RCP and Cuba

[CubaSocialista]

Does the RCP support the Cuban regime, or take the ultra left perspective that it is a "State Capitalist" nation that only oppresses its people and needs to be overthrown?

I'm very pro-Cuban government so I'd like to know.

[Andy Bowden]

The RCP are hardline Maoist - they see Cuba as "revisionist" and that it traded one oppressor for another - from the USA to the USSR.

[Amusing Scrotum]

The RCP are hardline Maoist - they see Cuba as "revisionist" and that it traded one oppressor for another

Unlike Mao's China. Where no one was opressed at all and everyone lived happily, skipping through the green, green, grass, singing "Its so fun to be starving."


from the USA to the USSR.

Didn't Cuba remain neutral to the split?

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:32 PM

The RCP are hardline Maoist - they see Cuba as "revisionist" and that it traded one oppressor for another

Unlike Mao's China. Where no one was opressed at all and everyone lived happily, skipping through the green, green, grass, singing "Its so fun to be starving."


from the USA to the USSR.

Didn't Cuba remain neutral to the split?
I believe so. Regardless, I see all Communists that remain within the basic tenets of Marxism Leninism as allies of the Worldwide Socialist movement, and thus have little against moderate revisionism. What's a good Soviet Communist/Castroist/ Guevara party in the US?

[Andy Bowden]

The SWP in the USA are sometimes called "Castroist" - generally by people who don't like Castro. I don't think Castro believed he was adding anything new to Marxism.

[CubaSocialista]

Hmm. I believe in focoism, but I want a party that is kind of popular frontist, and is more concerned with bashing capitalism rather than revisionism, that supports socialist and revolutionary struggles and states worldwide.

[celticfire]

Cuba IS revisionist, they traded American imperialism for Soviet imperialism and are now eager to trade with capitalist countries. They never had a real socialization of the economy and still rely on the sugar crop economy. All this despite Che's wishes (he was a good communist and supported Mao and the PRC.)

I do like Cuba for their anti-imperialists stands, but they only have a socialist veil. Sorry :(

[Amusing Scrotum]

Cuba IS revisionist, they traded American imperialism for Soviet imperialism

Everyone needs allies.


are now eager to trade with capitalist countries.

How else do you suppose they get raw materials not available in Cuba? Maybe they should ask the steel fairy for some steel and the coal fairy for some coal.


They never had a real socialization of the economy and still rely on the sugar crop economy. All this despite Che's wishes (he was a good communist and supported Mao and the PRC.)

I really like Che, however some of his actions as the "Minister of Industry" were disatrous. He wasn't an economist and at times not even a realist. He wanted to develop many industries which Cuba had no natural resources for. Russia probably rightly stalled, as it would have cost Russia, which was starting to fall apart, a tremendous amount of time, money and labour to transport and set up all this heavy industry in Cuba.
Also whilst in Africa, he warned African liberation leaders not to side too closely with the two Communist superpowers as Cuba had done. Basically implying that he didn't particually like Russia, or, Mao's China.
Perhaps Che wasn't as good a Communist as you think. As he was against the African countries becoming to dependent on Russia and China's "veiled impearialism."


I do like Cuba for their anti-imperialists stands, but they only have a socialist veil. Sorry

Don't apologise for having a different view of Cuba. Having your own opinions on political events is always a good thing.

[Paradox]

How else do you suppose they get raw materials not available in Cuba? Maybe they should ask the steel fairy for some steel and the coal fairy for some coal.

Perhaps this is why Socialism/Communism can't exist in one country? :P Really, how do you expect one "Socialist" nation to survive in a global capitalist economy?


Perhaps Che wasn't as good a Communist as you think. As he was against the African countries becoming to dependent on Russia and China's "veiled impearialism."

Why would that make Che "not as good a Communist?" The USSR was against his actions spreading revolution, and they did side with Mario Monje in Bolivia, who stabbed Che and the rebels in the back.

Personally, I'm not too sure about Cuba. I do not deny their achievements in the areas of medicine, education, and literacy. Still, trying to sort through the pro-Cuba information and the anti-Cuba information from Leftists is rather confusing. I don't know to what extent there is democracy in the decision-making process. And I'm not too keen on having the same person as leader for more than 4 decades, though he still does have a lot of support. I mean, what's wrong with a new face? If there's so much support then why not bring in someone else to show that things are working like they say and that there are plenty of Socialists/Communists ready to continue the revolution? Short of going there myself to talk with the Cuban people, I'm not sure I can make an accurate judgment.


Having your own opinions on political events is always a good thing.

;)

[celticfire]

Che's memory I think today plays a progressive role because he is a symbol for revolutionary change and challenging authority. But we should be honest about his mistakes. Che's strategy for achieving socialism did not involve the masses in a real way and his economic theories were bunk. But that doesn't subtract from his revolutionary heroism and message of socialism.

On Cuba though:


Soon after the Cuban Revolution, Castro's government decided not to dismantle the one-crop sugar economy or carry out a thoroughgoing agrarian revolution in the countryside. They broke key ties to the U.S., but did not break capitalist economic relations characteristic of colonialism. Instead, Castro moved Cuba into a new relationship of dependence--with a new foreign imperialist master, the Soviet Union (which had restored capitalism in the mid-1950s).

As the Maoists predicted at the time, this non-revolutionary road had many negative consequences for the Cuban people and for the revolutionary movements of Latin America.

These problems with the "Cuban Road" became acute in a whole new way when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989. Cuba's government found itself desperate and fishing around for new imperialist trading partners and investors. Fidel Castro has been quite eager to have foreign capitalists exploit labor and resources in Cuba. He has opened key parts of the economy to foreign exploitation. And Cuba's government has energetically reopened the tourist trade--with all the oppressive social effects this brings to the people.

Cuba's government has also been eager to have the U.S. imperialists lift its unjust embargo and re-enter Cuba's economy.

The U.S. has been single-minded for 40 years--they consider Cuba theirs, and they want it back. They want future relations on their terms. And they don't want to share the island (or any other part of Latin America) with other imperialists. As a result, the U.S. places heavy demands on Cuba--as a condition for any real normalization. The U.S. demands the return of nationalized U.S. interests on the island. And the U.S. has insisted on the overthrow of the Castro government.

(from: Elián Amid the Sharks (http://rwor.org/a/v21/1050-059/1051/elian.htm), Revolutionary Worker)

Che made it clear (see Anderson, Che Guevara A Revolutionary Life) that he knew something wasn't right about Russia under Kruschev & Co. and felt that China was on a socialist path while something had "corrupted" Russia. Though Che misidentified the problem with Lenin's NEP, which was essentially the same as Mao's New Democracy, he did realize the Soviet Union was not going to help Cuba (or the rest of the world) build socialism.

But I think Che is right that national liberation struggles should not rely too heavilly on superpowers but more themselves - I see this as correct.

As for Cuba's national resources...I don't know- does anyone have stats or information on that?

[Severian]

Here's an old thread with a debate including RCPers and yours truly on Cuba (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31514)

I pointed out:
As for sugar...their initial policy was, in fact, to move away from a dependence on one crop. This changed due to the extremely favorable terms for export of sugar to the USSR. It was economically correct to concentrate on producing as much sugar as possible...except that this assumed the USSR would be there forever. That assumption was the only eror.

In any case, Cuba is now taking drastic steps to put less resources into sugar production - while protecting the interests of sugar workers, as I mentioned in my last post. Will you say, then, that Cuba has suddenly become socialist?
Article on this by reporters visiting Cuba (http://www.themilitant.com/2004/6805/680550.html)

From the article:
"70 of the island’s 155 sugar mills have been closed (50 had already been idled prior to the April 2002 decision);
3.4 million acres of land (1.38 million hectares) have been taken out of sugarcane—some 62 percent of the total land area previously devoted to the crop—and allotted to other agricultural uses;
the number of workers employed in sugar production has been reduced by one-quarter—from some 420,000 to 300,000; and
100,000 former sugar workers have been guaranteed their former wage rate as they take the opportunity to enroll in further education and job retraining, and make the transition to new occupations—where they will continue to receive no less than the wage they were earning as sugar workers for the rest of their lives. "




They broke key ties to the U.S., but did not break capitalist economic relations characteristic of colonialism. Instead, Castro moved Cuba into a new relationship of dependence--with a new foreign imperialist master, the Soviet Union (which had restored capitalism in the mid-1950s- see my post about the USSR from 1956 to 1991).[quote]


What? If you examine the economic relations between Cuba and the USSR, they are clearly not "capitalist economic relations characteristic of colonialism. " On the contrary, the terms of trade were favorable to Cuba and its economic development. The USSR bought sugar above the world market price, and sold oil, machinery, even whole factories, below the world market price. Cuba could not have survived, let alone made the advances it did during the 70s and 80s, without trade with the USSR.

If that kind of "economic relations" were "characteristic of colonialism", colonialism would start looking pretty damn good. No, the U.S. does not have this kind of relationship with the Phillipines or anywhere else. Sugar contracts sklightly above world market price, yes. The whole package on such favorable terms, no way.

[quote]Cuba worked for "Russian" goals- i.e. accumulating surplus in the most profitable sectors of the economy

Why is accumulating surplus a "Russian" goal and not a Cuban goal? That surplus paid for Cuban programs meeting Cuban social needs.

I might comment that this "Cuba was a Russian colony" line is the same as the propaganda line of U.S. imperialism. (It's also the same excuse Mao gave for failing to aid the Vietnamese struggle.) The same facts refute it, whether it is made by Andrei or Uncle Sam:

1. If that's true, why didn't Cuban socialism fall when the regimes in Eastern Europe and the USSR did?
2. As mentioned earlier, the economic relationship benefited Cuba.
3. Cuba followed an independent revolutionary foreign policy, from Latin America to Angola, in contrast to the USSR's - and China's - pursuit of "detente" or "peaceful coexistence" - selling out revolutionary struggles through deals with imperialism. That was the USSR's policy under Stalin as well as Krushev, China's policy under Mao as well and Deng. It was never Cuba's policy.
4. Why was U.S. imperialist so much more hostile to Cuba than to Stalin, Mao, Krushev, or Deng, then? To find another example of such rabid hatred, we have to go back to Lenin's time.
....


"Imperialism?! What do you mean by imperialism?!" you may say. It's true- Cuba's sugar is useless without imperialist trade

No, it is useless without trade, without exporting that sugar to other countries. Trade does not automatically equal imperialism. Self-sufficiency does not automatically equal socialism.

Who's the better revolutionary example today, Cuba or "self-sufficient" North Korea, currently engaged in trying to negotiate aid in exchange for disarmament? A lot more people seem inspired by Cuba.

Socialism cannot be built in one, "self-sufficient" country. To try would be a step backwards - for uniting different countries in the world market is one of the progressive accomplishments of capitalism. Only through the combined efforts of many peoples can socialism be achieved. In that context, it might well make sense for different parts of the world to concentrate on producing the things they are best at.

Some may reply that "globalizing" imperialists say the same thing. Sure, they do. The socialist answer to imperialist globalization, however, is that economic relations between areas at drastically different levels of development can only be mutually beneficial after capitalism is overthrown. Not "self-sufficiency" counterposed to trade.

Throughout Andrei's post, he assumes self-sufficiency is better and economic relations between trade is automatically imperialist - without proving it, or even explicitly stating his assumption.

The "self-sufficiency" promoted by the RCP, and various Stalinist regimes, is a reactionary utopia, which points in the opposite direction from the construction of socialism and communism through the cooperative labor of the workers of the world.

What does revisionist mean anyway? It seems to be just a meaningless curseword.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Perhaps this is why Socialism/Communism can't exist in one country? Really, how do you expect one "Socialist" nation to survive in a global capitalist economy?

If you look at the whole debate, I was agreeing with your statement.

celticfire said "Cuba IS revisionist, they traded American imperialism for Soviet imperialism and are now eager to trade with capitalist countries."

I responded by saying "How else do you suppose they get raw materials not available in Cuba?"

The part about the fairies was my attempt at humour.


Why would that make Che "not as good a Communist?

Again if you look at the whole debate, celticfire said, jokingly I suspect,


Che was a good communist and supported Mao and the PRC.

As I don't believe this statement is completely true, I used a touch of sarcasm to get across my point.


Personally, I'm not too sure about Cuba. I do not deny their achievements in the areas of medicine, education, and literacy. Still, trying to sort through the pro-Cuba information and the anti-Cuba information from Leftists is rather confusing. I don't know to what extent there is democracy in the decision-making process. And I'm not too keen on having the same person as leader for more than 4 decades, though he still does have a lot of support. I mean, what's wrong with a new face? If there's so much support then why not bring in someone else to show that things are working like they say and that there are plenty of Socialists/Communists ready to continue the revolution? Short of going there myself to talk with the Cuban people, I'm not sure I can make an accurate judgment.

I myself am a wary fan of Cuba and the Cuban Revolution. I share many of your concerns about the obvious lack of unbiased evidence. Also like you, I feel the only way I am really going to find out, is by visiting Cuba.

I apologise if my attempts at light humour have made my arguments a little hard to understand.