Cuba's privileged

[ReD_ReBeL]

i just want to point some things out which should not be around in a socialist country:
1.In Cuba to this day there are 'high-class' restuarants which are only available to tourists and Communist party officials.
2.After the revoltuion succeded
3.in 1963 an Engineer in a facatory was revealed to be getting paid 17 times more than an average worker by the communist party
4. going back to fact 1, if these communist officials are able to dine at 'high class' restuarants this means there salary is more than an average worker.

These are some of the 'elite's privlidges' mention in the Socialist Party (UK) book ..Cuba:socialism and democracy

[which doctor]

This is just more evidence to support the fact that cuba is not as socialist as we would want it to be. It really is sad, but not as sad as the cappie pigs to the north would like to make it seem. I do think however that Castro has been more true to his revolutionary ideals than other leaders have been.

[ReD_ReBeL]

erm number 2 was supposed to say..
2.After the revolution succeded huge stock piles of cars where nationalised and allocated to party officials and certain employees

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 08:59 PM
erm number 2 was supposed to say..
2.After the revolution succeded huge stock piles of cars where nationalised and allocated to party officials and certain employees
You know you can Edit posts by clicking the "Edit" button...

[ReD_ReBeL]

ah right thnks cheers comrade

[Correa]

UK's socialist party is just jealous. :D Besides who know's if this is true or not. I'm suspending judgement on that claim rather than rejecting it.

[chebol]

I'd prefer to see evidence, or at least a reference for this "data" before I bother "refuting", and explaining, it.

[ReD_ReBeL]

hmm i only have the book sorry but look at the book Cuba:Socialism and Democracy-by Peter Taafe(member of the UK Socialist Party) and the chapter is called Is There A Privileged Elite?

[Guerrilla22]

These are some of the 'elite's privlidges' mention in the Socialist Party (UK) book ..Cuba:socialism and democracy

Some socailist from the UK criticizing Cuba for having "elite" privalleges. That's hilarious!

[Fidelbrand]

Priviledges to toursists is lame.

But what do you guys think about priviledges enjoyed by government statesmen? Provided that they bust their ass for the service of the country, i think it is okay to let them enjoy some priviledges.

[Tekun]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:24 AM

These are some of the 'elite's privlidges' mention in the Socialist Party (UK) book ..Cuba:socialism and democracy

Some socailist from the UK criticizing Cuba for having "elite" privalleges. That's hilarious!
I agree :rolleyes:
Wherez the hard evidence to corroborate these claims?

Check the notes and sources within the UK Socialists party handbook
Then post em

Privilidges should be allowed to government officials as long as they are not "over the top"
And by this I mean, no fancy cars, no trips to the Italian Riviera, no mansions, etc

But letting an official eat for free, once in awhile, at a nice restaurant is okay
Just don't push it
None of this treating tourists or government officials better than u treat ur citizens

[ReD_ReBeL]

ok heres a passage from the book "even as early as 1963.KS Karol remarks that in one facotry he came across an engineer [who] recieved 17 time the wage of a worker! moreover, he cites other perks and privileges cornered by the bureaucracy,such as the "high class" restuarants like "monsenor"(sic), the "torre", the "1830", the "floridita" and others which charge colossal prices for meals. At the CP party conference 1975 a decision was taken to allow Cubans to buy cars-which up till then had been the preserve of party and state officials"

"However the premisis in which Franquis newpaper 'revolucion' was produced had been mysteriously attacked a few months ealier.He suspected it was not so much right-wing, counter-revolutionary terrorists but the burgoening Stalinist 'security' forced him because of his critisim of the bureaucratic degeneration of the revolution.he writes:
:since i wouldent obey the order to move , Fidel stepped in, told me iwas in danger and that i would simply have to follow orders. The next day the urban Reform people handed me the keys to my new house. I'd be a hypocrite if i were to say i didnt like what i found-swimming pool, books, nice furniture, garden, air conditioning-but at the same time i felt guilty. Fidel himself never had these those problems , since he was accustomed to living in houses like that...What was really happening was that we were creating a new elite, despite all the rhetoric about the need to protect us, the need for upperechelon people to be able to relax"

Just to let u know the Socialist Paty are NOT anti-castro there just critical supporters.
Note:the author claims these privileges where nothing compared to what was going on in the eastern bloc, Russia and even China

[barista.marxista]

I'd like to see sources for the first and last posts. Restaurants for tourists is one thing, as the tourist market was a necessity after the collapse of the USSR. But I've met and spoken with members of Cuba's parliament, and all the literature pertaining to the subject (granted, most is Cuban government literature) says that the Cuban government representives do not get paid for being members of parliament or whatever, but rather volunteer this outside of their normal jobs. This, a vital point for a Leninist state, along with the widespread, massive public support in Cuba for the government, makes me personally deduct that Cuba is authentically socialist.

Also, the 1963 point is almost moot, also without a hard source. You can't gauge a revolution's success so shortly after its initial conquering of political power. We must look at where it is in the mid-to-long term, which is today.

If you could provide hard evidence, I'd love to check it out and review my conclusions. Thanks.

[ReD_ReBeL]

Sorry comrade i did not find this on the net it is in the Socialist Party(UK) publications book Cuba:socialism and democracy, if u can look up tht book on the net and find it look for the chapter , Is There A privileged Elite?.
Its a debate book with a party in Australlia, basically because the Australlian party(DSP) is very non-critical supporters of Castro, where as the socialist party are critical supporters ie. they support there cause but think they are flawed.
Oh and aslo the author is Peter Taaffe.
Hope that was even the slightest of help for you.

[Clarksist]

But what do you guys think about priviledges enjoyed by government statesmen? Provided that they bust their ass for the service of the country, i think it is okay to let them enjoy some priviledges.


Who says that they "bust their ass" anymore than any other worker?

The idea of socialism is equality. Cuba is definately not a socialist country...

In addition, Cuba has no levelled out capital, at all. There are rich people in Cuba, and poor people. Not very socialist.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 03:09 AM

But what do you guys think about priviledges enjoyed by government statesmen? Provided that they bust their ass for the service of the country, i think it is okay to let them enjoy some priviledges.


Who says that they "bust their ass" anymore than any other worker?
No one says that.
But as matters stood, those democratically elected are able people who the mass trust to let them shoulder the macro-problems. The workers bust their ass to aovid exploitation and work for their living. While genuine and wholehearted gov't officials try to prolong the favorable environment (political,social,economic, etc) for the mass.

In this sense, and the due to their different levels of / depths of attentions. I think good gov't officials bust their ass harder, and their ineffciency will also mean their ass being kicked. I personally don't mind if they enjoy certain priviledges.

[Andy Bowden]

The DSP have published some pamphlets specifically criticising the SP's and Taafes position on Cuba. I will post them here so Comrades have the 2 sides


http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/20000907.htm

http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/19990401.htm

[bolshevik butcher]

I do agree that Cuba is not a socialist state by a long way, but it is certainly far more rpogressive than America, and I support its right to soverigny and its efforts in resisting U$ imperialism. Having said that, I also support real socialsits in Cuba, and the castro regieieme has persecuted them in the past.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 07:09 PM
The idea of socialism is equality. Cuba is definately not a socialist country...
Not really.

Equality is the long-term objective of a socialist state.

Socialism per se is simply about workers control.

[bolshevik butcher]

Workers control is a key feature of socialism that is lacking in Cuba.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by Intifada+Dec 14 2005, 04:28 AM--> (Intifada @ Dec 14 2005, 04:28 AM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 07:09 PM
The idea of socialism is equality. Cuba is definately not a socialist country...
Not really.

Equality is the long-term objective of a socialist state.

Socialism per se is simply about workers control. [/b]
Yep, I was thinking about this. And wondering whether Clarksist was refering to "communism".

[Intifada]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 13 2005, 08:33 PM
Workers control is a key feature of socialism that is lacking in Cuba.
That is debatable.

[Clarksist]

Not really.

Equality is the long-term objective of a socialist state.

Socialism per se is simply about workers control.


Socialism is also about democracy, and equal rights for all peoples. And what do you get with true democracy, equal rights, and worker control?

Equality.


Yep, I was thinking about this. And wondering whether Clarksist was refering to "communism".


Communism has equality as well... but socialism should too, but as we can clearly see, Cuba is not socialist.

No, Cuba is a state capitalist nation, and there is no way to make capitalism "nicer".

[Guerrilla22]

There will always be a certain amount of bueracratic corruption in any government, Cuba is no exception, however when one speaks of privallege I tend to think of white Anglo saxon Protestant privallege before any others.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:53 PM
Socialism is also about democracy, and equal rights for all peoples. And what do you get with true democracy, equal rights, and worker control?

Equality.
A worker's democracy.

The rights of the working-class come before the rights of an overthrown bourgeoisie, or any counter-revolutionary.


Communism has equality as well

Communism is an equal and classless society.


as we can clearly see, Cuba is not socialist

Can we?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Fidelbrand+Dec 13 2005, 07:29 PM--> (Fidelbrand @ Dec 13 2005, 07:29 PM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 03:09 AM

But what do you guys think about priviledges enjoyed by government statesmen? Provided that they bust their ass for the service of the country, i think it is okay to let them enjoy some priviledges.


Who says that they "bust their ass" anymore than any other worker?
No one says that.
But as matters stood, those democratically elected are able people who the mass trust to let them shoulder the macro-problems. The workers bust their ass to aovid exploitation and work for their living. While genuine and wholehearted gov't officials try to prolong the favorable environment (political,social,economic, etc) for the mass.

In this sense, and the due to their different levels of / depths of attentions. I think good gov't officials bust their ass harder, and their ineffciency will also mean their ass being kicked. I personally don't mind if they enjoy certain priviledges. [/b]
You sound like Squealer from Animal Farm :P

[Clarksist]

Can we?


Cuba does not have the workers in control of the means of production.

That, in and of itself, is enough to disprove Cuban socialism.

[Clarksist]

Can we?


Cuba does not have the workers in control of the means of production.

That, in and of itself, is enough to disprove Cuban socialism.


The workers bust their ass to aovid exploitation and work for their living. While genuine and wholehearted gov't officials try to prolong the favorable environment (political,social,economic, etc) for the mass.


Or they are politicians simply to gain power and keep it. Fuck the powers that be, they don't deserve priveleges simply because they work with bigger problems... they should get what they need, and most of what they want. The same as anyone else.

Just because they tackle bigger problems than other people, doesn't mean that they somehow "deserve" to get a better stance in government.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Intifada+Dec 13 2005, 08:47 PM--> (Intifada @ Dec 13 2005, 08:47 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 13 2005, 08:33 PM
Workers control is a key feature of socialism that is lacking in Cuba.
That is debatable. [/b]
Where are the soviets in cuba? The state has natioanlisted things yes, but not uinder direct workers control.

[ReD_ReBeL]

i wouldent say there is complete workers democracy, industries r not worker run they are run by the state, and im sure there isnt Trade Unions(although i could be wrong), and isnt there strict polcies on Protests? or even may be illegal?

[Correa]

The Cuba Truth Project (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/cuba/index.html)

[ReD_ReBeL]

look for a neutral link instead of a Socialist one or a capitalist one, you never know there could be biased from either side.

[Correa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 07:19 PM
look for a neutral link instead of a Socialist one or a capitalist one, you never know there could be biased from either side.
I think this holds true when a worker is undecided. After one sees "the light" and aligns him or herself with the people the caplitalist media is merely to "hear what the enemy is up to".

[barista.marxista]

Socialism is not about equality for all. No state can be about equality, because the state is the manifestation of one class' rule over another. Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, and Socialism is vice-versa. Socialism is democratic, but only for the workers. Socialism is about equality only for the revolutionary workers. As Cuba, from all sources I've read (I will check out the previously linked articles tomorrow), has a Parliament with elected officials who work as volunteers alongside their productive jobs (from which they are excused when governmental necessity calls), then Cuba is by definition a workers state. As all officials are elected and retracted by the votes of the workers in the Party, delegates in the municipal assemblies are elected directly by the people, then it is a democratic workers state. While there may be privileged people here and there, largely due to the necessity of the tourism industry, it is not what defines the state. Those petty-bourgeois types don't have governmental authority, because the workers comprise the party, and their democracy is one of the proletariat. Thus, unless I can be given sources otherwise, I classify Cuba as a workers' democracy (not uncritically, however, because no Marxist can be uncritical), and thus a socialist state progressing towards Communism.

I have drawn my conclusions from what varied sources are available, none of which can be unbiased, specifically How does the Cuban Parliament Work? from Ediciones Poder Popular, various Pathfinder Press books on Cuba, and some news sources such as Prensa Latina, PSL magazine, and this own site. I am always open to criticise my conclusions, though, and whatever sources contrary to my points people can provide, I will investigate as soon as I can.

[Correa]

Exactly! Well said! :castro: :cuba: :che:

[KC]

http://www.newhumanist.com/ca.html

Check out all of the articles. Read the Cuban Constitution.

[Fidelbrand]

Or they are politicians simply to gain power and keep it.

That's politicians in capitalist liberal democracies.


Fuck the powers that be, they don't deserve priveleges simply because they work with bigger problems... they should get what they need, and most of what they want. The same as anyone else.

I think people with bigger problems deserve merits. They need to be monetary as we have in capitalism. If payments/merits are given as same as anyone else, I guess that's a pretty idealistic practcise that would be feasible in communism, but not socialism, when capitalism was just crushed and people's mentality are not yet ready for absolute equality.

My custom title sums up what i want to say to the Utopian-Left. The reality, and thus feasibility have to be embraced, no matter how noble our ideals are. The power need not be fucked if they are genuinely working for the mass. (I always think some leftists do it just because they are jealous of those with better abilities, leadership skills, and this is what people under capitalism fears - Leftists' ultra egalitarianism. They are simply not ready for it. A jump from capitalism to communism can be done on a small scale only, but globally, or even nationally, I doubt. )

[Clarksist]

Socialism is not about equality for all. No state can be about equality, because the state is the manifestation of one class' rule over another.


I agree that with a state present, there cannot be equality.

The idea of socialism, is that everyone is supposed to be equal... because that's how it withers away.


Thus, unless I can be given sources otherwise, I classify Cuba as a workers' democracy (not uncritically, however, because no Marxist can be uncritical), and thus a socialist state progressing towards Communism.


:huh: Since when did a workers' democracy equal socialism progressing towards communism? (I am assuming you mean communism without a capital C, because some douchebag sometime decided that 'Communism' means soviet style state... so I know you don't mean that)

A major part of socialism is the idea of the workers owning the means of production. Last time I checked, Cuba has legal, albeit, small scale private enterprise.

But small scale does not mean non-existent.


The power need not be fucked if they are genuinely working for the mass.


If they are genuinely working for the masses, they wouldn't ask for more than what the masses have.

There is a popular (perhaps fictional, perhaps not) story about Che when we went to Soviet Russia. For dinner, they were served with plates made of china. And Guevara simply asked, "Is this how the proletarian eat in Russia?"

The story is something around those lines... and I must say... rather it is true or not, the sentiment is intact.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:11 PM
If they are genuinely working for the masses, they wouldn't ask for more than what the masses have.

There is a popular (perhaps fictional, perhaps not) story about Che when we went to Soviet Russia. For dinner, they were served with plates made of china. And Guevara simply asked, "Is this how the proletarian eat in Russia?"

The story is something around those lines... and I must say... rather it is true or not, the sentiment is intact.
I agree with what you said.
But iin reality, a mutual love/respect (between gov't officials/statesmen and the Mass) should be sorted. I mean.... it might be a bad idea for the gov't officials to ask for priviledges, but the mass actually "should" have the heart to confer priviledges to the former, especially when the former does a good job and gain their respect.

Consider the problem of incentive.

Not sure with Che's intention of the question: His cigars and conveniences in Cuba can be compared to food served in china.

[Clarksist]

But iin reality, a mutual love/respect (between gov't officials/statesmen and the Mass) should be sorted. I mean.... it might be a bad idea for the gov't officials to ask for priviledges, but the mass actually "should" have the heart to confer priviledges to the former, especially when the former does a good job and gain their respect.


Why?

A funny thing about people with power. They have this thing about wanting to keep it once they get it. Under socialism, the major corruptor from a full on communist society, is that power gets in the way considerably.

To fix this, we make being powerful not worth it. That way, only the truly devout leftists would hold the position. Capitalists and other rightists would see no "incentive" to having shared power with other politicians and no extra pay even.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: fuck the powers that be...


Consider the problem of incentive.


Capitalists have been yelling that at me ever since I became a leftist.

[Fidelbrand]

Why?

A funny thing about people with power. They have this thing about wanting to keep it once they get it. Under socialism, the major corruptor from a full on communist society, is that power gets in the way considerably.

To fix this, we make being powerful not worth it. That way, only the truly devout leftists would hold the position. Capitalists and other rightists would see no "incentive" to having shared power with other politicians and no extra pay even.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: fuck the powers that be...

There are situational altruists. But there are not much people who just dedicate, dedicate and dedicate. Everyone has the physical/psychological need in order to sacrifice something. In a socialist society, non-capitalist merits/priviledges are essential. Imagine people dobed with bourgeois (materail/monetary) values, then adamantly change to a socialist context, what happens if the idea is JUST "Do good to the country, think collectively! Don't ask for rewards! Merits sucks and power sucks and fucks totally! Just serve, okay!?" ??

Realistically speaking, people who serve the mass but ask for recognition (well, it need not be materialistic priviledges enjoyed) is very normal. And I think it is already one step foward, an advancement, from the liberal incentive (monetary reward). What do u think?

I think incrementalism is needed to win the hearts of the people. A forced revolution ,coupled with utopian ideals, will deem dystopian. As Marx historical materialism refers, there steps to take, not a jump to make.



Consider the problem of incentive.


Capitalists have been yelling that at me ever since I became a leftist.

Yes, i know, and they try to discredit us by using their liberal values to crush our arguments.
However, as men living in reality but not only in the realm of ideals and ideas, we need to pay attention to this to win hearts of the people, and persuade them with facts and lists. I reckon this is an important "alert" any leftist should pay attention to. Otherwise we can just be philosophers, sit in the garden like the ancient Greeks and talk about.... just anything. :unsure:

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:11 AM
A major part of socialism is the idea of the workers owning the means of production. Last time I checked, Cuba has legal, albeit, small scale private enterprise.
This isn't entirely true. While there are small-scale businesses such as restaurants, this is an offshoot of the tourist industry; restaurants, also, are provided (in this case to the tourists) intending to create surplus-value from a service, not from mass production. Of course service workers are still exploited, but it must be differentiated from commodity production. And while there are heavily mediated small local markets of agrarian products, this is essentially a feudal tactic, as what is being sold is the surplus of collective farming, with the goal of collective farming still being collective provisions, not commodity production. All other industries are nationalized, meaning they are under control of the state, which is, as I explained before, democratically controlled by the workers.

[Clarksist]

Imagine people dobed with bourgeois (materail/monetary) values, then adamantly change to a socialist context, what happens if the idea is JUST "Do good to the country, think collectively! Don't ask for rewards! Merits sucks and power sucks and fucks totally! Just serve, okay!?" ??


Revolution is a truly strange phenomenon. What has always happened through, at least, the Leninist revolutions in Russia and Cuba... is that people who have fought so hard for this new world, are willing to do anything to make it work.

I'm not saying people who have government jobs shouldn't be given pats on the back for a job well done, but I'm saying that if we take away most of their power and any monetary/social-ladder-climbing rewards, we will only have those people who are at their most altruistic.


As Marx historical materialism refers, there steps to take, not a jump to make.


Interesting, seeing as Marx's historically look is that the world changes in revolutions not slow evolution. And as we know, revolution means a large radical change over a short period of time.


However, as men living in reality but not only in the realm of ideals and ideas, we need to pay attention to this to win hearts of the people, and persuade them with facts and lists.


We should seperate their mindsets from neo-liberal capitalist values before revolution. Or it is a revolution where our enemy is on both sides.


All other industries are nationalized, meaning they are under control of the state, which is, as I explained before, democratically controlled by the workers.


But do you not agree that having almost all of the means of production owned and operated by the government, having parliamentary elections, and having many empoverished people while others are very wealthy is far from socialism?

They may be on their way to socialism (seeing as they are running off the Marxist-Leninist model) after building up their infrastructure via state capitalism... but enough of this "Cuba is a socialist state" talk. Because while it is close to being true, it just isn't.

Being leftists, we should be the strongest critics of Cuba for not radically barrelling towards the destination of communism.

[rebelworker]

Who elected castro again, i forget...?

I think that socilism in cuba seems very interesting, but socialism as far as I know is state control of the economy with the idea of a more balanced and peaceful society with interntional solidarity as the cornerstone of foreign policy.
I think that cuba has aheived this to a large extent.

Cuba is not however communist, workers controll and full social equality are not the halmarks of cuban society.

More work to be done, not by Castro or his brother but by the self organization of the revolutionary workers...

[Correa]

Who elected castro again, i forget...?

The National Assembly who in turn is elected by the PEOPLE


I think that socilism in cuba seems very interesting, but socialism as far as I know is state control of the economy with the idea of a more balanced and peaceful society with interntional solidarity as the cornerstone of foreign policy.
I think that cuba has aheived this to a large extent.

You defenition of socialism is not way off but it is off.


Cuba is not however communist, workers controll and full social equality are not the halmarks of cuban society.

Of course it isn't, it has a state. Workers' control is a "hallmark" of Cuban society. However full social equality isn't quite were it should be hence it still have a state, but Cuba puts great effort into realizing this. I think you have been affected by yankee propaganda my friend.

[Fidelbrand]

I'm not saying people who have government jobs shouldn't be given pats on the back for a job well done, but I'm saying that if we take away most of their power and any monetary/social-ladder-climbing rewards, we will only have those people who are at their most altruistic.

That's an invicible idea! But I don't think it should be expected nor can be implemented effectively and effciently right after the revolution.


We should seperate their mindsets from neo-liberal capitalist values before revolution. Or it is a revolution where our enemy is on both sides.

And we have topersuade and listen to their counter-arguments and deep-deated liberal thinkings before we can separate their mindsets from neo-liberal capitalist values before revolution.

As such , talking about absolute equality in its pure form is unrealistic and some may regards us as utopians, like those who failed back in hsitory.