba, but so far I haven't read one sentence where he mentions Communism. Not one. Does anyone have links to writings or speeches by Castro where talks about COMMUNISM and how Cuba might advance in that direction? Cuz so far, all I've read seems to suggest that he ain't thinking about making that step, he just talks about defending what they've done so far. Info anyone? :huh:

[encephalon]

I would concur that the cubans simply cannot move forward to communism at this point, as the forces against them are far greater than what they have. I see solidarity with Venezuela as a positive movement in the right direction; they are connecting resources, human and material. Whereas they are primarily a welfare state rather than socialism, they've shown a considerable degree of effort in warding off capitalism without sacrificing the lives of the people living there. In a world dominated by agressive capitalism, whether we like it or not, this might be an absolutely necessary step until a more unified socialist globe can culminate. The key is not their ideological sacrifices to keep themselves alive, but instead the survival of the population's desire to move beyond capitalism. Without this, even if a socialist state in a capitalist world were possible, it's all a futile endeavor. The will of the movement itself, even if in limbo while awaiting further progress elsewhere, is far more important than the manner in which they must act to stay alive.

In fact, the more I think about it the more I'm convinced that the future of socialism--and communism--begins with central and south america. They've an abundance of resources, unlike russia, and what seems to be a fairly strong will to continually fight for socialism. A unified populous across continents, wealthy in material resources, would be an intimidating figure to capitalist powers; indeed, I believe that's why capitalists have continuously tried to intervene in central/south american affairs. I find it to be the most plausible front for socialism/communism, at least until more powerful nations experience a social movement of the same degree, which may be in 30 years--or 230.

So yeah, I do applaud Cuba despite it's dippings into capitalism. As individuals surviving in a capitalist economy, we do exactly the same thing. As Communists, Anarchists, Revolutionary Socialists and leftists in general, we won't have much of an effect on anything if we die from starvation in trying to avoid capitalist integration. We need to stay alive by whatever means available to us to construct social change, as does cuba. The important thing is that the movement continues in the minds of the people.

[encephalon]

I was wondering about that myself. I know there's some book I saw on Barnes & Noble's website by Castro called In Defense of Socialism, and I have a couple of books which are collections of his speeches and interviews, and he talks about Socialism and defending the Socialist gains made in Cuba, but so far I haven't read one sentence where he mentions Communism. Not one. Does anyone have links to writings or speeches by Castro where talks about COMMUNISM and how Cuba might advance in that direction? Cuz so far, all I've read seems to suggest that he ain't thinking about making that step, he just talks about defending what they've done so far. Info anyone?

As far as I am aware, Castro has always been careful in calling himself a communist (unlike guevara), and for some time US politicians were confused as to whether to support him or not (they soon discovered not to, however, when he began nationalizing US "property" :D). I might be wrong, but Che was the more adamant and outspoken communist. Fidel seemed to avoid the subject a bit.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:25 PM
On the contrary, the growing role of foreign investment in Cuba "points" towards the open restoration of capitalism...that's the "direction" things are moving in.
Nonsense. The opposite is true: Cuba has been moving away from capitalism lately, reversing some of the retreats it made during the "special period" immediately after the collapse of the USSR.

Restricting the role of the dollar is a good example of this. The Brian Becker article posted does a pretty good job, as far as I can see, of laying out some of the facts. Do you have any facts showing Cuba has been moving further towards capitalism lately?

In the past, you've criticized Cuba for letting the dollar circulate, maintaining dollar-only stores, etc; now that they've ended these policies, you say.....nothing. Apparently they were never that important after all?

These advocates of the "free market" seem pretty convinced Cuba is moving the opposite direction. (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1747)
"The latest evidence of Castro's firm approach to maintaining the island's revolutionary credo was evident in his Oct. 25, 2004 announcement that officially proscribed circulation of the U.S. dollar on the island.....Indeed, the gradual tightening of regulations on private enterprise in Cuba has caused the total number of businesses to decline every year since 2001....In 2003, state companies were relieved of their limited independence, their ability to compete commercially against each other, and the privilege of obtaining credit. Furthermore, hard currency transactions require central bank approval; the Foreign Trade Ministry makes decision on imports and exports; and bureaucrats again determine prices for internally traded goods in Cuba."

And of course the U.S. government has never had any doubt. (http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y01/apr01/30e6.htm)
"Powell said, in China, Russia and Vietnam "you can see leaders who the world is changing. But in Cuba, Castro is a leader trapped in the past. He hasn't changed his views in any way.""

And it's been pointed out to you before, and IIRC not just by me, that the idea of a Sweden in the Third World is ridiculous, even Swedish capitalism can't afford the kind of welfare state it used to. You had no defense for this idea before...why do you keep repeating stuff that's been refuted?


What is truly revealing about the USSR is that they never even tried.

Yes...that "reveals" that they had a certain grasp on reality. Their economic base was insufficient for socialism, let alone communism.

I can think of only one government which has "tried" to advance immediately to communism, or rather claimed that was their goal....the Khmer Rouge. 'nuff said.

The Cuban communist leadership, like none other in power since the early years of the USSR, fully realizes the fate of the Cuban revolution depends on the world revolution...which is why they have consistently placed a high priority on aiding revolutionary struggles worldwide.

***

Castro's consistently described himself as a communist since this speech in December 1961. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,61-502709,00.html) Of course, that is one thing and thinking it's possible to build communism in Cuba today is another.

Cuba is doing amazingly well to have advanced as far as they have, and to have held on to as much as they have after the collapse of the USSR. This can only be sustained long-run if there are new advances of the world revolution, of course...but there is no factual basis for any idea that the Cuban Revolution is moving towards capitalism or about to collapse.

In reality, Cuba is advancing (slightly) under adverse economic conditions where it would be understandable if they had retreated further.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Nonsense. The opposite is true: Cuba has been moving away from capitalism lately, reversing some of the retreats it made during the "special period" immediately after the collapse of the USSR.

Yes, some of those "special period retreats" have been reversed.


Do you have any facts showing Cuba has been moving further towards capitalism lately?

The absence of any discussion of progress towards communism -- even of a hypothetical nature -- suggests to me that at best they are drifting. In a capitalist world, "drifting" means drifting towards capitalism.

There are two "symptoms" that particularly disturb me. One is Castro's public love affair with the Catholic Church...to the point where Catholics are now welcomed into the "Communist" Party.

You mentioned the other, though, as usual you misunderstood.


In the past, you've criticized Cuba for letting the dollar circulate, maintaining dollar-only stores, etc; now that they've ended these policies, you say.....nothing.

No, the crucial fact is not that dollars were circulating or that some Cubans could shop at "dollar-only stores".

What is important is foreign currency and who has it.

Euros and Canadian dollars still circulate in Cuba as well as special "hard pesos" that are convertible to foreign currency. All can still be used in foreign currency food stores -- though I don't know what else is for sale in those stores besides food.

Well who's got it? People who work with tourists in any capacity, obviously. Government/party bureaucrats undoubtedly have part of their salary paid in "hard pesos" or can, in some cases, tap into a hard peso account. Cubans with gusano relatives can expect regular shipments of Canadian dollars...and so on.

Most Cubans don't have any access to hard currency...and are poor as dirt as a consequence.

What's the psychological effect of this "two-tier" economy?

Cubans with hard currency access are bound to look with favor on the end of Cuban "socialism"...they think they will become even more prosperous compared to the average Cuban.

And, worse, Cubans without hard currency access will see that others prosper...and wonder that if socialism ended, would they prosper too???

What do they have to lose?


And it's been pointed out to you before, and IIRC not just by me, that the idea of a Sweden in the Third World is ridiculous, even Swedish capitalism can't afford the kind of welfare state it used to.

If Cuba has serious oil deposits in its territorial waters, it could indeed become a "tropical Sweden"...I posited that as the "best possible outcome" of the present situation.

The worst is the return of U.S. imperialism, of course.

And please note: I did not say or even hint that Cuban "socialism" was "about to collapse".

What I said was that they are not moving towards communism -- like good Leninist states "are supposed to do" but never seem to manage.

Since stasis is unlikely in the modern world, the logic of the situation suggests movement towards the full restoration of capitalism...even if it's not immediately visible.

Go ahead and shoot the messenger if you like...but it won't change the message.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Yes, some of those "special period retreats" have been reversed.

So much for "moving towards capitalism"....if that was an analysis of the concrete current situation. But of course I should have known better than to think you'd ever do that.


What I said was that they are not moving towards communism -- like good Leninist states "are supposed to do" but never seem to manage.

Who says isolated "Leninist states" in poor countries "are supposed to" move towards communism? Certainly Lenin didn't.


Since stasis is unlikely in the modern world, the logic of the situation suggests movement towards the full restoration of capitalism...even if it's not immediately visible.

No shit sherlock. Lenin said it better several decades ago: "Either the world revolution will triumph over world capitalism, or world capitalism will sing a funeral dirge over the Soviet republic."

As a revolutionary optimist, my money's on the Cuban and world revolution.

[Gianandrea]

I do not un derstand those who do not view cuba as successful. The revolutionary aim was to bring an exploited mass to equality and living conditions fit for a person. Now Cuba despite its poverty as a nation feeds and houses its people and keeps a 100% employment rate. Though there are necessary forced policies on the people a nation cannot prop itself upon the people until the people are ready to move it into communism. Marx never said the communist step was short.

[Mischa]

I don't really understand your cynicism towards Cuba, redstar. It survived an economic crisis that would've destroyed any other nation on the planet (or at least bled their revolution to death [Nicaragua anyone?]). The most cursory glance at the history of Cuba's relations with the United States shows that Castro does NOT put up with the CIA's shit to their country, and does his best to expose all that's going on.

I use the words socialism and communism interchangeably because, well, they mean the same thing (at least according to Marx) but let's just say I believe that communism comes in stages. Why isn't Cuba moving towards communism? It couldn't possibly have to do with the fact that it's a rinky dink island less than a hundred miles off the coast of the most powerful nation on earth that's been trying to survive on its own for the last 4 decades with its revolution intact. I think Cuba has been far more promising than any other socialist or communist nation on the planet, during the special period, they gave up a huge chunk of their military, in addition to certain things like PAINT and TOILET SEATS, so they could keep things like free health care and free education. Then Castro has the audacity to pay respect to a dead pope? God, what sellouts to capitalism.

This isn't me "killing the messenger", this is me telling the messenger that they're wrong. I don't know how you can simultaneously agree with Severian in saying "yes some of the "special period retreats" have been reversed, then say, "Since stasis is unlikely in the modern world, the logic of the situation suggests movement towards the full restoration of capitalism.."

What?? Doesn't that defy some rule of logic to agree with the notion that "they're moving towards socialism", then say "they're stagnant... which implies that they're going back to capitalism"? Do I have to call in Mr. Spock to mediate this discussion?

[Mischa]

Oh, and...

Castro wasn't originally a Marxist, it was his dealing with the United States that forced him to deal with the Soviet Union which pushed him towards communism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Mischa
I don't really understand your cynicism towards Cuba, redstar.

It's not "cynicism"...it's trying to figure out what's really happening there.

I do not contest what the Cubans have achieved...what I'm concerned about is what happens next.

If you understand the underlying principles of Marxism, then you know that history does not stand still...it may move forward or backward, but it always moves.

Are the Cubans moving forward or backward?


Why isn't Cuba moving towards communism? It couldn't possibly have to do with the fact that it's a rinky dink island less than a hundred miles off the coast of the most powerful nation on earth that's been trying to survive on its own for the last 4 decades with its revolution intact.

All right...let's assume your explanation is correct.

In the Marxist paradigm, there's no such thing as just "keeping your revolution intact" -- movement is taking place even if the institutions still look like they did in the past.

Cuba still has, for example, a "Communist Party" -- but what is the political nature of such a party when open Catholics can freely join it?

Can it still really be said to be "communist"? In what sense?


Then Castro has the audacity to pay respect to a dead pope? God, what sellouts to capitalism.

Your sarcasm here, in time, may rise up to bite you in the ass. What you attempt to dismiss as "trivial" is actually symptomatic of the changes taking place in the Cuban political atmosphere.

Which, in turn, reflect deeper changes in the objective material conditions in Cuba.


I don't know how you can simultaneously agree with Severian in saying "yes some of the "special period retreats" have been reversed, then say, "Since stasis is unlikely in the modern world, the logic of the situation suggests movement towards the full restoration of capitalism.."

I can say it because I disagree with Severian (and probably you) on the weight to give those particular changes.

Are they sufficient to reverse the drift of Cuba into a "two-tier" economy...a relatively prosperous capitalist enclave and a majority still living in fairly wretched conditions?

I don't think they are...though I would be happy to be proven wrong.

But I don't see how you can argue against my general principle in this discussion: a socialist country that is not making visible progress towards communism is -- visibly or invisibly -- moving back to capitalism.

If you deny that, then you've just trashed the whole idea of the "transitional socialist state".

Which is fine with me...but do you really want to do that?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Anarcho-Communist]

cuba is surviving pretty damn fine for a thrid world country with poverty and other problems, and they are still a tourist attraction i mean has anyone here been to cuba?!?!?

[chebol]

On religion in the CP-
I can't say I've heard of this (sources please), but.... perhaps you should read up on Lenin again. There is nothing INTRINSICALLY wrong with allowing Catholics (or religious people of any type) to join a communist party. The issue becomes more important if they form a platform within the party or allow their religion to actively dictate their political direction. In a society still overwhelmingly christian, NOT to allow 'catholics' to join would be a step towards isolation from the people.

On Fidel's marxism-
I get sick of this sometimes. "Fidel wasn't Marxist. Then the US picked on him. So he went communist." Stupid. Baseless. Repeated like so many broken records and propaganda campaigns.
Fidel used to frequent the PSP bookshop in Havana when he was at Uni, collecting a decent-sized library of Marx, Engels, Lenin and others. His brother Raul was a member of Joventud Revolucionario- the Revolutionary Youth (youth wing of the PSP).
When in prison after Moncada, the MJ26R organised a school, which included general science and history, and a solid section on political economy centred on Marx and Lenin, which Fidel himself gave most of.
When he was put in solitary confinement, he read Marx and Lenin avidly (as well as dozens of other books), and even demanded a copy of Trotsky's "Stalin", BECAUSE it was critical of the soviet leader.
A couple of good books to read- "The Fertile Prison", "Inside the Cuban Revolution" and "Aldabonazo".

On the "invisible" revolution-
Redstar, I generally agree with your point vis a vis a static revolution = a dying revolution. BUT (again with the BUT), you're still wrong.

Cuba is visibly moving TOWARDS communism AWAY FROM the special period, when it RETREATED from communism by necessity. That is, for 15 or so years, Cuba fell back towards capitalism in some ways, and it has been rebuilding since then. Now, if, as I gather is the case, you DON'T think the gains being made are sufficient, what is?
I put it to you that you are simply unaware of the scope of rebuilding that is taking place in the Cuban revolution (willingly or unwillingly), rather than accept what I know not to be true- that Cuba is BECOMING MORE capitalist. The opposite is the case, and I would not like to answer the question "If a revolution takes place and an internet-critic isn't around to measure it, is it really a revolution?". You want to have a go?

And before you go barking at me about my sarcasm- quote me some figures on the "deeper changes in the objective material conditions in Cuba" and how these affect the current trajectory of the revolution. Don't worry- I'll quote some of my own as well, just so we can compare facts, rather than ultra-left (or cubanophile) assertions. How about it? Let's talk numbers here. Science. As well as theory. I'll EVEN provide evidence of debate on building Communism in Cuba. Just one condition- please pay attention.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chebol
There is nothing INTRINSICALLY wrong with allowing Catholics (or religious people of any type) to join a communist party. The issue becomes more important if they form a platform within the party or allow their religion to actively dictate their political direction. In a society still overwhelmingly Christian, NOT to allow 'Catholics' to join would be a step towards isolation from the people.

You state your position -- with which I disagree, of course -- but you really didn't answer my question.

In what sense can you call a party "communist" if it accepts members who are professing Christians?

Communists are supposed to be, first of all, Marxists -- people who reject idealist conceptions of the world...because those conceptions are wrong.

Now you have a "communist party" that has people -- some of whom are Marxists and some of whom are opposed to Marxism.

Perhaps it was thought by the Cuban communists that the Marxists "would always outnumber" the anti-Marxists...but clearly there's nothing that makes that outcome "inevitable".

Indeed, if the Catholics really are the "majority" of the Cuban population and given the career advantages of party membership, the long-run trend should produce a communist party in which the majority of the membership is Christian -- that is, anti-Marxist.

You may argue, of course, that such a trend is meaningless since the membership doesn't control party policy; the "leadership" is Marxist and that's "all that counts".

But the time will come when the current leaders are retired or dead and new leaders will emerge...and what if they are not Marxists?

One of the things that is a top priority of the Catholic hierarchy in Cuba is the right to own and operate their own schools again...they need to get the kids indoctrinated or else, in the long run, they lose.

Thus far, Castro has resisted that demand...but how long will he continue to do so? And after he retires, will the new leaders of the "communist" party resist that demand...especially when many party members may well support it?

You are under the illusion (as was, for that matter, Lenin) that a person's religion "doesn't" dictate their political direction.

That's wacko! It certainly does "dictate political direction"...and 99.999% of the time, the direction is reactionary.


Cuba is visibly moving TOWARDS communism AWAY FROM the special period, when it RETREATED from communism by necessity.

That statement doesn't make any sense...at least on its face. Are you suggesting that Cuba was "building communism" prior to the "special period"?

Or are you playing a word-game: suggesting that any step taken in building socialism may also be metaphysically said to be a "step towards communism"?


Now, if, as I gather is the case, you DON'T think the gains being made are sufficient, what is?

There seems to be no public discussion in Cuba on the question of how to manage the transition from socialism to communism. It's simply "not on the agenda".

The emphasis seems to be entirely on "defending and preserving socialism" in the face of the challenge of its own internal capitalist enclave. And indeed, I detect a hint of desperation in this...as if distributing a large number of electric rice-cookers to ordinary Cubans will make the capitalist enclave look "less attractive".


The opposite is the case, and I would not like to answer the question "If a revolution takes place and an internet-critic isn't around to measure it, is it really a revolution?". You want to have a go?

Sure. The very core of Marxism is a critical outlook on all aspects of social reality. A "good Marxist" never accepts anything at "face value" but always tries to look deeper into social phenomena and discover "what's really going on".

For example, people can call themselves lots of things and appropriate labels that they perceive are attractive.

A Marxist asks: does the label accurately describe what's really in the package?


And before you go barking at me about my sarcasm- quote me some figures on the "deeper changes in the objective material conditions in Cuba" and how these affect the current trajectory of the revolution.

Why do you think a blizzard of numbers will be helpful? Whose numbers? Generated by what methodology and for what purposes? And verified by whom?

Do you share the common misconception that putting a number on something "makes it scientific"?

I can, in fact, think of only one number that might be useful in this discussion: a comparison of the economic growth of the capitalist enclave in Cuba with the economic growth of the "socialist sector" since 1992 -- both in absolute numbers and in percentages (and adjusted for inflation, of course).

Now tell me, who is in a position to gather such data and why should we trust them to give us honest numbers?


I'll EVEN provide evidence of debate on building Communism in Cuba. Just one condition- please pay attention.

You have such material? In English?

I would pay very close attention if you could produce such evidence.

That's a promise. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Mischa]

It's not "cynicism"...it's trying to figure out what's really happening there.

I do not contest what the Cubans have achieved...what I'm concerned about is what happens next.

How about the battle that they have been, and are still fighting, to save what they DO have, which has been under embargo, and constant political fighting ever since the conception of their revolution. If you were really concerned about 'what was really happening there', then you'd be a little bit more realistic about the odds that they face.


If you understand the underlying principles of Marxism, then you know that history does not stand still...it may move forward or backward, but it always moves.

You're right. And it's moving away from capitalism.


All right...let's assume your explanation is correct.

In the Marxist paradigm, there's no such thing as just "keeping your revolution intact" -- movement is taking place even if the institutions still look like they did in the past.

How can you expect more from the revolution when Cuba's been struggling tooth and nail to keep what they already have? That's all I'm saying.


Cuba still has, for example, a "Communist Party" -- but what is the political nature of such a party when open Catholics can freely join it?

1. Religion is too divisive to put a political line to it, and seeing as how around 15% of the world consider themselves non-religious/athiest:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...ields/2122.html (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2122.html) (see "world")

Your revolution will essentially exclude 85% of the population. How democratic.

2. What does it matter what religion someone is so long as they agree with the party line? Religion has played reactionary roles, yes, but so has the Soviet Union, which professes communism, yet I don't see you giving up communism just yet.

3. Religion is like a gun, it's a tool. It can be used for good, it can be used for evil. It's a personal choice. If someone wants to be a christian, fine, just know what side of the barricade you're on.

4. Marxism is based on class. Religion has nothing to do with it. Sure religion is the opiate of the masses, but the working class is immense, and incredibly broad, and if you're going to liberate them, you have to work with ALL of their layers, including the most religious and reactionary ones.


Your sarcasm here, in time, may rise up to bite you in the ass. What you attempt to dismiss as "trivial" is actually symptomatic of the changes taking place in the Cuban political atmosphere.

Not really. I wouldn't want to affiliate myself with any party that would openly exclude religion or religious people from their ranks.


I can say it because I disagree with Severian (and probably you) on the weight to give those particular changes.

Well good lord man, what do you expect from an island with the population of just around 10 million people can do when it has one of the most vicious embargos on it in known history?? After the Soviet Union collapsed, the imperialists literally had a puppet government already set up in the US! Cuba relied for 80% of its machinery on the Soviet Union, which in turn purchased 63% of Cuba’s sugar exports, 95% of its citrus fruit, and 73% of its nickel. Poof, overnight, gone.

Pardon me for being a little sarcastic, but I think it was warranted.


But I don't see how you can argue against my general principle in this discussion: a socialist country that is not making visible progress towards communism is -- visibly or invisibly -- moving back to capitalism.

You can't possibly expect to learn how to be a world class swimmer when you're just barely keeping your head out of the water.


If you deny that, then you've just trashed the whole idea of the "transitional socialist state".

Which is fine with me...but do you really want to do that?

Another time comrade, another time ;)

[Mischa]

And Chebol. It's true, Fidel wasn't a Marxist until after the revolution. I didn't mean this to be a blow against Fidel, on the contrary, I meant it as a compliment towards Marxism.

Capitalists make revolutionaries.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 07:22 AM
In what sense can you call a party "communist" if it accepts members who are professing Christians?
In the sense that...it is composed of class-conscious workers. Mostly, anyway. And they're the element that normally wins out. There's certainly a bureaucratic element that is a bigger problem than workers who are religious believers.


Communists are supposed to be, first of all, Marxists -- people who reject idealist conceptions of the world...because those conceptions are wrong.

Yeah, see, first of all communists are supposed to be people who have no interests separate and apart from those of the whole working class. Putting atheism first was Bakunin's approach, and that's why the First International refused to accept his "atheist sections".

Your approach, on this and other questions, is more and more openly anti-Marxism...hopefully if this trend continues we'll see you rename your website more honestly, from "Marxism without the crap" to "crap without the Marxism."


Or are you playing a word-game: suggesting that any step taken in building socialism may also be metaphysically said to be a "step towards communism"?

How is that metaphysical or word-games? It's necessary to build socialism before you can build communism. For that matter, a step towards capitalism from feudalism was a step towards communism, that's why communists consider capitalism to have been progressive.

The question is, whether Cuba is moving forward or back. The facts say, it's moving forward at present.

For all your talk of materialism, your method doesn't ever seem to involve looking at the facts. Rather you pontificate and proclaim generalities.


There seems to be no public discussion in Cuba on the question of how to manage the transition from socialism to communism. It's simply "not on the agenda".

That's because it's objectively not on the agenda. Cuba doesn't even have socialism yet, nor the objective conditions to get there without more revolutions in other countries. eally. One can speak of a socialist revolution in Cuba only in the sense of direction.

From stuff you've said before, you've got some kind of "straight to communism without pausing" approach. History doesn't work that way. It works two steps forward, one step back. And, if you're lucky, two steps forward again.


Now tell me, who is in a position to gather such data and why should we trust them to give us honest numbers?

A standard anti-materialist Redstar argument: the facts are, he claims, unknowable.

Therefore, he's free to form opinions based on pure prejudice and dogma.

Of course, the materialist thing to do, if the facts were indeed unknowable, would be to wait and see. But what's the point of paying for an internet connection if you can't issue infallible papal proclamations?

[redstar2000]

I suppose that it's "inevitable" that threads like this one degenerate into rhetorical invective...or at least that invective replaces argument.


Originally posted by Mischa+--> (Mischa)Your revolution will essentially exclude 85% of the population. How democratic.[/b]

A preposterous assertion. It assumes that I am or want to be the "owner" of a revolution.

It further assumes that matters of truth and falsehood can be (or should be) decided by a planetary referendum.

The fact that only a minority of the world's population at this point in time knows that gods do not exist is not relevant to the truth of that observation...it would still be true even if the world was 100% believers.

And finally, it is absurdly a-historical...whatever people believe right now is what people will "always" believe.

How is all this relevant to Cuba?

If you assume that the leadership of the Cuban government is Marxist, then it would logically follow that they would engage in struggle against anti-Marxist ideologies...of which religion is obviously one.

And, for a while they did...and then they stopped. Now, they seem to favor religion -- cf. Castro's eulogy of the dead pope.

We know from history that ruling classes have a very favorable opinion of religion (Edward Gibbon knew it back in the late 18th century!). And we know why that is true.

Religion is indeed a useful tool for distracting the masses from their real class interests. From a ruling class point of view, it's much better that the masses concern themselves with "salvation" than with liberation.

Can you see where I'm going with this? The fact that the Cuban leadership has begun to encourage religious belief (even in small ways so far) means that they have begun to think "like" a ruling class.


What does it matter what religion someone is so long as they agree with the party line?

To "agree with the party line" is not what it means to be a Marxist or even a communist (except, perhaps, to Leninists).

You imagine that if someone says "I agree", then that's "the end of it". People have obvious careerist reasons for saying "I agree" when, in fact, they do not agree and are doing whatever they can to change the party's line in a direction that they would prefer.

What would be the obvious ideological change that a Catholic member of the "Communist" Party of Cuba would want to see?

Would it not be an end to all forms of "Marxist hostility" to the Church?

And then on to actual official support of the Church?

And an end to all forms of Marxism, period.


Religion is like a gun, it's a tool. It can be used for good, it can be used for evil.

Yes...that is a good ruling class summary. But, like all tools, it is useful for some tasks and useless for other tasks.

Historically, you know that religion has been used for "evil" about 99.999% of the time -- to provide "cosmological justification" for class society.

It is a "gun" that only shoots in one direction -- against the masses.


[Religion] is a personal choice.

No it isn't. People are indoctrinated with religious beliefs as children -- there's no "choice" involved there. When they reach adolescence, they are nominally "free to choose"...but the "social weight" is against them in any society where religion is publicly respected. The greater that respect, the more difficult it is for them to "choose" atheism.


Marxism is based on class. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Every social phenomenon "has to do" with class. It's not like class is "one category among many" and we can talk about it without talking about anything else.

It's all connected!

When you speak of class as a Marxist, you're speaking of a whole complex of matters -- beginning with the relationship to the means of production and extending to everything from tastes in food and drink to philosophy.


I wouldn't want to affiliate myself with any party that would openly exclude religion or religious people from their ranks.

Your choice.

I wouldn't want to affiliate myself to any group that wasn't openly and actively hostile to all forms of superstition as a matter of principle.


You can't possibly expect to learn how to be a world class swimmer when you're just barely keeping your head out of the water.

Perhaps. But if you don't, then you'll "sink like a stone".

For, as always, "the times they are a-changing".


Severian
In the sense that...it is composed of class-conscious workers. Mostly, anyway. And they're the element that normally wins out. There's certainly a bureaucratic element that is a bigger problem than workers who are religious believers.

No, the "class-conscious workers" have not "normally won out" anywhere.

And the bureaucrats are not "above" using the "tool" of religion...in fact, they rather naturally turn towards it as time passes and they become a new ruling class.

The cults of Lenin, Stalin and Mao certainly appealed to quasi-religious sentiments. And when those proved inadequate, there was always the "real thing" ready to hand.

Inspite of the squeals of the godsuckers, Leninism in its various incarnations was surprisingly tolerant of religion. Very few cathedrals were demolished in the USSR and, to the best of my knowledge, the temples in China remained intact. In Poland and East Germany, cathedrals were restored and even new ones built...a process that began under that "devil" Stalin.

I've even read that Gorbachev was known to be a devout Orthodox Christian at the time the politburo elevated him to the position of (last) General Secretary of the CPSU(B).


Yeah, see, first of all communists are supposed to be people who have no interests separate and apart from those of the whole working class.

Is religion "in the interests" of the "whole working class"?

Or of any workers at all?

They may imagine that it "is", but is it really?


Your approach, on this and other questions, is more and more openly anti-Marxism...hopefully if this trend continues we'll see you rename your website more honestly, from "Marxism without the crap" to "crap without the Marxism."

I :wub: you too.


The question is, whether Cuba is moving forward or back. The facts say, it's moving forward at present.

Some facts are positive...others are not.


For all your talk of materialism, your method doesn't ever seem to involve looking at the facts. Rather you pontificate and proclaim generalities.

I am a "bad boy". :lol:


One can speak of a socialist revolution in Cuba only in the sense of direction.

Very well -- but note that others have spoken of Cuba as a "consolidated socialist state".

But even in terms of "moving towards socialism", what about that growing private sector in the hands of foreign capital?

Is that "materialist" enough for you?


From stuff you've said before, you've got some kind of "straight to communism without pausing" approach. History doesn't work that way. It works two steps forward, one step back. And, if you're lucky, two steps forward again.

And speaking of "proclaiming generalities"... :lol:


A standard anti-materialist Redstar argument: the facts are, he claims, unknowable.

Therefore, he's free to form opinions based on pure prejudice and dogma.

Of course, the materialist thing to do, if the facts were indeed unknowable, would be to wait and see. But what's the point of paying for an internet connection if you can't issue infallible papal proclamations?

A crushing reply! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 18 2005, 09:47 AM--> (redstar2000 @ May 18 2005, 09:47 AM)
Severian
In the sense that...it is composed of class-conscious workers. Mostly, anyway. And they're the element that normally wins out. There's certainly a bureaucratic element that is a bigger problem than workers who are religious believers.

No, the "class-conscious workers" have not "normally won out" anywhere. [/b]
In Cuba they have. Repeatedly. I could give examples of these conflicts, but there's something about arguing with someone who never bothers to produce a single fact in his support that doesn't exactly inspire me to do the work. I notice Mischa has had the same reaction.

I can see why you prefer to issue prophetic pronouncements; it's a lot easier than facts and sources.


nd, to the best of my knowledge, the temples in China remained intact.

The best of your knowledge is not so good, then. In the Cultural Revolution particularly....oh, never mind, see above on why I'm not going to bother.


Some facts are positive...others are not.

Well, why don't you show us some that ain't rather than expecting us to believe you by divine revelation?


Very well -- but note that others have spoken of Cuba as a "consolidated socialist state".

Do you think that's accurate? If so, that's quite an accomplishment under the circumstances, if not, why the rigmarole about moving towards communism?


But even in terms of "moving towards socialism", what about that growing private sector in the hands of foreign capital?

Is that "materialist" enough for you?

No, materialism would involve producing facts on that sector.

In reality, foreign capital is not allowed to invest privately, but only in joint ventures with the state. The size and growth of this state capitalist (not "private") sector...I don't know, and if you do, you haven't given the material facts so far.

As for the actual private sector...I cited one fact seeming to show it's shrinking, the number of business declining since 2001. Someone might respond that perhaps the remaining businesses have grown....but that's unlikely as only self-employment is allowed, not the employment of wage-labor.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
In Cuba they have. Repeatedly. I could give examples of these conflicts, but there's something about arguing with someone who never bothers to produce a single fact in his support that doesn't exactly inspire me to do the work. I notice Mischa has had the same reaction.

I would imagine that if you had such evidence, you would be all too eager to display it -- imagine how "bad" it would make me look.


I can see why you prefer to issue prophetic pronouncements; it's a lot easier than facts and sources.

Not for some. Indeed, you seem quite good at digging up links (some of them rather dubious) but surprisingly conservative and even reactionary in interpreting what you've "discovered".

Granted that you did pretty good on Tibet and Buddhism; but your interpretation of your "facts" and "sources" on the Iraqi resistance was essentially an apology for U.S. imperialism. With regard to both Peru and Nepal, you simply assume that all (or most) of the guerrilla "atrocity stories" are "true"...without regard for the obvious motives of those who tell such tales and completely ignoring the general character of peasant uprisings.

When I suggested that Chinese Maoists left the old temples intact, you drop a hint that they really didn't (during the "great proletarian cultural revolution")...and then go on to ***** about me some more.

Leaving the impression that the kids in the Red Guards went roaming through China dismantling old temples "brick by brick".

Or did Mao supply them with cranes and wrecking balls? :lol:


Well, why don't you show us some that ain't rather than expecting us to believe you by divine revelation?

Divine revelation, is it? I guess "God told me" that international hotel corporations have invested heavily in Cuba since 1992. And "God added" that the tourist industry has become a prosperous capitalist enclave within Cuba. "God went on to say" that families with gusano relatives get lots of foreign currency and are able to live much closer to first-world standards than ordinary Cubans. In fact, "God said bluntly" that well-off Cubans look with favor on the restoration of capitalism in Cuba.

I could appreciate your skepticism if my source was indeed "divine".

But you know very well it is not.


No, materialism would involve producing facts on that sector.

In reality, foreign capital is not allowed to invest privately, but only in joint ventures with the state. The size and growth of this state capitalist (not "private") sector...I don't know, and if you do, you haven't given the material facts so far.

Quite so...for some inexplicable reason, the Cuban government has refused my request to audit their economic records. :lol:

But the hotels are standing there in glass and concrete. The Canadian and European tourists are visible in flesh-and-blood. And there seems to be more of both with every passing year.

Would you like to argue that they "don't exist" until someone tags a number to them?

Your suggestion that a joint venture is "state-capitalist" is...disingenuous. The corporations that invest in such ventures do so in order to make a private profit. A Cuban who is employed by such a venture is hired/fired on the same basis as a worker in the U.S. The only role for the Cuban government is to deposit its quarterly share of the profits (51%, I believe).

The true size of the "private sector" in Cuba is probably unknown and perhaps unknowable -- since some of it is certainly in the "black market". The Cuban government makes it difficult to openly run a small private business in Cuba -- though it can be and is done. But covert businesses also exist, doing their part to generate opinion in favor of restoring capitalism.

At least, that's what "God told me". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[OleMarxco]

All I have to say on this matter is....
....Cuba is a capitalistic bluff well engineered to appear not so! It's presenting itself to be Socialism, but it's front-look is but merely a illusion. But it's for a good reason it is, so I'm going to be "nice" here and excuse Cuba for being so "close to the U.S." (and dependant on) that it's "hard to become Communist", but it's not like they're TRYING any damn hard! Afraid of "consequences", huh, or what? A very obvious lie, flirting with the catholics, letting private forces stream in..who the hell needs all of that bullshit, ABOLISH THE STATE, MONEY AND BORDER ALREADY.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:00 AM
Divine revelation, is it? I guess "God told me" that international hotel corporations have invested heavily in Cuba since 1992. And "God added" that the tourist industry has become a prosperous capitalist enclave within Cuba. "God went on to say" that families with gusano relatives get lots of foreign currency and are able to live much closer to first-world standards than ordinary Cubans. In fact, "God said bluntly" that well-off Cubans look with favor on the restoration of capitalism in Cuba.
How heavily? And what is your source, if not God?


Quite so...for some inexplicable reason, the Cuban government has refused my request to audit their economic records. :lol:

Even defenders of capitalism often admit Cuban economic statistics are accurate. The Cuban government is just not in the habit of lying.

And if they were going to cook their books, it's hard to see why they would do so in the direction of fending off your criticisms.


But the hotels are standing there in glass and concrete. The Canadian and European tourists are visible in flesh-and-blood. And there seems to be more of both with every passing year.

Visible? Have you been there to see 'em? No? Then....source? Numbers?


Would you like to argue that they "don't exist" until someone tags a number to them?

Gee, if you're going to argue there's motion towards capitalism, then I think it's up to you to provide numbers.


A Cuban who is employed by such a venture is hired/fired on the same basis as a worker in the U.S.

That's false, they're all employed through the state. That's one thing supporters of capitalism complain bitterly about. There are other restrictions on these joint ventures, which the imperialists recognize the significance of, even if you don't.


The true size of the "private sector" in Cuba is probably unknown and perhaps unknowable -- since some of it is certainly in the "black market". The Cuban government makes it difficult to openly run a small private business in Cuba -- though it can be and is done. But covert businesses also exist, doing their part to generate opinion in favor of restoring capitalism.

At least, that's what "God told me". :lol:

Again, if not God, then who?

But yes, the numbers I gave probably referred to the licensed self-employed. Who represent one of the special period retreats.

Not to the black marketeers, who ye shall always have with you...not literally. But they've been around for some time, and are not easily eliminated under conditions of scarcity.