The definitive article on Cuban socialism

[The Red Scare]

Progressive Cuba-Bashing

By Richard Levins

The Current Debate



Richard Levins is John Rock Professor of Population Sciences, Department of Population and International Health, Harvard University. His theoretical interests have been applied to problems of community development as part of the Board of Directors of OXFAM-America and chair of their subcommittee on Latin America and the Caribbean from 1989 to 1995. Working from a critique of the industrial-commercial pathway of development, he promoted alternative development pathways that emphasize economic viability with equity, ecological and social sustainability and empowerment of the dispossessed. As part of the New World Agriculture and Ecology Group, he has helped to develop modern agroecology, concentrating on the whole-system approaches to gentle pest management. The "Dialectical Biologist," co-authored with Richard Lewontin, presented the authors' approach to the study of the philosophy, sociology and history of science. He has received awards as a pioneer of the ecology movement in Puerto Rico, for long term contributions to the development of agricultural ecology in Cuba, the Edinburgh Science Medal (Scotland) for contributions to science and the broader society, the Lukacs 21st Century Award for contributions to statistical and mathematical ecology, and an honarary doctorate in environmental science from the University of Havana.

In the mid-1960s, when Che Guevara dropped out of sight to begin his guerrilla campaign in Bolivia, some on the left were asking whether Fidel had had him murdered. In the late 1980s, some were quick to assume that the trial of the Cuban general Ochoa on charges of attempting to organize a drug-ring in collaboration with the Medellín cartel was really a political purge. What is striking is that these accusations against Cuba were accepted by so many without investigation, as if the abuses that were alleged were only to be expected and therefore must be true.



Why are so many progressives and liberals taken in by even the most outrageous falsehoods about Cuba? Why do they often accept uncritically the line of the Miami and Washington reactionaries about Cuba when they doubt almost everything else from these sources? Possibly some are tired of nay-saying all the conventional wisdoms. They do not want to appear "hard-line" or "ideological," and rejecting Cuba is a cheap and easy way of being a little more mainstream. Cuba may be relegated by some to the list of youthful enthusiasms from the time when "we thought we could change the world." This stance is reinforced by the accumulated cynicism of many defeats that says that no place can be all that good, that all dreams come to naught. Or, perhaps since Cuba's socialism is one of the few to have survived, it has become harder to romanticize it.



But, mostly, this vulnerability of the left to rightist propaganda is derived from the discouraging experience of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe and the unwarranted assumption that Cuba has a similar regime. As well, too many progressives have accepted cold-war anti-communism assumptions: that all Reds are the same and that any accusation against any of them is probably an understatement, that they support good causes only to serve their own noxious ends, that revolutionaries once in power are all cynical manipulators and monopolizers of privilege, and that their public statements are merely propaganda. The burdens of internalized cold war anti-communism and conventional political science allow for careless judgments and casual denunciations.



Dismissal of Cuba is sometimes simply an off-handed remark in writings about other subjects. For example Marc Cooper wrote a piece in The Nation, "Remembering Allende" (9/29/03). It was a thoughtful commentary, reflecting real experience, knowledge, and sympathy for the Chilean struggle. But in the course of it he threw in a careless unsupported denunciation of Cuba, referring to "the wholesale jailing of dissidents and summary executions by an ossified and dictatorial Cuban state." He is of course free to disapprove of the trials of political de-stabilizers in April 2003. But by linking the execution of hijackers to the trials of the "dissidents," he makes it appear as if dissidents were executed. In fact the hijackers were not political people. Two of them had prior criminal records, and they were threatening to kill their hostages. Most of us oppose capital punishment and support worldwide calls to eliminate it, but this does not justify singling out this case as an example of Cuban depravity.



It is worth looking more closely at Cooper's comments in The Nation, his article in the L.A. Weekly (April 18-24, 2003), and the letter organized by Leo Casey and signed by Cooper and by other progressives and liberals, many of whom should know better and some of whom undoubtedly do. Anyone the least bit familiar with Cuba knows that it is anything but "ossified." Cuba has been undergoing rapid changes since 1959, including the transformations of education and health care, the adoption of the Family Code, two agrarian reforms, the adoption of an ecological pathway of development, and the gradual invention of a mixed participatory and representative political system. There was the struggle against homophobia in the '70s, the encouragement of whistle blowing during the "rectification" campaign of the '80s, the Special Period after the collapse of foreign trade with the Soviet bloc and the tightening of the US blockade, and the legalization of dollars in a dual system of currency with the Cuban peso. As well, Cuba has experienced a tremendous increase in tourism, the phasing out of dependence on sugar, widespread decentralization, and the current "Battle of Ideas." This last refers to the campaign to increase university enrollment, as well as to raise the cultural, scientific, and political level of the whole Cuban population. During the decade 1993-2003 the Cuban economy, even measured by the misleading GDP, grew four times faster than the average for Latin America. Musical and artistic styles, movie making, and theatre are also constantly changing.



Cuba is not a dictatorial regime. There is a whole complex of elected assemblies at all levels, mass organizations of labor, women, and farmers, and all sorts of NGOs that make Cuban socialism what it is (more on this below). It is facile and disingenuous to brand this profoundly participatory political system as "dictatorial." As for the "the wholesale jailing of dissidents," the trial of the 75 Cubans was not for "thought crimes." They were accused of being financed, supported, guided, and even organized by the United States Interest Section in Havana in its efforts to overthrow the Cuban government. The Casey letter refers to the "dissidents" as "independent thinkers." But given their close ties to the US Interest Section and the Miami right wing (amply documented by the prosecution at the trials and not challenged by the defense),[1] this seems at best naïve. When one of the "dissidents," Gustavo Arcos, suggested that dialogue with Cuba might be productive, he was scolded by the head of the Miami right wing, Jorge Mas Canosa, who warned that dissidents inside Cuba "have no business making any proposals whatsoever without first consulting with the leaders of the exile community."[2]



The Casey letter repeats the claim made by the mainstream US media that the trial was closed and "without adequate notice or counsel." In fact, 44 of the accused had lawyers of their own choice and the rest had court-appointed lawyers. Their lawyers and family members were present at the trials. Several weeks from arrest to trial may seem short to Cooper, coming as he does from a country that guarantees a speedy trial but where prisoners are often held for months or even years before trial.



The letter describes the trials as "reminiscent of the Moscow trials of the Soviet Union under the rule of Stalin." But the defendants in the Moscow trials were falsely accused of conspiring with foreign intelligence services. None of the Cuban defendants denied their links to the US Interest Section. The Soviet defendants were tried after a long period of being held incommunicado. The Cuban defendants were held for a few weeks and had free contact with their families and lawyers. The major evidence in Moscow was confessions, extracted in some cases by torture and intimidation. The evidence in the Cuban case included eyewitness testimony, photographs, and physical evidence, including money. There was never any claim by anyone involved that the accused were abused in any way. The Moscow purges, aside from a few show trials, were conducted by special administrative tribunals, set up outside the judicial system. The Cubans were tried in regular courts. And, what is more important, the Moscow trials ended in many death sentences. There were no death sentences in the "dissidents'" trial. The death sentences were handed down in the non-political case of hijacking, taking of hostages, and threatening to kill them. While many, if not most of us, may oppose capital punishment in this or any case, nobody was condemned to death for political charges. Cooper's conflating of the two cases is evidence of his anti-Cuba prejudice.



The letter ends by pronouncing that the Cuban state "is not a government of the left, despite its claims of social progress in education and health care." Claims? The Cuban achievements in education have been verified by UNESCO surveys showing that Cuban third and fourth graders perform so much better in language and mathematics skills than the rest of Latin America that UNESCO returned to test them again.[3] The Pan American Health Organization and World Health Organization both recognize the phenomenal health statistics.[4] But perhaps the letter signatories know this and simply dismiss them as mere social progress. Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and educating the illiterate are not very exciting to the well fed, healthy, and college-educated.



Cooper and Casey et al.'s letter-signers decide that the Cuban government really loves the blockade. Cooper says that the trials "help confirm my longtime suspicion that Castro lives in mortal fear that his most powerful tool of social control, the US embargo, will one day be lifted." And the letter argues that the Cuban actions "amount to collaboration with the most reactionary elements of the US administration in their efforts to maintain sanctions and impose even more punitive measures against Cuba." It is a serious claim to assert that the Cuban government really loves the blockade; it should at least be supported by serious argument. It is not. The underlying assumption is that Havana blames the US for all its troubles. It doesn't. It's too busy talking about the lack of resources, lax enforcement, bureaucracy, and other homegrown failings. While the harm the US government causes Cuba is certainly important in Cuban consciousness, the main "tool of social control" is the shared sense of building a more just and equitable society despite the aggression. The Cuban report to the Secretary General of the UN specifies exactly how the blockade harms Cuba. The report details the injuries field by field, in lives and in money, in higher prices paid for medicines, in medicines they couldn't get (for instance, the Pedro Kouri Institute of Tropical Medicine could not obtain diagnostic kits for identifying SARS), and in extra shipping fees for their imports. They offered estimates of an economic impact of some 79 billion US dollars over the 44 years of siege, or about $1.8 billion per year.[5] The Cuban national budget in 2003 was some 11.5 billion pesos (26 pesos to the dollar). Imagine what could have been done if that amount had been available for investment in economic growth.



Finally, Cooper lapses into pop political science, writing that "the Cuban State [is] concerned with maintaining its monopoly of power above all else." Once again it is given to us as wisdom without supporting evidence or argument. Yet this claim is almost never true of any regime. Even George Bush, who rigs elections and manipulates news in order to stay in office and who clearly enjoys being "the War President," wants the presidency in order to carry out a particular program with messianic fervor. He would never protect the environment, provide health care, guarantee universal free education, or separate church and state, just to stay in office.



There are also more subtle instances of the US-based left-liberal community dismissing Cuba. For example, Achy Obejas begins a review of Alma Guillermoprieto's book Dancing with Cuba as follows: "It's been a while since Cuba, that caiman-shaped Caribbean isle, ceased to be a place on the map. At some point, it came unhinged and floated away." And a bit later, ".if Cuba inspires, it also provokes despair." These comments reinforce the notion within the US left that it's over, that Cuba is no longer worthy of our support or even interest. This thinking is no doubt influenced by the anti-communism and cynicism so prevalent in this country.



More than 16,000 days have passed since President Eisenhower declared that "Castro's days are numbered." A whole generation of progressives has grown up with Cuba-bashing as a steady background. Antagonism to Cuba has been a constant of US policy through all the changes of administration. Despite any differences in style and strategy, they all aimed to destroy a revolutionary society that almost alone in the world has resisted domination by the corporate empire. It is clear that the Bush administration is escalating this war on Cuba. This is a continuation of more than 40 years of aggression, during which the US government has used military, terrorist, economic, diplomatic, and disinformation weapons to weaken and isolate Cuba in the hopes of overthrowing Cuban socialism. There have been guerrilla bands organized by the CIA in the 1960s and more than 50 attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. A Cuban civilian airliner in flight from Venezuela was downed in 1976, and Cuban diplomats have been murdered. A "transition to democracy" is supposed to result from these aggressions by increasing popular dissatisfaction until it becomes disaffection, by promoting international isolation, and by the murder or natural death of Fidel Castro.



The history of United States propaganda warfare and dirty tricks in the Cold War, against the Mossadegh government in Iran, against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the Allende government in Chile shows that the US government exercises no moral restraint on the stratagems used to justify its policies and hide its interventions. The discussion in Judith Miller's book Germs[6] shows that the US government considered as a legitimate option even the blowing up of a commercial airliner and blaming it on Cuba. As the more violent interventions, such as military invasion and assassination attempts, failed and then fell out of favor (although violence is certainly still being employed), greater emphasis was placed on covert political intervention and disinformation campaigns. Anti-Cuban propaganda is now focusing on discrediting or discounting the most inspiring achievements of the revolution. The recent Bush administration document on a "transition to democracy in Cuba" has a complete program for capitalist restoration that promises such things as a comprehensive immunization program for Cuban children, universal education, and environmental protection, as if Cuba were not already ahead of the United States in all three.



Given what we know, progressives should approach all fresh incidents and accusations against Cuba in the light of this history of cynical disinformation aimed at justifying escalated aggression. Our first reaction should be one of skepticism. We should examine the evidence offered, check the Cuban response to the accusations, and make sure we are not taken in. We must not automatically assume that Cuba has all the faults of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Progressives need to place what they see and hear in the context of the siege of Cuba. I will review the scope and impact of this siege in the next section. Then we will be better placed to examine how Cuba really works and to refute Margaret Thatcher's depressing claim, "There is no alternative."


The Siege of Cuba

Phillip Agee and others have shown that US funding of dissident activity in Cuba adds up to more than $25 million since 1992.[7] Directly appropriated funding is an underestimate. Some funds are channeled through third countries such as Spain and even Norway. The war against Cuba is directed from two major centers: Washington and Miami. The Washington center is controlled by the White House and includes the National Security Council, the CIA, the Pentagon, State Department, FBI, the Agency for International Development (AID), ad hoc interagency working groups, and their allies in Congress. They combine clandestine operations, largely CIA, with diplomatic, legal, and propaganda activities. Further, they work through non-governmental organizations. AID alone has distributed some $20 million to groups such as Freedom House, the Center for Free Cuba, the Institute for Democracy in Cuba, the Pan American Development Foundation, Partners of the Americas, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, the Sabre Foundation, Florida International University, the International Republican Institute and many others. Some are longstanding collaborators with the government's schemes, others were established for the Cuba operations, still others have legitimate as well as noxious activities.



The Miami center is based in the right wing of the exile community. Its economic base is the network of medium-sized and large businesses owned by Cuban Americans and serving the emigré community and Miami as a whole, and the professional counterrevolutionaries who can mobilize broader rightwing resources. It serves US policy goals for Cuba and for the rest of Latin America. In return it receives favorable publicity, training, funding, guidance, access to government agencies and toleration of shady business practices.



Its core has been the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) until it split recently after the death of its founder. It is a legal umbrella organization organized by Jorge Mas Canosa at the instigation of CIA officer Richard Allen, who called for the creation of an organization "that could speak with one voice." The CANF groups around itself a large number of smaller overlapping organizations engaged in propaganda aimed at US policy makers, the general public and Cuba. They also engage in propaganda and harassment aimed at Cubans outside their country. Groups such as Brigade 2506 (veterans of Bay of Pigs), Abdala, Alpha 66, Omega 7, Commando F-4 and CORU are openly military and sabotage units. Some of their members have been trained by the CIA and used in such operations as Iran-Contra, the civil war in El Salvador, and the invasion of Grenada.



After the failure of Operation Mongoose (the Kennedy plan to overthrow the Cuban government with armed and terrorist actions in the 1960s), many of the terrorists branched out into more varied forms of struggle. José Basulto's career is illustrative. A veteran of Bay of Pigs, he served with CIA infiltration teams, shelled a Havana theatre and a hotel from the sea, and then began to present himself as a non-violent resister. He organized Brothers to the Rescue supposedly to help rafters, but also to test Cuban communications and provoke confrontations. A similar case is that of Carlos Alberto Montaner who began by placing bombs within Cuba, went into exile, and was later trained in clandestine skills at Fort Benning by the CIA. He is now a central figure in the new "moderate" counterrevolution. He is based in Spain where in 1990 he founded La Unión Liberal Cubana and in 1991 took the initiative to form La Plataforma Democrática Cubana as a coalition of political parties within Cuba. He urged dissidents to form these parties, the Liberal Party, the Coordinadora Socialdemócrata (Elizardo Sánchez, Vladimiro Roca) and the Partido Demócrata Cristiano (Oswaldo Payá). He explained to them that the purpose in forming these parties was not just ideological but a means of tapping the resources of the like-minded international organizations and of getting access to European governments. But with the collapse of European socialism there was once again an increase in violence. From 1990 to 2000 there were some 108 terrorist actions against Cuba including the shelling of hotels from the sea and the placing of bombs in five hotels. Prominent leaders of counter-revolutionary groups move back and forth freely between violent and non-violent actions. The dissident organizations within Cuba have ties with many of them. Even though the role of the dissidents is public relations at present, they have occasionally been assigned minor intelligence tasks by the US Interest Section, such as finding the home addresses of Cuban leaders who might be targeted for assassination.



There are a large number of counter-revolutionary groups that split, unite, change names, overlap and quarrel. They disagree on tactics and vie for resources. Therefore there are frequent attempts to unite them. There are various umbrella groups such as the Concilio Cubano that includes 140 groups. In January 2004, the Carter Center hosted another such conference to gather the counterrevolution together. It is often said that US policy toward Cuba is irrational, given the absence of a Cuban threat to US security such as Soviet missiles or terrorist bases, and is continued only because of the connections and the campaign contributions of the Cuban rightwing in Miami. But the real reason for US hostility is more political: Cuba represents a bold challenge to US domination of Latin America, living proof that a small third world country can stand up to the colossus of the north. Most of all, Cuba shows that another world is possible. It is this continuing challenge that gives the Miami gang political clout in Washington as well as Florida. This clout is more a consequence than a cause of Washington's policy. In this way, the political influence of the Miami Cubans is analogous to that of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States: in both cases a policy originating in US geopolitical concerns creates the space for the ethnic-based lobby to have an impact.



The emigrés have friends in high places in government and are represented in Congress especially by Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ross Lehtinen. The Bush administration has been particularly eager to recruit emigrés such as James Cason and Otto Reich into State Department and National Security posts. The US agencies and the emigré foci work together but also have their conflicts. The FBI and CIA don't completely trust the emigré groups and infiltrate them. Occasionally operations of one or another Miami group has been interrupted by the Coast Guard or FBI and their activities have become public. After a brief flurry of publicity the culprits usually are quietly released. At times the criminal activity of emigré terrorists cannot be hidden, as when in 1984 Eduardo Arocena of Omega- 7 was tried for the murder of a Cuban diplomat in New York. In this case, the defendant got even with the CIA by revealing that he had released in Cuba plant disease germs provided by the CIA.



Within Cuba the rise and fall of "dissident" activity reflects outside political events. With the end of the Soviet bloc, enemies of the revolution expected the imminent collapse of the Cuban revolutionary government and increased hostile activities in all arenas, especially with information warfare. Here is where the internal "dissidents" come in. Their main task is to provide ammunition to discredit Cuba. They do this by inventing incidents or inflating real deficiencies of the society so that they can be presented as the norm.



The "dissidents" that are known are those engaged in more open activities (as distinguished from those engaged in espionage and sabotage). They number perhaps a few hundred individuals belonging to a shifting set of organizations with similar goals. The distinction between the Human Rights Party (some 15 members) and the Cuban Foundation for Human Rights or the Comité Pro Derechos Humanos, or the Asociación de Periodistas Independientes de Cuba and the Federación de Periodistas de Cuba is usually that their leaders can't get along with each other and compete for attention and funding. The Comité had some 15-20 members all of whom earned their visas and left, so that the present group is completely new. Groups claiming to speak for "free" unions, librarians, journalists or doctors arise, regroup, disappear and then show up again under new labels but with familiar faces. Disaffected individuals become "dissidents" for a variety of reasons and then join the "dissident" world of cliques creating images of their own political importance and competing for US support. They often leave their jobs to work full time as professional "dissidents" living on subsidies from abroad but claim they were fired because of their dissent. Although at present there is no significant social base for the counterrevolution in Cuba, the growing sector of employees of foreign corporations and proprietors of small businesses (now numbering some 150,000 people and, with their families, perhaps half a million) may some day begin to demand political influence as a class, perhaps around issues of taxation. This might change the political situation from the maneuverings of marginal disaffected individuals to one of class conflict.



The dissidents are all linked directly or indirectly to US operations through the United States Interest Section in Havana, the CANF, and foreign governments of Spain, Czech Republic, Norway, and Lithuania, among others, and foreign NGOs. On visits to Miami their leaders meet with emigrés involved in both propaganda and terrorist activities. For instance, Social Democrat Elizardo Sánchez Santa Cruz met with leaders of the PNUD (Partido Nacional de Unidad Democrático), a group that supports armed actions. None of these organizations straighforwardly call themselves Partido Terrorista Revanchista or Coordinadora Unitaria de Asesinos, of course. Today the major strategic ploy of the US government and its Cuban assets is the call for a democratic and peaceful "transition," and its newer allies posture as "moderates."
How Cuba Works

The Cuban revolution was one of the great liberating events in Latin American history; it threw off half a century of United States imperial domination that had sustained a corrupt pseudo-democracy while sponsoring the systematic looting of the country's wealth. Cuba began to build a kind of life that is equitable, just, sustainable, and participatory. Even without the continued hostility and aggression from the United States, this was an overwhelming task.



When the old ruling class left the country, it took with it its colonels, police chiefs, torturers, and the corrupt politicians who had looted the national treasury. It left behind a poor, plundered country with decrepit industries, eroded landscapes, high unemployment and illiteracy, few doctors (most of them in Havana), and a typical colonial economy of sugar monoculture. The Cuban working people have improvised, copied, backtracked, invented, compromised and forged ahead to create the present work in progress that has won the admiration of people throughout the world. It is far from perfect. Socialists do not talk of perfection. The term "workers' paradise," used now as a putdown by enemies of the revolution, is not a claim by participants or observers who know the enormous difficulties, frustrations, and contradictions of the process of changing a whole society and also changing themselves.



Cuba is a socialist society with a mostly socialist economy. Two different principles of distribution have coexisted in Cuba: the socialist principle "to each according to work" and the communist principle "to each according to need." The principle of distribution according to work accords wages with a remarkably small spread to all who work, who have worked (pensioners), or who study: the median wage for all wage-earners in Cuba is 250 pesos a month, while a cabinet minister earns only 450. In addition, goods in short supply such as opportunities for vacations at tourist hotels are given as bonuses and awards to outstanding workers. Cooperative farmers earn their share of the cooperative's returns, often taken as monthly advances as well as at the annual settling of accounts.



The principle of distribution according to need is reflected in social consumption available to everyone: free healthcare and education up to and including the university level, subsidized basic rations, school meals, and daycare, cheap and widespread access to cultural and sport activities. In addition to what is universally available, special arrangements are made to meet unequal needs: diabetics, pregnant women, and nursing mothers get special rations. There are schools for the disabled with employment guaranteed afterward, and special programs for the many young people who dropped out at the start of the Special Period (when jobs were not available and education no longer guaranteed employment). There is teacher training for those who work with deaf-mute and autistic children and university programs for seniors. Teachers are sent to children too isolated to get to school daily, and photovoltaic solar collectors are placed in schools in remote locations that are off the national electric grid. There are also programs to develop special talents in the arts and sports.



That said, it is important to recognize that after the collapse of the Soviet Union and, with it, the bulk of its international trade (which brought on what is known in Cuba as the Special Period), foreign capitalist enterprises and joint foreign/Cuban companies have been allowed to operate in Cuba in order to capture some needed hard currency. Small-scale private businesses were also legalized. Capitalist economics undermines these socialist/communist principles of distribution. It promotes inequality by paying exorbitant salaries to marketing and managerial personnel, especially in the tourist industry. Profitability, marketability, and family connections determine reward in private restaurants, private repair services, the private sale of their own tapes by musicians, and remittances from family abroad. Although the opportunities for corruption are much more limited than in the United States, there was a range of remunerative activities (theft, diversion of state property, gambling, prostitution, and black marketeering) that grew during the height of the Special Period, when people individually had to take care of what was formerly provided collectively. There was a general relaxation of social discipline in that emergency, a tolerance for victimless crimes committed to solve urgent personal economic problems. It will take some time to recover from the impact of this period on people's consciousness.



Most Cubans own their own homes and the others pay minimum rent toward purchase. Of the millions of children who sleep in the streets in the third world, not one is Cuban. Healthcare is not only free but also uniformly distributed. Cuba has the best healthcare in the developing world and is even ahead of the United States in some areas such as reducing infant mortality. Quality education includes such innovations as a limit of 20 children per teacher in primary grades, 15 in junior high and 10 in high school. Since everybody has a right to education, there are some schools in the most isolated places with only a single or a few pupils. Cultural and recreational facilities are also widely diffused throughout the country. Employment is a right, and when industries reduce their staff or close, the workers are guaranteed other jobs with at least equal pay, or else retraining, return to school, or unemployment compensation. Today unemployment stands at about 3%.



Most Cubans believe that they are inventing a new kind of democracy, superior both to what Cuba had before the revolution and to what they see today in the United States and other capitalist countries. In these liberal democracies public office is a marketable commodity and the end result of all the political excitement at election-time is that the same group of people who own the economy continue to own the government. Cubans describe their own system as a way of getting as many people as possible to help run the country through a mixture of participatory and representative processes. Cubans are very aware of the history of defeats in the early struggles for national independence and workers' rights, defeats caused in large measure by divisions in the movements. This has given Cubans a strong sense of the importance of unity as a political goal. Their system is designed to reach consensus rather than promote adversarial conflict. Consensus is sought through extensive discussion at countless meetings in the workplace, the neighborhood, and the 2,200 non-governmental organizations. In fact, when I once asked a meeting of ecologists how aliens on a spaceship flying over Cuba would know there was socialism down below, the answer was, "Everybody is at meetings." The purpose of the meetings is to reach a consensus strong enough to mobilize the active participation of the membership, their enthusiasm, energy, and ideas. The premium placed on consensus is a source of strength for the revolution, but also can at times lead to intolerance of deviant opinion.



At these meetings the major issues of concern to Cuban society are discussed. The Federation of Cuban Women led the discussions on the Family Code and regularly examines the status of women in order to identify obstacles to full equality and make proposals for removing them. The farmers' association leads on questions of agriculture, and so on. In 2004 the new farmers' cooperatives initiated discussions on their relations with the state, the degree of autonomy, how to reconcile their need for an adequate income with the need of the urban population for inexpensive food. In 1993, at the height of the economic crisis of the Special Period, workers' parliaments were convened at thousands of workplaces to discuss which of the revolutionary achievements had to be retained at all cost, what compromises could be made, which of the emergency measures that the National Assembly was proposing were acceptable. They rejected a tax on wages. Every six months the union leadership meets with the heads of government departments to examine issues of wages, bonuses, compliance with the regulations of labor protection, the grievance system, and other issues of concern to the unions and to the country.



Cubans from the age of 16 vote in elections for the municipal and provincial assemblies and for the National Assembly.[8] The elections are non-partisan rather than single-party. The Communist Party runs no candidates although individual members are prominent among those nominated. Nominations for municipal assembly elections take place in open neighborhood meetings, where from two to eight candidates are proposed. There is no campaigning, nor any of the apparatus of lobbyists, speechwriters, and public relations consultants that goes with it. Rather, biographies of the candidates are posted giving their occupation and contributions to society. In some ways they resemble job resumés, or the candidate listings for the Boards of Directors of food cooperatives or professional societies in our country. The voting is by secret ballot and the counting is public. In about 10% of the districts, run-off elections have to be held because nobody has won more the 50% of the votes. Elected representatives hold weekly office hours and twice a year have formal report-back meetings with their constituents. Direct elections are also held for the provincial and national assemblies, with the difference that at these levels there are single candidacies that are determined by candidacy commissions composed of representatives from mass organizations led by a union representative. Among the concerns of the candidacy commissions is the composition of the elected bodies by gender, race, age, and occupation. It is important to have all sectors of the society represented, and progress in the participation of underrepresented groups is noted with satisfaction.



Another aspect of election results is their role as referendums on the revolution. Counterrevolutionaries call on Cubans not to vote or to turn in blank or damaged ballots. Some 10% of the eligible voters either do not vote or do not submit valid ballots. Not all of these represent protest. However this gives a rough idea of the extent of disaffection. When I ask friends whether they are satisfied with their representation, I get a mixed response. Some representatives carry out their duties formally and respond to complaints in bureaucratese, while in other districts they energetically promote their neighborhood's interests.



Cuba has a parliamentary rather than presidential form of government. The 31-member Council of State, elected by the National Assembly every 5 years, acts on behalf of the National Assembly when the latter is not in session. Fidel Castro is the elected head of the Council of State. A few words are in order about the role of Fidel Castro. He is undoubtedly the outstanding political leader in the Americas in the last hundred years. Like Bolívar and Martí he led the struggle to free his country from foreign rule, in this case from the pseudo-republic run from the US Embassy. Unlike the other two he has continued to lead the construction of a new society based on equality, social justice, and sustainability. He has a dual role, as a symbol of the revolution and as its most able politician. When crowds throughout Latin America cheer "Fidel! Fidel!" he knows that it is a cry of admiration for the Cuban revolution rather than his personal charisma. Within Cuba, his formal position is as a delegate to the National assembly, elected from his home district in Santiago by secret ballot. The National Assembly then elects him to head the Council of State, also by secret ballot. Many Cubans see him as a superb visionary and strategist and a not very good administrator. My personal preference would be for him to relinquish the administrative position of Prime Minister and concentrate on what he does best, but this is the Cubans' decision, not mine.[KLW note: This is the one error I detected in this article: Fidel has not held the position of Prime Minister since the early 70s. But Levins' point is still clear.]



There are unresolved problems of Cuban democracy, but the ones the Cubans are concerned with are not the ones that foreign critics are most interested in. One example is that membership in elected bodies is not a full-time paid job. Delegates continue at their day jobs. They do not always have the expertise to rule on the more technical issues that arise. Another is the lack of resources for governments to use, especially at the local level. The struggles against racism and sexism are vital elements in meeting Cuba's goals of equity. Old Cuba experienced a combination of an inherited Spanish colonial racism and an imported North American variety. Advances in eliminating racism are visible in the widespread and growing Afro-Cuban leadership, in the self-identification of Cubans as an Afro-Caribbean people, and in the deeply felt solidarity with Africa that sent Cuban soldiers to fight the South African apartheid regime when it invaded Angola. It is seen in the recognition of the Yoruba and Congo religions as co-equal with Christianity. But racist discrimination persists. For instance, there are no black prima ballerinas in the National Ballet, and Afro-Cubans are still underrepresented in academic fields and overrepresented in vocational schools. After making racial discrimination illegal, Cuba has become aware that this is not enough and that action is needed to extirpate racism from the culture as well as to prevent its re-introduction by foreign investors. One Spanish hotel chain was thrown out of Cuba in part because of racist hiring practices.



The full equality of women has been a revolutionary goal from the beginning, with its specific content evolving as consciousness deepens. The Cuban Family Code recognizes equal responsibility of men and women to contribute to maintaining the household and proclaims equal rights to work, study, and leisure. However women still work 4-6 hours a day at housework in addition to their paid jobs and participation in all sorts of organizations and in government. There are many stories people tell about how the Family Code works out in the complex struggles within the family. This struggle is also seen in a high divorce rate. As one women's leader explained: "Men dream of

women who no longer exist, and women dream of men who do not exist yet." Still, among the children of my friends, relations between men and women are much more egalitarian than in the older generation.



Women occupy 36% of the seats in the National Assembly, are a majority of the professionals and 26% of the directors. In my own areas of experience, the Ministry of Science, Technology, and the Environment, the minister and at least one vice minister are women. The director and all vice directors at the Institute of Citrus Research, the dean of the faculty of mathematics and other centers were all women, many of them Black.



Nevertheless sexist attitudes and discrimination persist, and women are not yet 50% of leadership. The Federation of Cuban Women recently held workshops on why there are not more women leaders. They refuted the idea that women are reluctant to take on those posts, and blamed continued underestimation of women's capacity to lead.



At the time of the revolution in 1959, ecology was not part of the program for the new society. There was, however, awareness of the erosion and deforestation caused by four centuries of foreign rule and that, as a small country, Cuba had limited land and fresh water. Many separate ecologically sound programs were initiated but the prevailing view was developmentalist. That viewpoint, especially popular among economists and planners, saw development as the progression from "backward" to "advanced" along the path previously followed by Europe and North America. It required making use of vast quantities of energy, and a narrowly calculated "efficiency." In agriculture this meant high inputs of pesticides, fertilizers, mechanical power, and expensive animal feed in giant monocultures, i.e., industrial agriculture. The ecologists argued that this kind of modernization undermined the productive capacity of the land, made systems more vulnerable to natural and economic disasters, and poisoned nature and people. They developed an alternative approach based on biological pest control, the use of nitrogen-fixing crops and bacteria, on compost, earthworms, and beneficial fungi to improve soil fertility. They proposed a combination of mechanical and animal traction, with a diversity of crops among regions, within farms and even within fields.



In 1975 the new Cuban Constitution proclaimed environmental protection as a duty of the state and the whole society, and all enterprises were required to include environmental impacts in their plans. Despite the continued predominance of the developmentalists in agriculture and industry, there existed a variety of programs in ecological agriculture, alternative energy, urban planning, and occupational health. These, along with some programs working to protect biodiversity, resist desertification and erosion, and replant forests, gradually coalesced into an ecological perspective in the course of the struggle.



The ecologists won. When imports from the Soviet Union and eastern Europe were suddenly cut off and the high-tech path was no longer an option, there was in place an articulate community of ecologists, a tested alternative technology, and a spreading ecological consciousness available to meet the emergency. Ecologists-by-conviction were joined by the new ecologists-by-necessity.



Nevertheless, there were setbacks because of material scarcity of the period, for example, the cutting of wood for fuel, and a laxity in the enforcement of environmental regulations. But there were also notable achievements: organic agriculture has become the rule in the organopónicos and huertos orgánicos (organic orchards), the urban vegetable gardens that provide a great deal of the food for the cities and are spreading on rural farms. Forest cover has increased from 14% of the Cuban land surface at the time of the revolution to about 23% today toward a target of 27%. Freon is now being replaced as a refrigerant by the Cuban sugar cane derivate LB-12 which does not destroy the ozone layer. The water pollution level is being reduced at the rate of 5-10% per year. Cuba has signed on to the international treaties concerning the environment and climate, and holds workshops to evaluate its own compliance. An ecological society is gradually becoming a conscious goal reflected in policy and education. Cuban socialism is evolving toward a society in which the goals of development are the overcoming of poverty, the improvement in the quality of life, and a sustainable relation with nature rather than a race for unlimited increases of production and consumption at all cost.


Conclusions

The campaign against Cuba is an integral part of the United States' new imperial stance in the world, its claim to the right to intervene in other countries and "take out" leaders they don't like or force "regime change." We should be demanding that Congress reverse the laws aimed at strangling or coercing Cuba, laws that violate international law. If the US escalates its aggression against Cuba, no matter what the excuse, we should be ready to go out in protest immediately, to defend one of the very few societies in which equity, the satisfaction of basic human needs, participatory democracy, and international solidarity are first principles.



We need to free our movement from cold war ideology. Only then can we begin to challenge the disinformation war against Cuba. We have to be ready to reject new excuses for the blockade and other coercive measures and to correct the dismissal of Cuban achievements. What we can learn from Cuba is that there are living alternatives to the way we do things here and that the Canadian national health system is not the only model for providing healthcare for everyone. In healthcare, education, and environmental protection, catching up with Cuba can be a worthy national goal.



We would then be in a position to offer Cuba real criticism, well informed and respectful. Foreign progressive critics have had their impact in the past, in the struggle against homophobia, for example, and for ecological agriculture. The rich American traditions of people's struggles can be a source of valuable insight for the Cubans, while their creative solutions to enormous problems can be a source of hope for us. Cuba warrants the respect, appreciation, and solidarity of progressives in the United States and throughout the world. *



I thank Rosario Morales for help in reworking and editing the manuscript.


Richard Levins is John Rock Professor of Population Sciences, Department of Population and International Health, Harvard University. His theoretical interests have been applied to problems of community development as part of the Board of Directors of OXFAM-America and chair of their subcommittee on Latin America and the Caribbean from 1989 to 1995. Working from a critique of the industrial-commercial pathway of development, he promoted alternative development pathways that emphasize economic viability with equity, ecological and social sustainability and empowerment of the dispossessed. As part of the New World Agriculture and Ecology Group, he has helped to develop modern agroecology, concentrating on the whole-system approaches to gentle pest management. The "Dialectical Biologist," co-authored with Richard Lewontin, presented the authors' approach to the study of the philosophy, sociology and history of science. He has received awards as a pioneer of the ecology movement in Puerto Rico, for long term contributions to the development of agricultural ecology in Cuba, the Edinburgh Science Medal (Scotland) for contributions to science and the broader society, the Lukacs 21st Century Award for contributions to statistical and mathematical ecology, and an honarary doctorate in environmental science from the University of Havana.



[1] [Ed. Note: see Rosa Miriam Elizalde and Luis Báez, "The Dissidents,"

reviewed elsewhere in this issue.]

[2] Cited in Global Justice, Publication of the Center on Rights Development

Vol.4 #1, Fall 1993, from Gustavo Arcos, Twenty Years and Forty Days: Life

in a Cuban Prison.

[3] Christopher Marquis, "Cuba Leads Latin America in Primary Education,

Study Finds," New York Times, December 14, 2001.

[4] See also Sarah Boseley, "Cubans tell NHS the secret of £7 a head

healthcare," Guardian (London), October 2, 2000

[5] Cuba's Report to the UN Secretary General on General Assembly Resolution

58/7, "Necessity of Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial Embargo

Imposed by the United States of America Against Cuba" (2004), p. 31.

[6] Judith Miller et al., Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War

(New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001).

[7] See Philip Agee, "Terrorism and Civil Society as Instruments of US

Policy in Cuba," Socialism and Democracy no. 34 (Summer-Fall 2003).

[8] On Cuba's constitutional structure, see Peter Roman, People's Power:

Cuba's Experience with Representative Government, updated edition (Lanham,

MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).

[ColinH]

Excellent find, comrade. That was a very informative piece that cleared up a few of my own misconceptions of Cuban socialism.

I especially enjoyed this part:

In fact, when I once asked a meeting of ecologists how aliens on a spaceship flying over Cuba would know there was socialism down below, the answer was, "Everybody is at meetings."

[celticfire]

I much prefer this article:

source (http://soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=32840&sid=30e49b8d9cfa1aac02ea603841c55d52)

"Cuba: Socialist or Revisionist?"
by Andrei Andreiovich Mazenov

In 1959, a popular uprising led by Fidel Castro toppled the Batista dictatorship and is backers, the American imperialist lackeys within Havana. Gangsters and pimps were run out of the country, U.S. holdings and the nation's old businesses were nationalized. When the Americans tried reinvade Cuba AGAIN in 1961, they were crushed outrightly through the sheer force of the Cuban masses, and when the American government has tried to hold Cuba down with its embargo and it various military and political actions against them, the Cuban people have resisted with upmost strength. Because of this, as well as the fact that the Cuban people enjoy wonderful social services and living standards as compared to the rest of the "third world", as well as the fact that most of the nation's industries are under state ownership and the Communist Party of Cuba is in power, it is easy to think that Cuba is a socialist nation. However, when we look deeper into the facts, such an assumption could be seen as rather questionable.

Soon after the Cuban Revolution, the Communist Party of Cuba 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- see my post about the USSR from 1956 to 1991). 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. Without the thoroughgoing revolutionary transformation of agriculture, Cuban "socialism" basically came to mean doing a better job at running the same old plantations! In fact, Cuba never succeeded in developing socialism- instead of seeing socialism as building up an economy to serve social needs, they only saw the development of profitable forces in order to step up their trade with the USSR in 1963- which laid the ground for the Cuban economy to be driven by profit rather than social need- thus laying the groundwork for a capitalist system.

This was all rooted in Cuba's inability to break free of its dependency on sugar cane. From 1963-1970, the Cuban government attempted to run the economy by direct command from top officials to achieve increased sugar production- something which created an unequal development of productive forces (in other words, most of the country's money was going into sugar production and very little was going into growing other crops and building up other industries that could have been used to help better the people's lives). Cuba worked for "Russian" goals- i.e. accumulating surplus in the most profitable sectors of the economy rather than in an all-around way, based on balanced and simultaneous development of agriculture, light industry, and heavy industry. Castro subordinated everything to sugar production, and by 1965 the Socialist Republic of Cuba was a fully state-capitalist nation that was imperialized by the USSR.

In 1965, to better trade with the USSR, Cuba adopted the same economic calculus formulated by the Soviet revisionists during the Kosygin Reforms of 1965. Basically, this form of economic theory formulates economic plans by weighing possible profit and loss, as well as simulating free markets and applying market-capitalist criteria at every level, while maintaing state ownership over the most basic means of production. An interesting thing to note is that while all of these theories were immediately and completely implemented in Cuba, they were not fully implemented in the Soviet Union until Gorbachev's perestroika- so, in a sense, the Cubans had perestroika before the Soviets did!

At the First Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba in 1975, it was declared that "The peso should control all economic activity." This declared that accumulating capital was the sole purpose of the nation's economy- admitting, basically, that they were no longer socialist! The Worker's Councils in Cuban workplaces are largely inactive and forgotten; as one of Cuba's economic planning board leaders said to one researcher in the late 1980's, "We do not discuss balance of payments problems with factory workers." In 1980 the Cuban government gave their managers the right to hire and fire freely as well as determine the basic modes of production within the factories, workplaces, etc. The managers pays became far higher than the workers with far less work on their part- something that points to the rise of a new bourgeoisie within the state and party, something which Mao Tse-Tung observed when capitalism was restored by Khrushchev and other counterrevolutionaries within the CPSU in the USSR in 1956.

Some argue that without producing sugar cane for the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc nations that Cuba would have collapsed economically a long time ago, but the sugar industry itself (which was originally built up intending to get more money to build the nation) is the driving factor in Cuba's economic disasters; it has only brought them increased dependency (be it with the USSR or with Western Europe). 1/3 of Cuba's economy is devoted to the sugar cane industry- and 75% of arable land is devoted to cane (while arable land is decreasing due to soil exhaustion). Imagine if the Cubans had instead tried to carry out land reform and used more land for livestock and growing a rich variety of other foods which they have shown to be very capable of growing! Imagine how much better off the Cuban people would be and how much closer they might be to self-sufficiency! What prevents Cuba from developing socialism isn't a lack of natural resources, but the simple fact that it continues to allow commodity relations, capital, and profit to determine their economy- and because of this, Cuba is dependant on importing and exporting most of what it produces, trapping it as a victim of imperialism.

"Imperialism?! What do you mean by imperialism?!" you may say. It's true- Cuba's sugar is useless without imperialist trade transforming it into capital to produce more sugar (instead of that money going to help develop other industries and overall boost Cuba's economy). Castro did not achieve economic independence or national liberation; if Cuba had burned their canefields, distributed the land to the masses, and built of industry and agriculture in an all-around even way that served the needs of the people, it would have achieved national liberation and socialism. Unfortunately, it did not, and from 1959-1991 Cuba was dependent on Soviet social-imperialism and today is dependent on Western Europe and many other parts of the world into keep up these imperialist production relations.

Many people argue that nevertheless the Cuban goverment has brought forth a better life for the people with its amazing welfare state and social services. Well, that's all fine and good, but social services does not a socialist system make! Sweden is much like Cuba, but nobody's under the delusion that Sweden is a worker's state. Cuba does have a high life expectancy of 73, one of the best health care systems in the world, the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America, and a literacy rate of 99-100%. And yet...

The Cuban people have a rather high suicide rate (21.7 per 100,000 deaths) and their average diet is, nutritionally, very poor (thanks to the lack of agrarian land reform). Because of this diet, the Cubans have trouble with many health problems such as heart disease, cancer, obesity, etc.- things that the United States has a big problem with! Most Cuban families live in the same home or village they did when Batista was in power- something that shows how little social transformation has occurred in Cuba since 1959. And personally, I find it rather suspicious that Cuba ha the same percentage of its population in prison as the U.S. (30,000 out of 10.36 million), and sometimes that figure is higher! The Soviet Union's prison population was never that high during the genuinely-socialist Stalin administration. Not to mention the fact that the government encourages private construction and private ownership of housing, something that Castro seems to have learned a bit from good ol' Maggie Thatcher...

Going back to the question of imperialism in Cuba, some people say that Soviet aid is not necessarily social-imperialism. Well, that's true- the People's Republic of China was aided by the Soviet Union during the 1950's, but always used that aid in an all-around way that eventually allowed them to become self-sufficient. Soviet aid to Cuba took 3 forms: aid for particular projects, subsidies in the form of favorable prices for import and export commodities, and balance of payments loans to cover the difference between was Cuba exports and its import needs. Soviet developmental aid was always the smallest component of Soviet aid, amounting to $883.5 million in 1986. It is true, as some argue, that the Soviet Union paid Cuba far above the world market price, but less that 20% of the world's sugar was (and still is) sold at that price! The U.S. does the exact same thing to places like the Philippines and Haiti, but certainly not out of benevolence or in order to help those nation's economies! Long-term above-market contract-price contract arrangements are advantageous because they secure an assured quality and quantity of sugar at an assured time, which is of great importance for the continuous operation of vast markets. Even the Cuban Central Bank itself admitted that "Soviet aid to Cuba conceals Soviet extraction of Cuban surplus value"- something that blatantly admits that this ain't simply trade between two socialist nations!

The USSR's loans to cover Cuba's negative balance of trade ($5 billion) were on unequal terms and were on the exact terms of America's old loans during the Batista era. Even the Soviet-Cuban oil trade was imperialistic too: Cuba imported more oil than it needed, but used all of it for re-exporting at world market prices to Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. so that it could pay off its debts to the USSR. It paid for the oil by selling 3/4 of its sugar to the USSR- which meant that 56.25% of Cuba's economic output went to the USSR instead of its own people! This uneven trade relation still continues today, with the former Soviet republics and Western European/E.U. nations continuing to do the exact same thing to Cuba- in fact, Cuba gets most of its oil that it uses not from its own oil wells or from the former USSR; it has to import from other Latin American nations such as Venezuela because of the vampiric imperialist relations it has trapped itself in. In 1988 alone, Cuba's debt to U.S.-bloc Western European nations such as the U.K., France, (West) Germany, etc. reached $5.7 billion. Cuba's oil and non-Soviet sugar sales were (and still are) based on the U.S. dollar and the North American/European Union market despite the U.S. embargo- something that has made the Cuban economy basically dependent on capitalist nations and allowed it accumulate one of the highest debts in the "Third World". This only has resulting in extending the reproduction of dependent relations, and has moved the "Socialist" Republic of Cuba farther and farther away from genuine socialism.

Since the fall of the Eastern Bloc nations, Cuba has decided to make tourism account for 40% of its present export earning. This means more mooney is going into the profitable (notice that rather capitalist word coming back in again?) tourist industry rather than going to serve the needs of the Cuban masses. Even prostitution, the exploitation and sexual objectification of women, is allowed by the Cuban government in some tourist areas. What kind of socialist nation is that?! Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all clearly stated that the purpose of production under socialism should be to serve the people at ALL TIMES and do EVERYTHING for them, instead of basing the economy on profit and "supply/demand" bourgeois economics. If the law of value determines what gets produced and how, capitalist exploitation will be reproduced. Social inequalities will be considered too costly to overcome and social inequality, economic injustice, and political oppression will stay in place. This is why Cuba has never become genuinely socialist and it is why it depended on the social-imperialist/state-capitalist Soviet Union to bail it out all the time from 1959 to 1991.

Castro constantly praised Gorbachev and adapted Cuba's economy to his policies; if the Soviet-Cuban trade partnership were simply a socialist trade partnership, Cuba wouldn't have had to change its economy alongside the USSR's in order to survive! Cuba's entire army was for decades dependent on the USSR and aided in the Soviet invasions of Eriteria and Angola. Many people defend Cuba's resignation to social-imperialism saying that without it that the USA would have invaded them again and this time succeeded. But after the Bay of Pigs incident, the USA was rather demoralized in terms of Cuba, and it was too busy protecting its interests in Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and many of its other Cold War disputes; thus it is doubtable whether the USA would have crushed Cuba or not. That is beside the point, however- even is Cuba WAS crushed, it wouldn't have made it wrong to have tried, since the USSR and China were also overthrown and they certainly weren't wrong for trying to developing socialism (also, keep in mind that the level of "living standards" should always be subordinate to the goal of advancing toward communism; in other words, it is better to go without if the only way to obtain certain desired goods is by falling back on capitalist strategies or by becoming a new exploiter state)!

If the Cuban masses are to truly attain national liberation, build socialism, and pave the way to communism, they must grasp Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as their ideology and build a New Democratic Revolution with a protracted People's War. They must overthrow the old revisionists and pro-social-imperialist lackeys within the old government and establish a new, TRUE Socialist Republic of Cuba guided by the revolutionary science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This is the only way they can achieve liberation, and this is what we must uphold for them.

Sources:
1. "Burn Down the Cane Fields!: Notes on the Political Economy of Cuba, Part II" A World to Win! magazine #15, 1990.
2. Lina Fuller, "Power at the Workplace: The Resolution of Worker-Management Conflict in Cuba", in Andrew Zimbalist, ed. 1987 p. 152
3. Cuban Central Bank study cited by Zimbalist and Eckstein, p. 20.
4. The First Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba, 1975.
5. Latin America Regional Reports: Caribbean, 21 July, 1988
6. "Elian Amid the Sharks", Revolutionary Worker newspaper #1051, April 23, 2000

[redstar2000]

All of us who've worked for a living for any period of time have seen it.

Two guys who work for different companies...and each guy is trying to explain why "his company" (:lol:) is a "better place to work" than the other guy's.

In "my" company, we get this...and your outfit doesn't do that!

Oh yeah? Well, at my company, we get this...and your company's never even heard of the idea.

Thus the disputes between supporters of Cuba, Inc. and the old People's China, Inc.

That bourgeois "leftists" in the U.S. indulge themselves in "Cuba-bashing" is hardly any surprise either. They also "China-bashed" while Mao was still alive and even continue the practice now.

They had and have no interest in what Cuba "is really like" or what China "was really like".

Their message is and has always been the same: It's better to reform the Empire than to overthrow it.

I do not imagine that any people on this board who are at all serious about left politics take any of their crap seriously.

Instead, what many of us think is that neither Castro's Cuba nor Mao's China are "useful models" for what we want.

Hence it is difficult to take questions like "is Cuba a socialist country or was it ever one?" very seriously.

The almost forgotten ancient meaning of the word "socialism" was an ultra-democratic state apparatus that was actually controlled directly by the working class. As Marx and Engels both pointed out explicitly, the Paris Commune was the first such state to ever exist.

No one seriously argues that such a state existed more than briefly in Russia (at best) or ever existed at all in either Cuba or China.

So the disputes really boil down to things like...

1. Which despotism was/is more "benevolent"?

2. Which despotism was/is "better" at economic development?

3. Which country was most "held back" by U.S. imperialism?

Castro's Cuba clearly "wins the prize" for "benevolence".

Mao's China clearly "wins the prize" for "well-rounded economic development".

And Cuba has suffered far more from the U.S. economic embargo than China did under Mao.

I think what is really at stake here is the unspoken assumption that we must "choose" between these or similar despotic options.

How is it that "socialism" has been degraded to the point where "all it means" is a "choice" among despotisms?

And how is that there are still people who proclaim their opposition to the despotism of capital entirely in terms of alternative despotisms?

If that's really "all there is", why bother?

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

[Entrails Konfetti]

I never though this day would come. But I'm beginning to agree with Redstar2000 on the issue of going right to Communism instead of a transitory period thats petty-bourgoeis in nature.

Funny that.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 19 2005, 02:26 PM
I never though this day would come. But I'm beginning to agree with Redstar2000 on the issue of going right to Communism instead of a transitory period thats petty-bourgoeis in nature.

Funny that.
Agreed. We may get stuck there like Cuba or USSR.


As you already know, things only deteroriate from there :(

[Zeitgeizt]

redstar2000


You have completely ignored the content of the article.


Not only that - you have a 1 line answer to every existing, or struggling Socialist country that has ever existed. You are so infantile, and dogmatic that I almost rather listen to George Bush Cuba bash.

Your non-scientific, unfalsifiable, and "pure socialist" :wub: text book position completely ignores objective historical conditions, which lead the world’s greatest revolutionaries into the same place over and over.

I doubt an anarchist could do any better - in fact when was the last revolution that your sect actually started and succeeded in? The fact that the bourgeoisie doesn't even waste their breath on you should be a clear sign they don't see "pure Socialists" as a serious threat to their hegemony.

Objectively, there is more that unites us than divides us, but your blind hatred, and bourgeois analysis of existing Socialism (however imperfect and isolated struggling Socialism may be) is as hurtful to international socialism as a commentator for the National Review, or Heritage Foundation bad mouthing us - in fact it is worse, because you claim to be on our side - at least until the revolution happens.

Back up the dogmatic 1-line arguments with some facts. This poster went out of his way to present a different side of the coin - Doesn’t your radar go off that you may be wrong when you share the same opinion of Castro, and Cuba as George Bush, and the Cuban Mafia?

I guess you know more than all revolutionary leaders---past and present--- who were able to inspire, organize, educate, and lead millions of people on a path to a new world...even if it didn't always succeed to your hyper-perfectionist standards - ignoring embargos, military invasions, and internal sabotage - at least provide some in depth critique of the inherent problems in centralized planning, economic stagnation, or what leads to these aforementioned unexplainable "phenomena". REDSTAR KNOWS BETTER THAN HO-CHI MINH, MAO, CHE, CASTRO, LENIN, AND ALLENDE...GIMME A BREAK.

You make absolutistic statements about the role of the state, without understanding why this imperfect instrument must exist. History develops unevenly, and obviously so do radicals. Pure Socialism, as intended by the metaphysical gods of Utopianism doesn't exist - wake up, but you are at a subjective point where rational arguments don't convince you of anything...because like a religionist, you have an absolute dynamic engraved in your brain, and it won't change for anyone, or anything. And history will go on to prove you wrong over and over again.

Oh and to the RPC guy, it was rude to publish a piece right underneath this highly unique article without even bothering to comment on it. Post a new thread, but don't derail this one because you had a knee jerk impulse.

As Woody Allen says "Blame is for god and small children", and all you are doing is finger pointing...To understand is not to forgive, but what you have added to this debate is more of the same, while this article demonstrates clearly that many preconceived notions about Cuba are in fact a farce, and are nearly identical (even the RCP guys piece) to that of the bourgeoisie. If Cubans hate Castro than why is that revolution still alive despite global isolation? Because of the brutal hand of Castro? Get real.

Don't listen to me, try Neslon Mandela:



Nelson Mandela:


"Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro... Cuban internationalists have done so much for African independence, freedom, and justice. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of a vicious imperialist campaign designed to destroy the advances of the Cuban revolution. We too want to control our destiny... There can be no surrender. It is a case of freedom or death. The Cuban revolution has been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people."


Nelson Mandela:



"I went to Cuba in July 1991, and I drove through the streets with Fidel Castro. There were a great deal of cheers. And I also waved back believing that these cheers were for me. Fidel was very humble; he smiled but he never said a word. But when I reached the square where I had to make some remarks to the crowd, then I realized that these cheers were not meant for me, they were meant for Fidel Castro. Because everybody forgot about me, and was really aroused by Fidel Castro. Then I realized that here was a man of the masses."

Forget about your twisted fixation with personalities for a second. By saying that the Cuban people are being ruled by an unscrupulous dictator, you are negating the decades long struggle of the Cuban people for a new way of life, as well as belittling their achievements, and advances, and if I were a patriotic Cuban Socialist I may find the arrogance of young American arm chair radicals a little much to stomach, especially considering you haven't applied any of your brilliant insight into getting the fetters of imperialist yolk off of their struggling nation - we live in the lions den if you haven't forgotten.

If anyone is viewing this struggle from the top down it is you. If anyone here doesn’t give credit to the struggling proletariat of the world, and Cuba - it is again you. You see Cuba as a totalitarian society, ruled by a cult personality, and therefore you insult the intelligence and integrity of the Cuban people - and that is not very Socialist. You call us unrealistic...yeah pure anarchism... with no centralized government leading this contemporary world forward, with a complex web of multi-national relations and interdependence of trade, which requires a great deal of complicated organization, protocol, and coordination is really likely :blink: ...rock on guy - Brilliant idea....keep spouting that same tired dogma that absolute power corrupts everything, and ignore the context which lead to these conditions.....even though we just proved this reality doesn't exist in Cuba.


Where do I sign up?>This guy has the answers, or then again...doesn't claim to - he is just being objective..What a safe place that must be. :ph34r:



Peace, and no hard feelings....

Comrade Zeit Out

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 10:32 AM

That bourgeois "leftists" in the U.S. indulge themselves in "Cuba-bashing" is hardly any surprise either. They also "China-bashed" while Mao was still alive and even continue the practice now.

They had and have no interest in what Cuba "is really like" or what China "was really like".

I do not imagine that any people on this board who are at all serious about left politics take any of their crap seriously.

Instead, what many of us think is that neither Castro's Cuba nor Mao's China are "useful models" for what we want.
And yet the two (reformist left and ultraleft opposition to the Cuban revolution) are very hard to distinguish in practice. Certainly you have never shown any interest in the facts of what Cuba's "really like", and don't here. As Zeitgeist pointed out, you've completely ignored all of Levin's points.

It's an excellent article....but I think Levin's "Cold War" explanation is not the core reason for leftist hostility to the Cuban revolution.

It's much simpler IMO: fake revolutionaries find it easier to be for revolution in the abstract while opposing all concrete, real-world revolutions. Jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today!

This applies much more broadly than Cuba, and IMO even in cases where the political regime really is profoundly rotten....the positive accomplishments of the revolution still need to be defended, in countries from east Germany to China. Defended against the regime, in many cases, as well as from the pressure of imperialist finance capital.

Workers in China strike every day, objectively in defense of the remaining gains of the Chinese revolution....but how many leftists can connect that to the need to defend China from the pressure and threats of world capitalism? Far fewer than those who see it as a reason to support imperialist trade sanctions against China, aka oppose free trade.

Cuba's just a special case of this general phenomenon...and a particularly acute one, because in Cuba the political regime does defend the social gains.

****

Edit: that nonsense article Celticfire posted was thoroughly refuted in this thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31514&hl=) It amazes me that they still post something so discredited....perhaps it's just that cultish followers of Chairman Bob lack the critical thinking skills to realize when they've lost a debate.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)You have completely ignored the content of the article.[/b]

Which you "repay" by completely ignoring the content of my post.

Are we "even"? :lol:


Not only that - you have a 1 line answer to every existing, or struggling Socialist country that has ever existed. You are so infantile, and dogmatic that I almost rather listen to George Bush Cuba bash.

Well, your president gets a lot more "air time" than I do...so you are free to enjoy your preference.


Your non-scientific, unfalsifiable, and "pure socialist" text book position completely ignores objective historical conditions, which lead the world’s greatest revolutionaries into the same place over and over.

The "same place"? You mean despotism?

Why don't you try thinking about this stuff instead of just mindless ranting?

There does seem to be a high correlation between eras of early capitalism and despotism...possibly due to the demands of primitive capital accumulation.

Do you understand what that means? In order to industrialize, a ruling class must acquire a surplus to invest. There are various potential sources of that surplus.

In bourgeois "democracies", much of that surplus originated in imperialist exploitation of weaker parts of the world.

Another source is foreign direct investment...but that has its drawbacks.

Often, the only realistic option is especially rigorous exploitation of the country's own working class and peasantry.

Thus a despotic regime is "required" in order to keep the masses working instead of consuming.

The "socialisms" that you uphold do not differ in any significant way from early capitalism.

Which is just what would be expected if those revolutions were in fact bourgeois revolutions.

To be sure, all of your "socialisms" had and still have superior social services...in some cases approaching the standards of advanced capitalist countries.

But those services have greatly deteriorated since the emergence of modern capitalism in those countries...as, in fact, they are deteriorating in all the advanced capitalist countries.


Objectively, there is more that unites us than divides us...

Oh? You could have fooled me. :lol:

Your childish devotion to "revolutionary celebrities" is something I outgrew in my late 20s.

I hope you'll do it faster than I did. :)


Back up the dogmatic 1-line arguments with some facts.

The "facts" are not in dispute. What upsets you is the historical materialist interpretation of the facts.

You think that rhetoric is reality. As if history was a "costume drama".

It ain't.

Should you ever decide to study the Marxist outlook in a serious way, you will discover that the first "command" is look beneath appearances!


I guess you know more than all revolutionary leaders---past and present--- who were able to inspire, organize, educate, and lead millions of people on a path to a new world.

Their "new world" turned out to be modern capitalism.

They didn't know that that is what they were doing.

But I know...so yes, with the benefit of hindsight, I do know "more" than all those guys.

Moreover, I do not "reproach" them for their ignorance. None of them really understood what Marx was saying and all of them were fundamentally idealist rather than materialist.

But people with your views have no excuse!

Your view of a revolutionary left is as some kind of fucking fan club...as shown by your quotations from Mandela.

Never mind what has happened or what is going to happen. What's really important is the size of the audience and how much they applaud the show!


You make absolutistic statements about the role of the state, without understanding why this imperfect instrument must exist.

I know why some people think the state "must exist" -- so that they can have a good job.

It would be refreshing if they'd admit that...but I ain't holding my breath.


And history will go on to prove you wrong over and over again.

And your track-record? :lol:


Severian
And yet the two (reformist left and ultraleft opposition to the Cuban revolution) are very hard to distinguish in practice.

Only for you. :lol:


It's much simpler IMO: fake revolutionaries find it easier to be for revolution in the abstract while opposing all concrete, real-world revolutions.

Well, that takes me off the hook. :)

I completely support all the anti-imperialist bourgeois revolutions in the "third world".

I just don't take their "Marxist rhetoric" seriously anymore. The 20th century proved that the rhetoric did not and can not correspond to material reality.


Cuba's just a special case of this general phenomenon...and a particularly acute one, because in Cuba the political regime does defend the social gains.

Yes, those social gains.

But then there's this...

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

A little different from what Bush and the Miami mafia have to say, eh? :lol:


Workers in China strike every day, objectively in defense of the remaining gains of the Chinese revolution....but how many leftists can connect that to the need to defend China from the pressure and threats of world capitalism?

This opens up something hitherto unexplored in your views. The implication seems to be that China is "still socialist" and requires "defending" from world capitalism, right?

I don't wish to attribute to you views that you do not hold...but is this what you actually think?

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

[The Grey Blur]

Excellent article. I've only read half of it but it really helped clear up a thing or two. Regarding answers I've already seen from leftists in this thread which condemn Cuba I can only say,

"What the hell have you done?"

[Zeitgeizt]

Before I start I wanted to say nice post Severian -I agreed with much---if not all---of what you said.




Why don't you try thinking about this stuff instead of just mindless ranting?


I actually made arguments, if you noticed my critique is longer than 1 sentence long sound bites of dogma.

You are behaving like a reactionary but you see yourself as an independent revolutionary thinker, who has somehow reinvented the Socialist wheel of history, and Marxist theory. Many of the accusations you make about "Leninists" are not even true. Keep standing on your own two feet, and maybe one day you will get a following, but to be honest - I don't think that day will ever come.


What did primitive accumulation have to do with anything that pertained to my article? Did you want to use Marxism against me to demonstrate that you understand the role of the state in protecting Capital accumulation? How is Capitalist primitive accumulation analogous with the states role in Socialism - protecting the country from invasion, creating an army, coordination of municipalities and industry and the redistribution of private property? You are comparing apples to oranges - I think an accusation like that would require a book instead of 1 sentence.



You keep ranting about despotism...Maybe we don't see Cuba as simply a despotism....you do. You insult the Cuba people, and past revolutions, and their leaders...you are so blinded by your hatred of Marxists, that you can't see straight. I'm sorry that's how I feel from reading your posts.


Answer me this: Is there a revolution in the world that you support, or have ever supported? Why isn't Chavez, or Mandela embracing your revisionism, and taking the path of message board crony Redstar2000...who is ready with an angry red face to take the Socialists world by storm?


I can;t talk to a guy like you. I am sorry I started this conversation. Nothing you read is going to help you - get some blood pressure medication fast.

[Tekun]

Originally posted by Rage Against The [email protected] 20 2005, 03:58 PM
Excellent article. I've only read half of it but it really helped clear up a thing or two. Regarding answers I've already seen from leftists in this thread which condemn Cuba I can only say,

"What the hell have you done?"
I wholeheartedly agree brother ;)

[redstar2000]

I actually made arguments, if you noticed my critique is longer than 1 sentence long sound bites of dogma.

No, the bulk of your post is just a rant directed against me...with the implication that any criticism of any self-proclaimed "great socialist leader" is the equivalent of "lining up with the bourgeoisie".

Would you like me to specify where you can shove that idiotic "argument"?


You are behaving like a reactionary...

And you are behaving like an asshole! :lol:


How is Capitalist primitive accumulation analogous with the state's role in Socialism - protecting the country from invasion, creating an army, coordination of municipalities and industry and the redistribution of private property?

The first three things on your list are identical. And even the last is "about the same".

The 19th century bourgeois revolutionaries took property from the old aristocratic ruling class for themselves.

Leninist revolutionaries took property from the old aristocracy and the imperialist bourgeoisie and concentrated it in the hands of a state apparatus owned and operated by the Leninist Party.


You keep ranting about despotism...

Drives you up the wall, does it?

Why is that? :lol:


You insult the Cuba people, and past revolutions, and their leaders.

Gee, maybe you should challenge me to a duel! :lol:


You are so blinded by your hatred of Marxists, that you can't see straight.

Your posts thus far suggest that you wouldn't know Marxism from rheumatism.

What really gripes your ass is that I've "insulted" your "socialist heroes" by demonstrating the abyss that lies between their "Marxist" rhetoric and their radical bourgeois practice.


Is there a revolution in the world that you support, or have ever supported?

I answered this is my first reply to you...but since when do Leninists have to actually read stuff, right?


Originally posted by redstar2000
I completely support all the anti-imperialist bourgeois revolutions in the "third world".

I just don't take their "Marxist rhetoric" seriously anymore. The 20th century proved that the rhetoric did not and can not correspond to material reality.

But, of course, that's not "good enough" for your "groupie of the year" award, is it?

In your eyes, a "revolutionary" is one capable only of prostrate worship of "great socialist leaders".

Bob Avakian Wants You! :lol:


...but you see yourself as an independent revolutionary thinker, who has somehow reinvented the Socialist wheel of history, and Marxist theory.

Well yes, that is what I'm trying to do.

What Marx and Engels really thought about things has been buried under a century's accumulation of toxic Leninist waste.

All of which must be entirely removed!

It is to this necessary task that I have chosen to devote the remaining years of my life.

We will begin to make real progress when we finally understand that Leninism is a radical bourgeois ideology...totally irrelevant to the self-emancipation of the working class from wage-slavery.


Keep standing on your own two feet, and maybe one day you will get a following, but to be honest - I don't think that day will ever come.

I certainly hope not. Unlike all your "socialist celebrities", I have no desire for "ticker-tape" parades or seeing my picture plastered all over the place.

What I attempt is to win people to a simple idea: look at social reality critically!

That means never "hero worship". It means don't accept words in place of reality. It means try to figure out what really happened and what is really happening now.

Someone like yourself probably finds this message incomprehensible. Your measure of "revolutionary dedication" is just how fast your knees hit the floor when a "great socialist leader" enters the room.


I am sorry I started this conversation.

No doubt.

I wish you a speedy recovery from the traumatic shock you have experienced on your first encounter with communist ideas.

Just go and light a few candles under the icon of your favorite "great socialist leader" and you'll feel better in a few weeks. :lol:

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

[Zeitgeizt]

I'm sorry that the remaining years of your life are going to be a waste, and I don't say that to hurt you, but I sincerely feel you are wasting your time - I've taken a look at your site, and it's not so brilliant or original.

Leninism is not a bourgeois theory - simply because Leninism abolishes private property, and safe guards the dictatorship of the Proletariat against an invasion, as they did in 1918 when over a dozen nations ---including the U.S. invaded Russia and nearly toppled the revolution. Imagine giving no credit to the Soviet people who fought and died, and to the vanguard that put the revolution on a path towards Socialism. The material conditions of Russia in 1917 were not ideal, Feudalistic relations still existed, but Lenin skipped Marx's theory that the means of production needed to be fully matured, and said if there is an opportunity to seize revolution than do it, but don't willingly hand state power over to the bourgeoisie.

In the 3rd world today - the Revolutionary countries you support, are not fully matured industrially, yet you seem to share Lenin’s opinion that the material conditions for revolution are ripe, so maybe unknowingly you have adapted a bit of Leninism into your own theory.

You continue to make these claims that Revolutionary leaders devote their life to the cause of Socialism because "they want a good job" (How stupid is that? Seriously listen to yourself) - Castro, Lenin, Che and others were already doctors, and lawyers, and if they wanted to be opportunistic scum bags wouldn't they just sell out to the bourgeoisie (AND I DEMAND YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION OR I WON'T REPLY TO YOUR NEXT POST)

Why does Nelson Mandela praise Castro as a man of the people, but you think he is a despot, in the same manner as George Bush? Do you feel that if Cuba opened it's papers, and had a free "democratic" society by your standards that everything would be fine? That the bourgeoisie, and rich Cuban mafia wouldn’t exploit those means, as they do in Venezuela under Chavez? Are you really a man of Democracy because you seem like a loose cannon firing at anything that isn't this utopian workers paradise, which would come into effect the day after the revolution takes place, and private property is abolished. What a childish and utopian concept you carry, and what a waste of time.


Leninist revolutionaries took property from the old aristocracy and the imperialist bourgeoisie and concentrated it in the hands of a state apparatus owned and operated by the Leninist Party.


What benefits did Lenin and the apparatchiks enjoy? Yes they had larger apartments and a limo service... List some truly outrageous discrepancies in economic life, which would be significant, and irrefutable proof that the leaders of the Soviet Union enjoyed an economic democracy far greater than that of the average worker. We all know corruption existed, but to what degree and what extent is another subject all together, and please don't use the Heritage foundation as a source, although they could probably use you on their anti-communist red squads.

Leninism is Marxism in praxis. If Marx were alive, I don't think he would agree with you. I could never picture Marx being so rigid, narrow, and dogmatic. Marx was a man of science who changed his views as material reality changed...you are like a stiff board, who completely puts emphasis on what you feel led to the failure of Socialism...You are wrong - plain and simple...Stop wasting your time.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
I've taken a look at your site, and it's not so brilliant or original.

Well, I can't please everyone...but then that was never my goal anyway. :lol:


Leninism is not a bourgeois theory - simply because Leninism abolishes private property, and safe guards the dictatorship of the Proletariat against an invasion, as they did in 1918 when over a dozen nations ---including the U.S. invaded Russia and nearly toppled the revolution.

And after the invasions were defeated, what did Lenin's party do?

Come on now, you must have at least vaguely heard of the "New Economic Policy" (NEP), right?

Known to us Marxists as the restoration of private property in the means of production.

But, "since Lenin did it", then it "must be ok", right? :lol:


...but Lenin skipped Marx's theory...

Glad to see that you admit it.

Now, who was right?

Marx or Lenin?


You continue to make these claims that Revolutionary leaders devote their life to the cause of Socialism because "they want a good job" (How stupid is that? Seriously listen to yourself) - Castro, Lenin, Che and others were already doctors, and lawyers, and if they wanted to be opportunistic scum bags wouldn't they just sell out to the bourgeoisie (AND I DEMAND YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION OR I WON'T REPLY TO YOUR NEXT POST)

Some middle class people are more ambitious than others. Some even sincerely desire to be "benevolent" despots and "go down in history" as "Men of the People".

On the other hand, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that some of the people who defend Leninism on this board have careerist motivations.

Class mobility is decreasing and elements of the petty-bourgeoisie do not find "the road to the top" as open as it once was.

Why should anyone be shocked that some of them would seek "a different path"?

What remains of modern Leninism in the "west" is almost entirely reformist...an "alternative road to the top" that looks more "passable" than "revolution".

I think they are doomed to disappointment.

But we'll see. :)


Do you feel that if Cuba opened its papers, and had a free "democratic" society by your standards that everything would be fine?

Beats me.

Everything would be very different...that's for sure.

Just imagine if the Cuban press was open to ordinary Cuban workers (and not to the Miami mafia). How would workers change the shape of Cuban "socialism" if they had the power to do so?

Leninists, like all members of the petty-bourgeoisie, think that working people are always "too ignorant and backward" to be allowed to actually run things.

Perhaps that's "true" at the present time in the "third world".

And even in the "first world"...though not for much longer, in my opinion.

Most if not nearly all of the "western" working class has rejected the whole idea of "great socialist leaders".

Or "great leaders" of any kind.

Progress has been made.

And there's more to come. :)


...you seem like a loose cannon firing at anything that isn't this utopian workers' paradise...

Yeah...I decide myself where to point my cannon -- while ignoring all "orders" from "Party headquarters".

Shame on me! :lol:


What benefits did Lenin and the apparatchiks enjoy? Yes they had larger apartments and a limo service... List some truly outrageous discrepancies in economic life, which would be significant, and irrefutable proof that the leaders of the Soviet Union enjoyed an economic democracy far greater than that of the average worker.

The "apparatchiks" got to make the decisions!

They stood in a different relationship to the means of production than ordinary Russian workers.

It's possible that you may have heard: that's how Marxists define a "class".

Or were you out of the room while that was discussed? :lol:


Leninism is Marxism in praxis.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


If Marx were alive, I don't think he would agree with you.

Well, there's no way to put that to the test, is there?

It's my view that you would find Marx's opinion of Leninism completely incomprehensible...unless, of course, you are fluent in 19th century German profanity. :lol:

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

[KC]

Originally posted by RedStar2000

Yes, those social gains.

But then there's this...

Castro Pays Homage to a Dead Pope

A little different from what Bush and the Miami mafia have to say, eh?

This would be the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem. It has nothing to do with social gains. Try again.

Redstar, I am waiting for you to provide these facts about Cuban politics that make it so bad. Do you even know how democratic Cuba is? Do you support Cuba, even?

[Zeitgeizt]

They stood in a different relationship to the means of production than ordinary Russian workers.

By Different are you trying to say “State Capitalism”?


Leninists, like all members of the petty-bourgeoisie, think that working people are always "too ignorant and backward" to be allowed to actually run things.

You twist semantics, and theories almost as bad as a grad student in a think tank, or a FOX news pundit. Lenin said the workers don’t advance past trade unionist consciousness without Socialist theory, meaning they never think to seize the means of production. “A fish cannot reflect on the nature of water, he cannot imagine it’s absence therefore he can never consider it’s presence”. – Next you are going to probably say that by stating that quote--- which is meant to demonstrate a theoretical premise----that I therefore believe the workers are as dumb as fishes. You are like the Sean Hannity of Marxism.

Secondly, I am from the working class – born and raised in Jackson Heights Queens, even though where I grew up is completely irrelevant to what class I fight for.

It is true that the Petty Bourgeois do become disgruntled, and do unite with the working class because their own existence, and future is precarious, just as it is for their brothers in the working class, both human, both contradictory, and both sharing the same desire for social justice, civil and economic peace, and political liberty.

I actually learned Marxism from a petty bourgeois, and I am not ashamed to admit it. He saw that I was a pissed off kid, with some potential and handed me Historical Materialism by Maurice Cornforth ( a guide written in plain language for the workers...he must be an elitest too, or how about a realist?)– my life is indebted to him, and he is just as much a brother in the class struggle as anyone else…I am 25, and he is 64, and no doubt he could run circles around you.



“The Road to the top” Some middle class people are more ambitious than others. Some even sincerely desire to be "benevolent" despots and "go down in history" as "Men of the People".


Why are so preoccupied with this social pyramid? A petty bourgeois guy doesn’t find the road to becoming a millionaire easy, so he chooses a life of drudgery, isolation, atomization, and struggle, when he could easily settle for somewhere in the middle? A little house, a sexy wife, kids, etc…If anything I give the petty bourgeois more credit, because at least he fights when he has other options open to him, and he should be commended for that, not castigated by some jaded old wing bag who explains the role of the vanguard like a psychotherapist … You can’t see into the hearts of men, our social being determines consciousness, but we do not act purely out of self interest – there is no law that states just because you grew up in Capitalism that you are going to be inherently narcissistic in your behavior.



I would never accuse you of being an anarchist because you want a bigger slice of the pie that you couldn’t get unless you disposed of the rich bourgeoisie. If I did such a thing that would be unscientific to accuse you of, and I would hope you wouldn’t take my argument very seriously…I can’t see into your heart. I don’t know what motivates you, and what ambitions you have, but if you have chosen this path because you want a better cut for yourself then I would suggest you might be in the wrong field.

Leninism demonstrates scientifically, and historically provides us with much evidence that a government is required post revolution. Would Cuba, China, Vietnam, Chile, or Russia, have had a revolution if not for the leadership igniting the masses? There is no revolution without the masses, but unfortunately, if you were from the working class---which I can tell you are not---then you would realize we are usually too exhausted from work to go off and read esoteric economics, nor are our schools very good at that. In my school you were lucky to escape the day without getting your ass kicked – we weren’t so concerned with Adam Smith, or Karl Marx. I didn’t even know we lived in a Capitalist economy until I turned 19, when I happened to meet my teacher – thank god he wasn’t you – I may still be unemployed, pissed at the world, and drunk with a purpose- not because it was the cool thing to do like the petty bourgeois kids.

Think about what I said for a minute- You have the rest of your life to devote to not making any fucking sense.



Just imagine if the Cuban press was open to ordinary Cuban workers (and not to the Miami mafia). How would workers change the shape of Cuban "socialism" if they had the power to do so?

Yes it would be wonderful if the press were free, and television could be utilized to educate humanity, and coordinate society, it would also be nice if Cuba didn’t have an imperial noose around her throat, and the constant fear that the United States is going to land on her shores – yet again. Again, there is a great deal of democracy in the Cuban press, but they don't allow "people of conscience" funded by all sorts of corporate foundations to call for the overthrow of the government, and restoration of Capitalism.

But of course Castro shapes everything, and like Lenin, Stalin and Mao everything is his fault, because he calls all the plays… Give me a break. Do you think Marx would analyze the totality of contemporary U.S Capitalism as the product of George Bush’s evil ambitions? No he would see the politico-economic factors, which govern---for the most part---the engines of monopoly Capitalism forward. You accuse us of being obsessed with personalities? You are the one who can’t shut up about the Communist leadership. I admit between the RCP, and the Bob Avakian whack jobs, there is a personality cult, but independent Marxist thinkers, such as Monthly Review, do not suffer from that.


The workers in Cuba make decisions, and vote in elections…read the article. The social relations to the means of production are public, although the state plays a large role in administration, they cannot pass any benefit they may have enjoyed onto their children. Max Weber would agree that inherited wealth is no longer a problem. Private Property is for the most part abolished, even though it is not completely so.

I am curious, if you had a say, what would you do differently in Cuba? Do you think it is plausible to have such an open society with complete workers control in today’s geo-political climate? You are a pure Socialist, your nose must hurt from being pressed down so hard to a text book, it’s a shame it doesn’t hurt from taking a look outside your window at reality.

Answer it..is it possible with Capitalist imperialism being as developed as it is, do you think a country could do any better than isolated Cuba? I don't think you could, and I can bet you will duck this question like a bullet.

The problem is your premise is wrong. You see the vanguard, or anything which has the stamp of the state on it as antithetical to the interests of the workers, yet if they were really so opposed to the workers why would Castro be doing everything in his power---as he did in the past when he risked his life with a tiny band of guerillas---to better the conditions of the working people of Cuba – he did that even before he became a communist, and was simply a lawyer pushing land reform. The band of guerillas won, and overthrew a dictator, but that is where you withdraw your support…simpleton.

Maybe we can psycho analyze Che, and Castro…maybe a childhood trauma led them to want to rule the world by overthrowing imperialism, and replace it with a system which betters the lives of humanity, but deep inside they are really suffering from acute narcissism and megalomania…spare us anymore of your drug store psychology analysis of revolutionary leaders, and socieities – it’s insipid at best.

Zeit Out.

You are now free to begin bolding your text again, and scattering all those stupid emotional pictures everywhere....


And danny: To you and your delusional friend:



neither Castro's Cuba nor Mao's China are "useful models" for what we want.



When did I ever suggest we want a "Maoist" model, or a Castro Model for the United States, how could a country which is at a totally different stage of historical development be useful for the USA. What worked for China in 1949, and Cuba in 1959 is not going to work for the USA in 2005. But to say Leninism is the culprit, who destroys Socialism, and leads to mal development is overly simplistic, dogmatic, and ignores external factors, which led to internal problem. Socialism never had one day of peaceful development. THE END. Open your eyes and look. Look how the USA treats CUBA< are you blind or just plain .....stupid?




You guys are so self righteous....

[danny android]

I&#39;d have to agree with redstar on this one (As I usually find my self doing). Especially this line here
neither Castro&#39;s Cuba nor Mao&#39;s China are "useful models" for what we want.

We must not use old models of socialism to build our form of leftists thought we must be original and truely new, because all past revoluitons have inevitably failed.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 09:41 AM
Which you "repay" by completely ignoring the content of my post.
Which is a reasonable response to off-topic posts. But here goes....


I completely support all the anti-imperialist bourgeois revolutions in the "third world".

Yes, you support bourgeois "revolutions" like the Iraqi revolutions. Which have nothing revolutionary about them. That&#39;s where your "bourgeois revolution" thesis falls down - the bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary force against feudalism or imperialism. A point you&#39;ve never given a serious response to.

When it comes to the Cuban revolution, however....what do you do or even say to support them?

If you answered Washington&#39;s slanders against the Cuban revolution, for example, that might be a contribution to its defense. But you don&#39;t. Closer to the opposite.



Workers in China strike every day, objectively in defense of the remaining gains of the Chinese revolution....but how many leftists can connect that to the need to defend China from the pressure and threats of world capitalism?

This opens up something hitherto unexplored in your views. The implication seems to be that China is "still socialist" and requires "defending" from world capitalism, right?

Please stop fabricating quotes. I don&#39;t think the PRC was ever socialist, so obviously that has no applicability.

I think there are remaining gains of the Chinese revolution, and all other anticapitalist revolutions, which should be defended from attempts to restore capitalism.

The changes in political regime are irrelevant, since it was never the political regime which deserved defense.

In contrast, you and other Maoists never did defend the Chinese workers or their revolutionary gains; you were devotees of the counterrevolutionary bureaucracy. When you became disillusioned with that bureaucracy, or Mao&#39;s faction of the bureaucracy was overthrown, you like other Maoists and ex-Maoists regarded China as simply capitalist....again, no change. Since you never did defend the workers&#39; gains to begin with.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)By Different are you trying to say “State Capitalism”?[/b]

The precise term is state monopoly capitalism...something I&#39;m surprised you&#39;ve even heard of.


Lenin said the workers don’t advance past trade unionist consciousness without Socialist theory, meaning they never think to seize the means of production.

He said a few other things as well. This is one of my favorites...


Lenin
The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organization embracing the whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries...the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts...that an organization taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard.

The Trade Unions, The Present Situation and Trotsky&#39;s Mistakes, December 30, 1920.

This frank apology for despotism is something that the contemporary remnants of Leninism in the "west" would prefer to overlook.

It&#39;s "too blunt".


A fish cannot reflect on the nature of water, he cannot imagine its absence therefore he can never consider its presence.

A charming metaphor...but it overlooks the fact that humans are not fish.

Non-human animals do not, as far as we can tell, "reflect on the nature" of anything.

Only human animals can do that.


There is no revolution without the masses, but unfortunately, if you were from the working class---which I can tell you are not---then you would realize we are usually too exhausted from work to go off and read esoteric economics, nor are our schools very good at that.

Yes, you are "so exhausted from work" that you clearly "need" a petty-bourgeois ideologue to decide what&#39;s "good for you".

All you have to do is find one that "you can really trust".

I bet you wear a t-shirt that says SUCKER across the front. :lol:


I actually learned Marxism from a petty bourgeois, and I am not ashamed to admit it.

It&#39;s not you who should be ashamed, it&#39;s him&#33;

What he taught you was not "Marxism" but a petty-bourgeois ideology that borrows "Marxist" terminology to "rationalize" despotism.


I am 25, and he is 64, and no doubt he could run circles around you.

No doubt he could; I am an "old" 63. But until he shows up on this board and posts his own defense of Leninism, we can only speculate on his intellectual "strengths".


Why are [you] so preoccupied with this social pyramid?

It&#39;s a Marxist "thing". :lol:


You can’t see into the hearts of men; our social being determines consciousness, but we do not act purely out of self interest – there is no law that states just because you grew up in Capitalism that you are going to be inherently narcissistic in your behavior.

I rather think we do act in terms of our perceived material "self-interest"...with the understanding that cooperation and altruism are sometimes in our self-interest, both perceived and objective.

What I do not believe in are "socialist saints" who "selflessly serve the people". Indeed, I regard with deep suspicion any such claims...whether made for oneself or on behalf of another.

Experience has taught me that such claims are used to conceal an agenda...one that can generally not stand public examination.

Whenever someone makes a point of telling you how they "really just want to help you", BEWARE&#33;


I would never accuse you of being an anarchist because you want a bigger slice of the pie that you couldn’t get unless you disposed of the rich bourgeoisie.

Well, actually I&#39;m not "an anarchist"...though I&#39;m not above borrowing from them when I think they have something interesting to say.

My Problems With Anarchism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1114735057&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

In Defense (kinda) of Anarchism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1111812961&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

The Convergence of Marxism and Anarchism? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1094664165&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


But of course Castro shapes everything, and like Lenin, Stalin and Mao everything is his fault, because he calls all the plays… Give me a break.

Cheerfully.

It is not nor has it ever been my position that these particular individuals have "determined" the course of history in their respective countries.

You probably attribute this view to your critics because you hold the position that there "are" such entities as "great socialist leaders" -- comic book heroes with superhuman powers to alter objective reality without regard to material constraints.

Both views are just variants of 19th century bourgeois historiography -- "great man" or "great villain" theories of history.

These days, curiously enough, it is only Leninists who still implicitly rely on such obsolete "explanations". It was Stalin&#39;s fault&#33; It was Trotsky&#39;s fault&#33; It was Khrushchev&#39;s fault&#33; It was Mao&#39;s fault&#33; It was Deng&#39;s fault&#33; Blah, blah, blah.

In the midst of this senseless babble, it is as if Karl Marx had never lived. :(


The social relations to the means of production are public, although the state plays a large role in administration, they cannot pass any benefit they may have enjoyed onto their children.

There are those who claim to find "innocence" to be "charming"...they&#39;d really like you.

Do you imagine that social status is an item that can only be passed on in "a last will and testament"???

The sons and daughters of the Party elites in all of the "socialist countries" were not only raised in privilege but taught that most vital lesson in childhood: you were born to rule&#33;

Just like rich kids are always taught that lesson in capitalist countries.


I am curious, if you had a say, what would you do differently in Cuba?

To begin with, I&#39;d try to familiarize myself in detail with what is being done now...something impossible to do for anyone not living there.

You see the problem? We are allowed to "choose" between the lies of the Miami mafia and the "official press releases" of the Cuban government...neither of which can be relied on.

Only the people who live there have an interest in telling the truth about "how things really work"...and not even all of them can be trusted.

In addition to which, of course, would be the inherent difficulties for any North American to tell the Cubans "what they should do".

We are not in any position to tell the Cubans "how" they "should" run their country. It&#39;s their country, not ours.

Our obligation is to speak plainly about what we think about the "Cuban model"...and let it go at that.

I&#39;ve noted in the past that Leninism may well have a "progressive role" yet to play in the "third world"...particularly Maoism. The Maoists seem to be "good at making revolutions" -- though, of course, these are, of material necessity, bourgeois revolutions and not "socialist" in anything but terminology.

It is "western Leninism" that genuinely arouses my disgust...a petty-bourgeois idealist "socialism" capable only of mindless cheerleading, sectarian squabbling, and reformist ass-kissing&#33;

Not even to mention how the "western" Leninist parties have treated whole generations of their own members&#33; :angry:


You are a pure Socialist, your nose must hurt from being pressed down so hard to a text book, it’s a shame it doesn’t hurt from taking a look outside your window at reality.

You may be working class, but you are a curiously "old-fashioned" worker. Most young working people I know do not manifest such broad hostility to the idea of knowledge as such.

Knowing stuff is preferred to not knowing stuff.

Pressing your nose into a text is sometimes "the right thing to do"...although these days it&#39;s more likely to be a computer terminal. There are more young working people "on line" than you imagine...and the numbers are growing as the costs come down.

Indeed, I cannot help but wonder if the internet will play the same role in the rise of the working class as printing did in the rise of the bourgeoisie.

You evidently agree with Mao when he advised the Chinese people "not to read too many books".

Your fears are justified. :lol:

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

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:32 AM
The almost forgotten ancient meaning of the word "socialism" was an ultra-democratic state apparatus that was actually controlled directly by the working class. As Marx and Engels both pointed out explicitly, the Paris Commune was the first such state to ever exist.
This sounds more like communism, no?
Socialism, as I see it, is a class society with a working class state aparatus (dictatorship of the proletariat), etc.
I think it&#39;s fair to say that this has existed in The Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, at some point or another.

How can you call Fidel Castro a despot if Cuba has a relatively egalitarian distribution of income?
If Castro had absolute power, would Cuba not more closely resemble monarchies, like Nepal or Brunei or what have you?
If the people&#39;s will (socialism, at least economically, we are certain of) is being carried out, must they not be at some position of power?

[anomaly]

I think the Castro regime in Cuba deserves quite a bit of credit, actually. Despite the US trade embargo of Cuban goods, the Castro regime has managed to keep living standards in cuba relatively the same as those of any other Carribean nation.

But does Cuba deserve the rem &#39;socialist&#39;? Hardly. the despotism of Castro can no be justified by this or any other label, and it is this despotism which should never again be the product of any revolution.

As Redstar has said (I find myself agreeing with him on this), the &#39;Cuban model&#39; is not something that seems to &#39;work&#39; very well, and thus it is not a &#39;model&#39; we should look to in the future. Nor should we look to the &#39;Stalinist&#39; model or the &#39;Maoist&#39; model. All three &#39;models&#39; are dictatorships disguising as &#39;socialist&#39; nations.

It is plainly clear that Leninist models, all of them, do not work. One reason is simply material conditions, as Redstar said, but it is also paradoxical that a dictatorship should be established when the &#39;goal&#39; of socialism is a more equal, progressive system. A dictatorship establishes absolute ploitical authority, and is the furthest thing from anything &#39;equal&#39; or &#39;progressive&#39;. despotism is completely regressive, obviously, and there is no way of &#39;justifying&#39; the use of despotism, no matter the materail conditions.

There is likely, no there is certainly something better that can be done in third world nations than the Leninist model. Whatever this may be, it certainly must be democratic and economically progressive. It won&#39;t be &#39;perfect&#39;, but I think anything democratic should turn out better than the old Leninist despotic states.

And so we should support any and all anti-imperialist revolutions in the third world, but we shouldn&#39;t ever call the product of these revolutions &#39;socialism&#39;. We can only hope that future revolutions avoid the Leninist model as much as possible.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin
How can you call Fidel Castro a despot if Cuba has a relatively egalitarian distribution of income?

Despotism is not simply related to income distribution...although it&#39;s certainly true that inequality increases as despotisms age.

Just look at all the capitalist "democracies". :lol:

Despotism is the concentrated power of those who rule.

Despots may be "nice" or they may be "nasty" and they are usually both.

By all credible accounts, Stalin was a "nice despot" if you were an urban Russian worker, especially in Moscow. On the other hand, he was a "nasty despot" if you were a Ukrainian peasant.

I have already conceded that Castro has been, by and large, the "most benevolent" of all the Leninist despots.

But is despotism, even "benevolent" despotism, what we want?

What all the "western" Leninists tell us (in one form or another) is that we "must accept" a Party despotism or else live under the despotism of capital "forever".

I submit that such a "choice" is no choice at all&#33;

I think that when revolutionary movements re-emerge in the advanced capitalist countries, they will totally reject the idea of any kind of despotism.

If Marx could see through that crap, there&#39;s no reason why any of us cannot do the same. :)

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

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
That&#39;s where your "bourgeois revolution" thesis falls down - the bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary force against feudalism or imperialism. A point you&#39;ve never given a serious response to.

On the contrary, I&#39;ve responded to your feeble objection on numerous occasions.

Once again: all of your so-called "socialist" revolutions in the "third world" were bourgeois revolutions in effect.

They were anti-imperialist...and I support them for that reason.

The domination of dissident bourgeois elements in the leadership of those "socialist" revolutions is a matter of historical record.

The evolution of that "revolutionary" leadership into a new native bourgeoisie is likewise a matter of historical record.

I support the Iraqi resistance for the same reason...it is armed struggle against U.S. imperialism and I consider that "a good thing".

Have you dug up any "real Trotskyists" in Iraq to support yet? :lol:


When it comes to the Cuban revolution, however....what do you do or even say to support them?

Do you remember the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee"? I was actually in it&#33; I actually wrote and distributed leaflets in defense of the Cuban revolution back in 1963&#33;

No, I never met Lee Harvey Oswald (whew&#33;)...but I was questioned by the FBI extensively. Fortunately, I was able to truthfully say that I knew nothing of that person and, perhaps even more fortunately, had never been to Dallas, Texas.

And you know I still haven&#39;t. :lol:


If you answered Washington&#39;s slanders against the Cuban revolution, for example, that might be a contribution to its defense.

Short-term memory problems, eh? I know how you feel.

If you want to bother, go look up some of the old Cuba threads in Opposing Ideologies and see my responses to bourgeois and gusano "criticisms" of Cuba.


I think there are remaining gains of the Chinese revolution, and all other anticapitalist revolutions, which should be defended from attempts to restore capitalism.

Ok. You decline to call them "socialist" revolutions and instead refer to them as "anti-capitalist".

That&#39;s at least somewhat less misleading...a step forward for you.


In contrast, you and other Maoists never did defend the Chinese workers or their revolutionary gains...

Actually, I wrote almost nothing about China at all in the 60s...at least I can&#39;t remember anything from that long ago. Other Maoists then and even now have written megabytes of material "defending the Chinese workers and their revolutionary gains"...though, to be sure, they give Mao "all the credit".

I just found your reference to "the need to defend China from the pressure and threats of world capitalism" quite puzzling. China is part of "world capitalism" now.

Indeed, Cuba is "on their target list" and I believe agreements have already been signed that will allow Chinese corporations to exploit Cuban workers in the mining industry.

Here&#39;s an interesting piece on Chinese imperialism in Africa...

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...,389138,00.html (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,389138,00.html)

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

[Zeitgeizt]

A revolution is not a bed of roses. A revolution is a struggle between the future and the past. , and the United States

Redstar: You think you annoy people because you are so insightful, but it is really because you are blind, smug, arrogant and ignorant.


Castro is not a benevolent dictator, he is the leader of the Cuban people, and many of them happen to see him as their leader, not some malignant despot, or ruling class demagogue. You say this information is not credible because it comes from illegitimate sources - The U.S. propaganda machine, The Cuban Press, and foreign leftists...The author of this article is from Harvard University, is not openly a communist, and has spent many years studying Cuban Society FROM WITHIN CUBA&#33;

You are beyond obnoxious, and the ugliness, simplism, and dogmatism you smear on posts does nothing but derail an otherwise meaningful discussion, which took this author years to research - but you come in and flap your lips without even considering the content of the article. You are what you hate, and it is ironic because you see everyone else how you are...

If you actually took the time to read this article, and possible even quote it, then maybe you would realize that a lot of the things you claim are simply not as true as you would like them to be...and please no more emoticons...you display more nervous laughter than Chris Mathews.

I apologize to the people who actually wanted to discuss the content of this post. It was derailed by two people who have plenty of other posts to say the same tired things over and over again.

Should we repost it so we may actually learn something? Other then that Fidel comes from a petty bourgeois background, and therefore "his" Cuba is a bourgeois society, even though the social relations to the means of production are not private. Is Cuba purely Socialist? One day it will be if we here at home can get it together and give them a chance to develop without constant aggression, and bullying.

Blame is for god and small children - Too bad you never grew up.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Redstar, what makes you think that Fidel Castro is a dictator at all?
Cuba, as I hear from non-bourgeois sources, has a unique and decentralized method of government.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Of course, anyone with any real knowledge of the Cuban system -- which Redstar has claimed to have in the past - knows that Fidel is not a &#39;dictator&#39; at all.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)Redstar: You think you annoy people because you are so insightful, but it is really because you are blind, smug, arrogant and ignorant.[/b]

Completely unlike yourself, eh? :lol:


Castro is not a benevolent dictator, he is the leader of the Cuban people, and many of them happen to see him as their leader, not some malignant despot, or ruling class demagogue.

Oh? What&#39;s the difference between a benevolent despot and a "leader" in your dictionary?

Just sheer popularity?

Lots of despots have been popular...at least for a while. So what?


The author of this article is from Harvard University, is not openly a communist, and has spent many years studying Cuban Society FROM WITHIN CUBA&#33;

He is a priviliged bourgeois academic who lived and traveled "first class" in Cuba.

Societies look different viewed from top down rather than bottom up.

Something that ought to be obvious to you.


You are beyond obnoxious, and the ugliness, simplism, and dogmatism you smear on posts does nothing but derail an otherwise meaningful discussion, which took this author years to research - but you come in and flap your lips without even considering the content of the article.

Yeah, I "farted in church"...what a "bad guy" am I.

Don&#39;t you know that "western" political tourists have been writing articles like this since...hell, 1920 or so.

If you know where to look, you can find gigabytes of this kind of stuff written about every "socialist" country...probably even including Albania. :lol:

Presumably your intention in posting it on this board was to provoke a chorus of admiration...if not groupie-squeals of delight.

And now you are "outraged" that a rather different response was forthcoming.

RevLeft is not a fan club.

Deal with it. :)


Is Cuba purely Socialist? One day it will be if we here at home can get it together and give them a chance to develop without constant aggression and bullying.

Your hypothesis would be, I take it, that in the complete absence of U.S. imperialism, Cuba would be "making the transition to communism."

The "western" fans of the USSR, Inc. and People&#39;s China, Inc. used to say the same things.

It&#39;s not a "testable" hypothesis.

But it certainly suggests that Marx had a rather superior understanding of these matters than Lenin and all his disciples.

If there is no proletarian revolution in the advanced imperialist countries, then any attempts in that direction in the neo-colonial world are doomed.

They can only result, at best, in a brief "socialist" despotism that inevitably ends in modern capitalism. The imperialist countries are so overwhelmingly powerful and exert such enormous pressures on the "socialist" despotism that it prevents any "transition" to communism and forces it back into the capitalist world.

Are you "comfortable" with that view of things?

Really???


RedZeppelin
Redstar, what makes you think that Fidel Castro is a dictator at all?

No one ever criticizes him for anything in the Cuban media.

Not even his disgraceful fawning over reactionary Catholicism&#33; :o

Do you imagine that to be an "accident"?

That every Cuban lefty truly believes that the sun shines out of Fidel&#39;s ass???

Ask yourself this: where is the debate on public policy within the left in Cuba? It&#39;s certainly not in the Cuban media...which always speaks "with one voice" -- guess whose?

A social order without public controversy must be presumed to be despotic...as humans are well known for their propensity to disagree with one another.

Only groupies like Zeitgeitz imagine that post-revolutionary society will be a big "love-fest" centered on the "socialist leader".

Grownups know better than that.

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

[KC]

Redstar, I am waiting for you to provide these facts about Cuban politics that make it so bad. Do you even know how democratic Cuba is? Do you support Cuba, even?

^^^Still waiting for an answer.




Oh? What&#39;s the difference between a benevolent despot and a "leader" in your dictionary?

Just sheer popularity?

Lots of despots have been popular...at least for a while. So what?

Well. What shatters this comparison is the fact that Fidel isn&#39;t even a dictator. He is democratically elected. Also, his powers are pretty limited.



Ask yourself this: where is the debate on public policy within the left in Cuba?

Congress.




Grownups know better than that.

You can&#39;t teach an old dog new tricks.

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

[redstar2000]

Lazar, I have never heard so much as a faint hint of any "debate" in the Cuban National Assembly.

As far as I know, it is a ceremonial body that exists entirely for ritualistic purposes...to "ratify" whatever the Party&#39;s leadership has decided to do.

As to "supporting Cuba", I support that country&#39;s resistance to U.S. imperialism -- whatever&#39;s left of it.

But as any kind of "model" for what a post-capitalist society should "look like", forget it.

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 04:05 PM
As Redstar has said (I find myself agreeing with him on this), the &#39;Cuban model&#39; is not something that seems to &#39;work&#39; very well, and thus it is not a &#39;model&#39; we should look to in the future. Nor should we look to the &#39;Stalinist&#39; model or the &#39;Maoist&#39; model. All three &#39;models&#39; are dictatorships disguising as &#39;socialist&#39; nations.

It is plainly clear that Leninist models, all of them, do not work.
Lemme suggest that "models" do not work. And nobody has suggested that Cuba should be a "model" for anywhere else.

What Cuba is...is an example. Of what can be accomplished in the real world, when working people take power into our own hands. It&#39;s an answer, to everyone who says communism is great in theory but not in the real world.

And it&#39;s an ongoing battle in the world class struggle. Which we can fight alongside....or criticize from the sidelines.

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 21 2005, 07:29 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 21 2005, 07:29 PM)
Severian
That&#39;s where your "bourgeois revolution" thesis falls down - the bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary force against feudalism or imperialism. A point you&#39;ve never given a serious response to.

On the contrary, I&#39;ve responded to your feeble objection on numerous occasions.

Once again: all of your so-called "socialist" revolutions in the "third world" were bourgeois revolutions in effect. [/b]
Circular argument and word-games. Yes, there can be bourgeois revolutions....if you redefine all proletarian revolutions as bourgeois revolutions.

Can there be a revolution led by some actual flesh-and-blood capitalists, like those supporting the Iraqi resistance? Has there been a government which dealt in a revolutionary way with feudalism and imperialism...without going after capitalist property as well?

I can&#39;t think of any. And apparently you can&#39;t either.


Do you remember the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee"? I was actually in it&#33; I actually wrote and distributed leaflets in defense of the Cuban revolution back in 1963&#33;

Fine, I&#39;ll stipulate that in 1963 you defended the Cuban Revolution from imperialism.

Since then, however....


If you want to bother, go look up some of the old Cuba threads in Opposing Ideologies and see my responses to bourgeois and gusano "criticisms" of Cuba

No, I don&#39;t want to bother. You can link them if you want. You usually have no trouble finding the relevant rant on your website.

But I have a bookmark of you demanding to know why the awful Castro tyranny was blocking Cubans&#39; internet access (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35695&st=40)

(Which I saved because of the detailed explanation of how, in fact, they don&#39;t. As usual, it took a lot more work for me and others to dig up the facts to refute this imperialist-inspired slander which Redstar repeated....than for Redstar to ignorantly repeat it.)

Your bit about Chinese imperialism is also straight from the most mindless section of the U.S. right. Even if capitalism had been fully restored in China (something which cannot be held by anyone who&#39;s remotely serious about looking at the whole social and economic picture), China wouldn&#39;t be an imperialist country in the Marxist sense.

China&#39;s just an example, BTW, chosen because of the way so many leftists have joined in demonizing it; the same could be said of any of the post-Soviet or Eastern European countries. Even NATO-occupied Bosnia is still not "conducive to a private sector, market-led economy", the State Department complains. (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6950/695060.html)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Your bit about Chinese imperialism is also straight from the most mindless section of the U.S. right.

The German bourgeois-liberal weekly Der Spiegel is "dialectically transformed" into "the most mindless section of the U.S. right".

Does Trotskyism lead inevitably to "softening of the brain"?


Even if capitalism had been fully restored in China (something which cannot be held by anyone who&#39;s remotely serious about looking at the whole social and economic picture), China wouldn&#39;t be an imperialist country in the Marxist sense.

Alas poor Marx...the mindless babble that is written "in your name"&#33;

Keep this up, Severian, and the next thing you know you&#39;re going to start wearing a tinfoil hat.

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:12 AM
Lazar, I have never heard so much as a faint hint of any "debate" in the Cuban National Assembly.
Which is a statement about yourself, not a statement about the Cuban National Assembly. A statement about your ears and your inability to hear, to be exact.

Especially since I&#39;ve pointed you in the direction of one of those debates in the past. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35695&st=25&#entry1291871293)

Some more stuff on National Assembly debates:
link (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_9_54/ai_97740516)
link (http://www.themilitant.com/1996/6017/6017_17.html)

The second link gets into the subject of workers&#39; assemblies, the unions and other mass organizations, which IMO are more important to workers democracy in Cuba than the elections to governmental office.

more about the policymaking role of workers&#39; assemblies and unions (http://www.themilitant.com/2000/6422/642202.html)

I read something much more detailed once about the National Assembly, which explained that votes are often unanimous not because it&#39;s a rubber stamp, but because consensus and compromise is typically reached before the vote, with changes incorporated into the draft voted on....I can&#39;t find it right now, though.

The electoral system in Cuba is somewhat limited in its effects in terms of workers democracy. Not so much because of any problem with its formal structure, but because of the reluctance to openly confront political disagreements and divisions in the context of the ongoing siege by imperialism. That&#39;s part of why I think the mass organizations and workplace assemblies are more important.

But the National Assembly is definitely not a mere rubber-stamp body where disagreement is wholly absent. It&#39;s one arena where the contending class forces in Cuba play out, in fact, as shown by the income tax incident.

And there&#39;s greater democracy at the lower levels of the electoral system.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 12:23 PM
Before I start I wanted to say nice post Severian -I agreed with much---if not all---of what you said.
Thanks. If there&#39;s some points you disagreed with, maybe it&#39;s be more useful to discuss that rather than for us to continue arguing with the stone wall called Redstar.

Levin, actually, comes out of the CPUSA milieu. His "Dialectical Biologist" book tends to be pretty pro-Kremlin, from what I&#39;ve heard of it.

He&#39;s learned something since, I think, going by this article. Among other things, his rejection of "unlimited increases of production and consumption at all cost." - emphasis added - something which characterized the Kremlin&#39;s economic planning and which led to huge environmental disasters.

I&#39;m not sure if I agree with all he says about ecology. Partly depends on what exactly he means by some of the statements. For example, he critizes the "developmentalist" approach partly because it "required making use of vast quantities of energy,".

Which it certainly did, and cheap Soviet oil and badly made Soviet equipment led to a lot of wasteful use of energy. If that&#39;s the criticism, I agree with Levin. But on the other hand, I think any economic development no matter how ecologically conscious does require a great expansion of worldwide energy production. No matter how hard one tries to reduce waste and environmental impact....there&#39;s no other way to bring electricity, light, culture and connection to the world, to all the billions currently in darkness.

There&#39;s a debate between Levin and Steve Clark about questions related to farming and ecology in Cuba and elsewhere, in New International magazine issue #13 (Our Politics Start with the World.) I think Clark got the better of it.

Hm...OK, it started with this series of articles by Clark, (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6531/653150.html) which Levin wrote in response to.

parts 2, (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6532/653250.html) 3, (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6533/653350.html) and 4 (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6534/653450.html) in that series.

[Zeitgeizt]

Benevolent Despot is an OXYMORON, and so are you minus the "oxy".



Despot: a cruel and oppressive dictator


Does this word describe Castro?

Benevolent: adjective: having or showing or arising from a desire to promote the welfare or happiness of others

adjective: generous in providing aid to others
adjective: generous in assistance to the poor


Look everyone on this post is over complicating this topic far too much -it&#39;s not that hard.

You either think Castro is the former, or the latter definition.

Some may think he is in-between. But that is better than blind ridicule - which Redstar sees as objective - You are so bourgeois man.

What do forced march industrialization, and the ecological destruction of the Urals have to do with what we feel about Cuba or Castro?

Not unlike those who came before us:

We have the Marxist verse the Capitalist and the Marxist-Leninist verse the libertarian Socialist, or Pure Socialist, or just Marxist, or whatever they are calling themselves these days.

We have less in common with each other than the it appears ostensibly. The only thing we have in common is that we think Socialism is a far better system than Capitalism, but methodically we are enemies - we have never been able to work out our pragmatic, and tactical differences before, and we won&#39;t start here.


Marxist-Leninism will go on making revolution and fighting the fierce battle against the bourgeoisie, and the "pure socialists" will continue to go on riding the fence and hating everything we do until we finally win or lose.

You guys need to start a revolution before you can talk. Until then, just fight Capitalism because otherwise you are counterproductive. Only history will prove which of our sides is correct. You think history already has- but I say that fight isn&#39;t over. The problem isn&#39;t Marxist-Leninism in theory, the Problem is Capitalism strength, and world dominance - it doesn&#39;t take much brains to figure that out.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
Look everyone on this post is over complicating this topic far too much -it&#39;s not that hard.

Applying theology to politics never is. Castro is either a "socialist saint" or an "arch-fiend".

That the concept of "benevolent" despotism escapes your understanding is not surprising...given your description of the guy who "taught" you.

"Benevolent" despotism is precisely the goal of the radical petty-bourgeoisie and perhaps always has been.


What do forced march industrialization, and the ecological destruction of the Urals have to do with what we feel about Cuba or Castro?

Beats me...but I didn&#39;t bring that up. Believe it or not, "forced march industrialization" does have its "benevolent" consequences. The reason we live as "well" as we do today is that our great grandfathers lived horribly in the course of American "forced march industrialization".


Marxist-Leninism will go on making revolution...

In the "west", you&#39;ve never done that at all.


You guys need to start a revolution before you can talk.

Why? Your own notable lack of success hasn&#39;t shut your mouths.

In France and Italy after World War II, you Leninists actually had a chance to "make revolution"...and you passed it up.

Reformism was "more rewarding".


Only history will prove which of our sides is correct.

Always the final "court of appeal", to be sure.

Meanwhile, it is the present that concerns us, is it not? You frankly desire to drag the "new generation" of potential revolutionaries back into the Leninist swamp. I frankly desire to encourage them to seek new and more effective forms of self-emancipation from the despotism of capital.

You rely on "socialist hero-worship". I rely on the most critical aspects of the Marxist paradigm.

Learn how to "think like Marx"...and maybe we have a chance.

Be a Leninist groupie...and nothing of any significance will change ever.

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

[Zeitgeizt]

On the contrary, the greatest Marxist thinker besides Marx and Engles was---and is--- Lenin.

Leninism is not a petty bourgeois ideology but rather Marxism in praxis. If we can transcend Leninism in the 1st world, and not need the state, then that would be miraculous - I am not fond of the idea myself, but I accept it as correct. As Michael Parenti says, "Bureaucracy is a self feeding animal", and I believe that is universal, and should always be avoided, but I still think we need the state to defend revolution being history develops unevenly.

This is not hero worship man - relax with that.

It is the ideas of Lenin which are important; not so much the man - Same goes for Marx...I don&#39;t accuse you of hero worship because you are Marxist...you are filled with double standards. I am Marxist too by the way...if you haven&#39;t forgotten; I can just picture you saying I have.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Severian+Dec 22 2005, 03:59 AM--> (Severian @ Dec 22 2005, 03:59 AM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 04:05 PM
As Redstar has said (I find myself agreeing with him on this), the &#39;Cuban model&#39; is not something that seems to &#39;work&#39; very well, and thus it is not a &#39;model&#39; we should look to in the future. Nor should we look to the &#39;Stalinist&#39; model or the &#39;Maoist&#39; model. All three &#39;models&#39; are dictatorships disguising as &#39;socialist&#39; nations.

It is plainly clear that Leninist models, all of them, do not work.
Lemme suggest that "models" do not work. And nobody has suggested that Cuba should be a "model" for anywhere else.

What Cuba is...is an example. Of what can be accomplished in the real world, when working people take power into our own hands. It&#39;s an answer, to everyone who says communism is great in theory but not in the real world.

And it&#39;s an ongoing battle in the world class struggle. Which we can fight alongside....or criticize from the sidelines. [/b]
If you read my post, Severian, you&#39;d know that I do support Cuba, and the Castro regime. But I don&#39;t support them because they provide some kind of "answer, to everyone who says communism is great in theory but not in the real world."

Cuba is not communism, nor has it anything to do with communism. Thus, it is no &#39;answer&#39; to people who say communism can&#39;t work in the real world (because Cuba is NOT communism&#33;). Rather, Cuba provides us with advice...that the Castro (or Mao, or Stalin, or Lenin, or whomever) way is not the way we should go about things next time.

We should respect Cuba, respect them because they have kept the standard of living comparable to other Carribean nations, despite the US embargo. We should respect them because they have not only resisted but repelled US imperialism. But we should not respect Cuba because it is &#39;socialist&#39; or &#39;democratic&#39;. That is just bullshit.



Oh, and Zeitgeizt, I must correct you...Lenin was not the &#39;greatest&#39; Marxist thinker since Marx and Engels...rather he was the greatest Leninist thinker. Marxism and Leninism are not, nor have ever been, the same. You say that "we need the state", when it is the state that creates hierarchy in the first place&#33; Such thinking is not &#39;Marxist&#39;, it is just Leninist.

[Zeitgeizt]

Oh, and Zeitgeizt, I must correct you...Lenin was not the &#39;greatest&#39; Marxist thinker since Marx and Engels...rather he was the greatest Leninist thinker. Marxism and Leninism are not, nor have ever been, the same. You say that "we need the state", when it is the state that creates hierarchy in the first place&#33; Such thinking is not &#39;Marxist&#39;, it is just Leninist.


Then why did most every revolution in the 20th century carry the banner of Marxist-Leninism out of sheer "patriotism" to mother Russia, or personality cult worship? NO. It is because Lenin corrected a mistake Marx had made - one of the few he made.

For example. Marx never anticipated the tremendous technological advances in military mobility, and in doing so didn&#39;t realize a revolution could be smothered in a matter of hours instead of it taking weeks, and months to mobilize imperialist military forces. Marx overlooked it because it didn&#39;t exist when Marx was alive...Marx could not predict everything because of the limits of his historical era...He could not predict the future completely.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 11:45 PM

Oh, and Zeitgeizt, I must correct you...Lenin was not the &#39;greatest&#39; Marxist thinker since Marx and Engels...rather he was the greatest Leninist thinker. Marxism and Leninism are not, nor have ever been, the same. You say that "we need the state", when it is the state that creates hierarchy in the first place&#33; Such thinking is not &#39;Marxist&#39;, it is just Leninist.


Then why did most every revolution in the 20th century carry the banner of Marxist-Leninism out of sheer "patriotism" to mother Russia, or personality cult worship? NO. It is because Lenin corrected a mistake Marx had made - one of the few he made.

For example. Marx never anticipated the tremendous technological advances in military mobility, and in doing so didn&#39;t realize a revolution could be smothered in a matter of hours instead of it taking weeks, and months to mobilize imperialist military forces. Marx overlooked it because it didn&#39;t exist when Marx was alive...Marx could not predict everything because of the limits of his historical era...He could not predict the future completely.


By the way it&#39;s "Engles" not Engels...
Thanks for the spelling correction&#33; Thanks, because that made a big difference in the content of my post&#33; :lol:

Military advances? You are a Leninist because he made military advances to Marxism? Oh come on. Tell me why you are really a Leninist. Tell me your love for the state, your craving of hierarchy&#33; Tell me why the vanguard is a &#39;neccesary component&#39; in all of this&#33; The military &#39;additions&#39; or &#39;advances&#39; to Marxism made by Lenin is just fluff. That is not what Lenin added to Marxism that is of serious significance.

Oh, and why did they carry &#39;Marxist-Leninist&#39; banners? They carried them because they thought that Lenin was &#39;doing things&#39; the right way. We now know that it wasn&#39;t the right way...well, most of us know this anyway.

[Zeitgeizt]

I was being petty on purpose. just being the devils advocate from another post...you spelled it correctly:)

[anomaly]

In light of this, I may have overreacted&#33; My bad&#33;

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No, It&#39;s Engels.

*edit* damn, before I could finish posting this you guys made two more posts.

[Zeitgeizt]

How do we know that now? What proof of that do you have?

When has a revolution taken on non-Leninist path and worked? Please enlighten me, I didn&#39;t know things have changed, and don;t give me that bullshit that I love the state...don;t taunt me. I told you I think it is an imperfect solution to a problem Socialism faces...

You sound like a religionist, plus I proved you wrong...Think about your position it is so obvious..your have cause and effect backwards..how can you guys not see it>?

Also, have you even read Lenin, or are you studying Noam Chomsky from the ivory tower of MIT>? Have you read The State & Revolution?

[anomaly]

Yes, I have read Lenin, and in all of his works, he makes rather explicit references to the need for despotism. Just see the tidbit redstar posted if you would like &#39;proof&#39;.

What proof do we have that Leninism doesn&#39;t work? How about the USSR? China? Cuba? All of them followed the Leninist way of doing things, using a hyper-state, using a &#39;revolutionary&#39; vanguard. And each failed to deliver upon its &#39;goals&#39;.

A revolution hasn&#39;t taken a &#39;non-Leninist&#39; path and worked...yet. Very few recent revolutions have actually attempted a &#39;non-Leninst&#39; path. Remember this century is very young. In the 20th century, the Leninist model was &#39;the way&#39; to go about revolution...especially if you wanted any help from the USSR or China&#33;

When did you &#39;prove me wrong&#39;? I tell you what has proven you wrong--history&#33; It&#39;s quite simple: the Leninist revolutionary method has historically failed to produce socialism, let alone communism.

So why should we continue with a failed method? Why should we again try the Leninist path, and again witness failure? Will we have &#39;better leaders&#39; this time? Will they &#39;promise&#39; to produce &#39;socialism&#39; this time? No, I say we do something different next time. We should do something that is not bound to fail. There are many ideas of how to do this. After all, any new method can&#39;t work any worse than Leninism&#33;

[Zeitgeizt]

No revolution that has attempted a different model has ever succeeded...that is how I proved you wrong...You said
We now know that it wasn&#39;t the right way...well, most of us know this anyway

How do we know? Did something change that I don&#39;t know about> ? that is how you are wrong,

Man you&#39;re boring.

When your revolution succeeds then we will know - I support you.

[anomaly]

Haha, why does everyone say that &#39;I&#39;m boring&#39;? But oh well.

Do you know of the American revolution, comrade? It wasn&#39;t a communist or socialist revolution, but it was a revolution noetheless. It succeeded.

And so many other &#39;methods&#39; of revolution could possibly succeed. The one I prefer is one with no vanguard, but just the working class itself, just the proletariat overthrowing capitalism. No &#39;great leaders&#39; are needed. But, of course, Leninism would have us think differently.

Are you serious? How do we know Leninism wasn&#39;t the right way? Look at history&#33; Every revolution which took the Leninist route went from capitalism...to capitalism&#33; And not just that, but a state-controlled, tyrannical capitalism&#33; This hasn&#39;t happened to Cuba yet. But it will happen. History has shown us that every Leninist attempt at socialism has failed. Thus, there is no reason to believe that any Leninist revolution will succeed.

Hope I didn&#39;t &#39;bore you&#39; too much&#33; :lol:

[Zeitgeizt]

Do you know of the American revolution, comrade? It wasn&#39;t a communist or socialist revolution, but it was a revolution nonetheless. It succeeded.

I am going to pretend you didn&#39;t say this. Besides it was a colonial revolution of independence with a mixed Capitalist/Slave economy, the social relations to the means of production remained the same. (Actually I take this back - America did have the first bourgeois revolution because England was a monarchy. it’s kind of a complex example, because I wouldn&#39;t say the United States colonies were technically Feudal...From my understanding the U.S. was more agrarian Capitalist, with some aspects of Feudalism, and slavery...a real mixed economy...mercantile Capitalism was also in the North...shit that&#39;s a tough one. I need to read up on this subject.

Gandhi’s revolution better fits the profile of colonial liberation movement, not a revolution.



Look at Vietnam, a country which took a Leninist model, and then look at the 35 year struggle for independence, and how deformed, and mangled that country was from fighting off Imperialism, how was that country suppose to develop along a somewhat normal path?

Do yourself a favor and go listen to the audio lecture Reflection on the Overthrow of Communism by Michael Parenti, you will really learn something - I am not trying to be a jerk, but you are not going to grow this way.


It&#39;s on this page - you may actually thank me. If you had to have a discussion with anyone to learn about the struggle within a Socialist country, who would you pick (and be honest) RedStar2000, or Fidel Castro?

And P.S. what&#39;s with you ...revolutionaries? and posting those goofy faces, they are really annoying... :blink:

[anomaly]

It was simply sarcasm. I am trying to get through to your Leninist mind. I&#39;m trying to open it up to new revolutionary possibilities&#33; Of course the &#39;American revolution&#39; happened under different material circumstances than today...for that matter, so did Leninist revolutions. It is time to move on. Let&#39;s progress, not regress.

I&#39;ve read my Marx, so don&#39;t ever talk down to me. I am not the one who insists upon preserving the state.

Now, why don&#39;t we begin debating Leninism itself? Why don&#39;t you stop your patronizing, stop trying to feel so high and mighty, stop your rather silly acusations. Tell me why you think Leninism will work this time, when it failed those other times. If we try a new revolutionary method, one like I described, one that is led by the proletariat itself, we don&#39;t know whether it will succeed or not. I happen to think it will. But if we regress to the old Leninist models, we are guarenteed to fail. Or do you not pay attention to history, and ignore its lessons?

I&#39;m not even going to touch your stupid &#39;Redstar&#39; or &#39;Fidel&#39; question. That has no relevance to the topic at hand.

Now please get back on topic&#33;

Oh, one more thing: :lol: :D :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
For example. Marx never anticipated the tremendous technological advances in military mobility, and in doing so didn&#39;t realize a revolution could be smothered in a matter of hours instead of it taking weeks, and months to mobilize imperialist military forces.

Lenin would be proud of you, Mr. Z. The whole idea of a "vanguard party" was really modeled on the Prussian General Staff -- which enjoyed enormous prestige after their victory over Napoleon III.

To Leninists, class struggle ever since has been "understood" as if it were a "war" between two "nation-states".

And the Leninist response to criticism of their despotic -- military-like -- proclivities has always been: do it our way or the imperialists will crush you like an insect&#33;

The details of your formulation are not so good. Despite much fuss about "Rapid Reaction Forces", imperialist armed response to any challenge is actually quite slow. As we have seen most recently in Iraq, the imperialist forces took months to mobilize and deploy "in place", took several weeks to occupy an essentially defenseless country, and have thus far proven totally impotent in "restoring order" -- crushing the resistance.

Further, it is clear that the future of imperialist armies is essentially that of mercenaries...and how reliable such forces are remains to be determined. During the European renaissance, mercenaries were very reliable...unless the enemy offered them more money to "switch sides".

A mercenary does not "fight for his country"; he fights for financial gain. I think that means he is less likely to persist in a "losing war".

But we&#39;ll see.

Meanwhile, is the Leninist "military model" of class struggle and revolution correct?

I do not think it is. The Russian military played no significant role in the great Petrograd uprising of February 1917...except for those units that defected to the side of the revolution.

I think this is because a genuine proletarian revolution is so massive and overwhelming that even elements of the military that "remain loyal" to the old regime are helpless. Sure, they could go massacre a crowd in a city square...but they know that such an act will make no difference and may even cost them heavily when a new order is established.

What about the imperialist armies in countries that have not yet experienced the general proletarian uprising? Could they not invade and crush the revolution?

Obviously, there are a lot of factors that would go into their decision-making. What would be the domestic reaction to such a new war? What would be the costs in casualties and material? How many troops would be needed to conquer and successfully occupy a proletarian France or Germany?

And, most importantly, how do you defeat a resistance that has no Leninist "central command"?

I am not a "military expert" by any stretch, but I&#39;ve actually seen some guys who are (or think they are) attribute the on-going success of the Iraqi resistance to the fact that they have no "central command". There&#39;s no "head to cut off"...and thus the resistance continues no matter who the imperialists capture, imprison, torture, or kill.

It looks to me very much as if this might well be a successful model for proletarian resistance to imperialist aggression. Small well-armed units operating independently, attacking the enemy at its weakest points, keeping up the pressure, destroying its "willingness to fight".

One of the best features of this "model" makes its appearance after the imperialists are defeated and withdraw in humiliation.

There will be no "Napoleon effect"...no one who can strut around in public claiming "I led the resistance" -- with the implication that "you should make me the Great Leader". The working class will be well aware of the fact that millions of their own class "led the resistance".

And no "Great Leader" was required...then or now.

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

[Zeitgeizt]

Well I think a Leninist model will have to work in the States...

Here you have the rawest Capitalist nation on earth, with nearly 400 years of Capitalist ideological conditioning. To have no centralized government after the revolution, and to organize this complex society, in which the bourgeois still man the posts. (Engineers, agribusiness, healthcare industry etc)

To think there will be no internal counter-revolution is probably the most naive thing any revolutionary could possible think. The working class will simply not be able to police itself, and organize itself from coast to coast without a degree of centralized planning. Maybe a parliamentary Socialism would be the best model - but who knows....

P.S. Iraq is a bad exmaple, are you just throwing things at me now for the sake of trying to win> ? Iraq didn;t take long to mobilize because of technoclogical problems, there were legalities which made the war a tough sell, the WMD inspectors etc...We have bases right there...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
And P.S. what&#39;s with you ...revolutionaries? and posting those goofy faces, they are really annoying...

They are called "emoticons". Their purpose is to convey, at least in a limited sense, a "tone of voice" to particular statements in a post.

I think it&#39;s a quite useful innovation in "the age of the internet"...and many millions of people evidently think likewise.

Just one more "new thing" for you to "get used to". :)

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

[anomaly]

I think that the proletariat as a whole could crush any internal resistance, something which I have previously said will be inevitable (in a different thread). Why do they need centralized planning when there will be millions of them with guns? Of course they will be able to police themselves&#33;

Why should we pursue a centralized government after the revolution, when communism itself is extremely decentralized? That simply is not logical. It would move us further away from communism, not closer to it.

&#39;Ideological conditioning&#39; will be of no use to the bourgeoisie once the material conditions of the proletariat start to deteriorate. This is starting to happen in the USA even now.

[Zeitgeizt]

OK anomaly, can you let Redstar talk you are too dogmatic for words...please it is just like fuzz...no offence.

And P.S. Just because a a large portion of the masses will support revolution doesn&#39;t mean the whole of society will, it will be one hell of a class war, which will probably make the civil war look lika a day at the beach. You don&#39;t need to convince an entire country to start a revolution, it just takes a small percentage...

There will be left overs, who will do everything in their power to throw it back...whether there is a government or not.

[anomaly]

This is rather aggravating. You consistently avoid real debating about Leninist theory, and instead make unbacked accusations towards me. I even asked for us to start debating&#33;

Centralized planning is illogical&#33; Is this what you called &#39;dogmatic&#39;? Communism is decentralized&#33; Honestly, stop throwing around unfounded accusations&#33; It is really starting to piss me off. You&#39;ve avoided debate with me numerous times. :angry:

I realize there will be &#39;leftovers&#39;. I said as much :angry: . I think that the strength of the proletariat, decentralized as it will be, will be strength enough to repel these &#39;leftovers&#39;.

[Zeitgeizt]

We&#39;re not talking about pure Communism emerging from the ashes of Capitalism ...that is impossible - it won;t happen anywhere....Besides Socialism is the bridge between....I don&#39;t even entertain the notion that a communist society will emerge even 50 years post revolution...

I don&#39;t think I have avoided debate with you - you have the Marxism of a 17 year old, and I think I have been more than patient in answering your questions. I explained your accusations about Leninism ..go read them,,it;&#39;s not my fault if you can;t understand the,

[anomaly]

Perhaps not, but do we need socialism as a bridge? I highly doubt it. And it we for some reason do need it, I would go for a Paris Commune type socialism, rather than Leninist socialism.

Why is it impossible for communism to emerge from the ashes of capitalism? Talk about dogmatic&#33; I think the bridge will, in the end, not be socialism, but rather simply the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat as a whole will gain power, and thus emerge victorious in revolution. Once this happens, class can disappear and communism can exist.

[Zeitgeizt]

Socialism, and the Concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a very Leninist concept.

To think there will be no need for leadership is unfalsifiable aty this point - neither of us have the answer, because were theorizing. Personally, I don&#39;t think you are even close to right - you sound anarcho--and I don&#39;t agree with it.

[anomaly]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a Marxist concept, as is socialism. Perhaps Leninism perverted these concepts, but Lenin certainly didn&#39;t create them.

Why don&#39;t you agree with &#39;anarcho&#39;? You think we need leaders? Why? Is the proeltariat not capable of doing things themselves, so they must be &#39;led&#39;?

[Zeitgeizt]

I simply think anarcho is dogmatic, ahistorical, and won&#39;t work. If you study Mao&#39;s China - building Socialism is no easy task, especially when you have millions of people to educate. We don&#39;t all magically arrive at Socialist consciousness on the same day - it takes a ton of education, and a very brilliant group to be able to understand the bourgeoisie enough, to combat them, and be victorious....

It will be a Proletarian revolution, but it will need leaders. We always have, and no event in history contradicts that fact-it doesn&#39;t make me that uncomfortable- in fact without Capitalism there to fuck us up, I don&#39;t even think it would be a huge problem.

[anomaly]

The state is a major cause of hierarchy in the first place. As long as the state exists, communism will not exist. That is not what I want.

&#39;Anarcho&#39; (anarcho-communism?) is &#39;ahistorical&#39;? &#39;Dogmatic&#39;? It &#39;won&#39;t work&#39;? You are a Leninist, so I suggest you look in the mirror&#33; :lol:

I have looked at Mao&#39;s China. It was an utter failure. Mao&#39;s &#39;cultural revolution&#39; and his GLF killed millions. &#39;Educating&#39; the proletariat wasn&#39;t the problem. Mao tried to force his ideas upon the Chinese people, and they often didn&#39;t like his ideas.

You admiration for authority is something I find most unsettling. You say that revolution requires a &#39;brilliant&#39; group of people (hmmm, the vangaurd?) to &#39;understand&#39; the bourgeoisie. You doubt the capabilities of the proletariat just like Lenin did. You do not think they are &#39;advanced enough&#39; as a class to &#39;do it themselves&#39;. They need guidance, they need some authority&#33; Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but no they don&#39;t.

&#39;Educating&#39; the proletariat is not the way to &#39;build&#39; socialism. You completely ignore material realities by suggesting they need to be &#39;educated&#39;. Material conditions will encourage the proletariat to revolt, not any &#39;education&#39;.

Leaders make me very uncomfortable, especially since their existence assures that communism cannot exist. Leaders are something to be removed. The entire concept stinks of authoritarianism and totalitarianism, two &#39;isms&#39; the &#39;wise group&#39; of ruling Leninists have practiced in the past. But, I forgot, this time &#39;things will be different&#39;&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
To have no centralized government after the revolution, and to organize this complex society, in which the bourgeois still man the posts. (Engineers, agribusiness, healthcare industry etc)

Modern "high-tech" societies are complex...no question about it.

And I am not "in love" with either "centralization" or "decentralization" as abstract concepts.

There are some kinds of production that probably must be centralized -- electric power distribution, for example. (At least until we develop and install technology that would allow dispersed electric power generation.)

There are others that could easily be decentralized...garment production, for example.

The "heart" of the matter is whether or not a new "political center of gravity" should be created after the revolution...a centralized state apparatus with all the institutional attributes that exist now: a professional army and police force, a prison complex, a central department of economic planning that decides everything of consequence and sends down "orders", other swollen bureaucracies that will concern themselves with regulating every aspect of our personal lives, and so on.

Bourgeois sociologists maintain that a modern society simply "cannot function" without massive "professional" bureaucracies...indeed, that modern societies are bureaucratic despotisms of necessity.

I disagree.

I do not quarrel with the demonstrated need for expertise. I quarrel with the option to grant anyone with expertise the power of command.

We all have a natural inclination to defer to the advice of someone who "knows more than we do" about some proposed task. And there&#39;s nothing "wrong" about that in and of itself.

But expertise is not some "Pure Virtue" that hangs up in the sky somewhere.

It&#39;s just as "earthly" as any other human characteristic...and thus subject to human error.

We have all seen in the course of our lives that "experts" have been guilty of spectacular blunders.

Thus the present wide-spread attitude that "when the expert speaks" we should all flop on our bellies is one I expect to largely "wither away" as the "western" proletariat prepares itself for revolution.

Now, your idea that there will be "lots of bourgeois experts" remaining in "positions of authority" after a proletarian revolution is clearly drawn from Lenin&#39;s own experience.

In his time, bourgeois experts were, to all intents and purposes, the only ones that existed. Advanced education was a class privilege.

Today, that is no longer the case...and, in the "age of the internet", will be even less the case as time passes. I&#39;ve had the good luck to meet a number of working class people who demonstrated an astounding breadth and depth of technical knowledge...and I think that even now there are a lot more of them "out there" than anyone realizes.

I expect their numbers to continually increase.

Thus we will probably never face the problem that Lenin or Stalin or Mao faced with having to rely on the expertise of people who were predisposed to oppose the revolution.

We will have an abundance of proletarians who are both "red" and "expert".

Finally, there is a point that the attentive reader should not overlook.

There is a reason that the Leninists emphasize the "importance" of "expertise".

They see themselves as "experts at revolution"...and sincerely believe that the rest of us should follow their orders "just like we follow a doctor&#39;s orders".

Believe that? :lol:

Yeah, they really do think that...inspite of all the "western" evidence of the last century to the contrary.

I think the proletariat will conclude otherwise. Revolution is far too important to be left in the hands of self-appointed "experts".

Especially "doctors" whose patients all died. :lol:

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

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 07:56 AM
The state is a major cause of hierarchy in the first place. As long as the state exists, communism will not exist. That is not what I want.

&#39;Anarcho&#39; (anarcho-communism?) is &#39;ahistorical&#39;? &#39;Dogmatic&#39;? It &#39;won&#39;t work&#39;? You are a Leninist, so I suggest you look in the mirror&#33; :lol:

I have looked at Mao&#39;s China. It was an utter failure. Mao&#39;s &#39;cultural revolution&#39; and his GLF killed millions. &#39;Educating&#39; the proletariat wasn&#39;t the problem. Mao tried to force his ideas upon the Chinese people, and they often didn&#39;t like his ideas.

You admiration for authority is something I find most unsettling. You say that revolution requires a &#39;brilliant&#39; group of people (hmmm, the vangaurd?) to &#39;understand&#39; the bourgeoisie. You doubt the capabilities of the proletariat just like Lenin did. You do not think they are &#39;advanced enough&#39; as a class to &#39;do it themselves&#39;. They need guidance, they need some authority&#33; Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but no they don&#39;t.

&#39;Educating&#39; the proletariat is not the way to &#39;build&#39; socialism. You completely ignore material realities by suggesting they need to be &#39;educated&#39;. Material conditions will encourage the proletariat to revolt, not any &#39;education&#39;.

Leaders make me very uncomfortable, especially since their existence assures that communism cannot exist. Leaders are something to be removed. The entire concept stinks of authoritarianism and totalitarianism, two &#39;isms&#39; the &#39;wise group&#39; of ruling Leninists have practiced in the past. But, I forgot, this time &#39;things will be different&#39;&#33;
Do you believe that socialism is a natural step towards communism, or do you belive that socialism can be skipped completely and that communism can automatically be instituted?

[anomaly]

I don&#39;t think it can be &#39;automatically&#39; instituted. I said I think we will find a stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat neccesary. The proletariat itself holding power until the bourgeoisie as a class cease to exist, that will be the &#39;transition&#39;. Until communism exists, I suspect the proletariat will rule in a decentralized method. Communes will start to appear. They will be building communes in this stage, cleaning things up, you may say, after the revolution. And so, after &#39;revolutionary&#39; activity stops, communism will come about spntaneously. It will not be &#39;automatic&#39;, in my opinion.

But I maintain that socialism can be skipped, and that after capitalism falls, communism will be the next &#39;ism&#39; in line.

I assume that you, Guerrilla22, are of the opinion that socialism &#39;must&#39; exist?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat (a society in which the working class is the ruling class). The terms are interchangable.

You can argue that in any/all of the states that have claimed to have been socialist (or on the way towards socialism) that the working class wasn&#39;t the ruling class; but to say that socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat are counterposed is sheer idiocy.

[anomaly]

I do not use them interchangeably, simply because &#39;socialism&#39; is so often used in a Leninist context. Marx said they were the same, I realize this, but when today when one says socialist, one usually thinks of the old Leninist regimes.

By this definition, it is rather obvious that socialism must exist before communism. If the working class never have rule, they never have victory in the revolution.

With the Leninist connotation, however, I find it much clearer to say that I want the dictatorship of the proletariat but not socialism. And so I say this.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Idiocy it is. ;)

[KC]

Leninism is not a petty bourgeois ideology but rather Marxism in praxis. If we can transcend Leninism in the 1st world, and not need the state, then that would be miraculous - I am not fond of the idea myself, but I accept it as correct. As Michael Parenti says, "Bureaucracy is a self feeding animal", and I believe that is universal, and should always be avoided, but I still think we need the state to defend revolution being history develops unevenly.


Leninism is only applicable to third world and/or developing countries. Sorry&#33;


I am Marxist too by the way...

Not much of one&#33; :rolleyes:


Rather, Cuba provides us with advice...that the Castro (or Mao, or Stalin, or Lenin, or whomever) way is not the way we should go about things next time.

This is how we should go about things in the third world. Why? Because it raises the living standards of its citizens, it develops capitalism much faster (which will bring revolution in the first world sooner) and it provides a front against us imperialism.



We should respect Cuba, respect them because they have kept the standard of living comparable to other Carribean nations, despite the US embargo. We should respect them because they have not only resisted but repelled US imperialism. But we should not respect Cuba because it is &#39;socialist&#39; or &#39;democratic&#39;. That is just bullshit.

So are you saying Cuba isn&#39;t socialist or democratic? If so, why not? If you&#39;re not saying that, then why can&#39;t we respect Cuba for being so?



Military advances? You are a Leninist because he made military advances to Marxism? Oh come on. Tell me why you are really a Leninist. Tell me your love for the state, your craving of hierarchy&#33;

You need to stop making generalizations. Have you read Leninist theory? To what extent? Or are you just taking up this point of view from listening to others on this site?



Oh, and why did they carry &#39;Marxist-Leninist&#39; banners? They carried them because they thought that Lenin was &#39;doing things&#39; the right way. We now know that it wasn&#39;t the right way...well, most of us know this anyway.

It is in certain cases.




You sound like a religionist

A religionist? :huh:



What proof do we have that Leninism doesn&#39;t work? How about the USSR? China? Cuba? All of them followed the Leninist way of doing things, using a hyper-state, using a &#39;revolutionary&#39; vanguard. And each failed to deliver upon its &#39;goals&#39;.

How has Cuba failed? Whenever this question is raised, nobody steps forward to answer it. So tell me. How has Cuba failed?



When did you &#39;prove me wrong&#39;? I tell you what has proven you wrong--history&#33; It&#39;s quite simple: the Leninist revolutionary method has historically failed to produce socialism, let alone communism.


Cuba.



So why should we continue with a failed method? Why should we again try the Leninist path, and again witness failure? Will we have &#39;better leaders&#39; this time? Will they &#39;promise&#39; to produce &#39;socialism&#39; this time? No, I say we do something different next time. We should do something that is not bound to fail. There are many ideas of how to do this. After all, any new method can&#39;t work any worse than Leninism&#33;

You don&#39;t need leaders to create a consolidated socialist (i.e. Leninist) state.



Do you know of the American revolution, comrade? It wasn&#39;t a communist or socialist revolution, but it was a revolution noetheless. It succeeded.

That wasn&#39;t a communist revolution.


This hasn&#39;t happened to Cuba yet. But it will happen.

Oh? Are you 100% positive about that? What if Cuba remains socialist until material conditions arise for a communist revolution in the first world? It won&#39;t turn capitalist then. What will happen if we have dozens of Cubas all over the world when the revolution happens? Less violence, and an easier transition to communism.


History has shown us that every Leninist attempt at socialism has failed.

Cuba. Of course, you&#39;re going to have to outline what "succeeding" in terms of a Leninist socialist state means.


But if we regress to the old Leninist models, we are guarenteed to fail.

No, we aren&#39;t. If Leninist socialist states last until material conditions arise and revolution in the first world occurs, then they will succeed. So why not start revolting right now?



I&#39;m not even going to touch your stupid &#39;Redstar&#39; or &#39;Fidel&#39; question. That has no relevance to the topic at hand.


I would say that it is completely relevant. It goes to show how in touch you are with Leninism. You could be the first redstarist&#33;


Well I think a Leninist model will have to work in the States...


You are wrong. A Leninist model will never work in the states because you will never get the support needed to create such a change. The only time that revolution in the states will happen is when material conditions arise and the proletariat itself revolts.



To think there will be no internal counter-revolution is probably the most naive thing any revolutionary could possible think.

The point is that the counter-revolution will be pretty meaningless, as about 95% of society (i.e. the proletariat) would be supporting the revolution.



And P.S. Just because a a large portion of the masses will support revolution doesn&#39;t mean the whole of society will, it will be one hell of a class war, which will probably make the civil war look lika a day at the beach.

You are completely and 100% wrong. When material conditions arise, the whole of the proletariat will feel it. That is a large majority of the country (I put it at around 95% of the population). Also, your mentality of a huge class war that "will probably make the civil war look lika a day at the beach" is incorrect. I would like to point you to the October 1917 revolution for that one. Was this a communist revolution? No. But I think it is a good example of what happens when material conditions arise for a certain class of society. The majority of people supported the revolution. Police? Army? They are all proletarian.


You don&#39;t need to convince an entire country to start a revolution, it just takes a small percentage...

That might work with a Leninist revolution, but that is not what we are advocating here.



There will be left overs, who will do everything in their power to throw it back...whether there is a government or not.

Yes, but when you have 5% of society trying to overthrow that society, what do you think will happen? Do you think they will be successful? Why can&#39;t those who wish to overthrow society be held accountable by society&#39;s laws? Why must we attempt to root them out, at a great cost of life, instead of punishing them as they commit crimes? All of the bourgeoisie after the revolution will not be the enemy, you know. And if you believe that I&#39;m going to have to put you in the same category as Redstar and Anomaly for making such over-generalizations.


We&#39;re not talking about pure Communism emerging from the ashes of Capitalism ...that is impossible - it won;t happen anywhere....Besides Socialism is the bridge between....I don&#39;t even entertain the notion that a communist society will emerge even 50 years post revolution...

Do you know what socialism is in the marxist sense? Read this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=blog&id=10051&entry=301&action2=perma).


Perhaps not, but do we need socialism as a bridge? I highly doubt it. And it we for some reason do need it, I would go for a Paris Commune type socialism, rather than Leninist socialism.

Yes, socialism is required. Although it doesn&#39;t have to last long. I would agree that Marxist socialism is what will happen after proletarian revolution. Leninist socialism happens after Leninist revolution.



Why is it impossible for communism to emerge from the ashes of capitalism? Talk about dogmatic&#33; I think the bridge will, in the end, not be socialism, but rather simply the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat as a whole will gain power, and thus emerge victorious in revolution. Once this happens, class can disappear and communism can exist.

Socialism and dictatorship of the proletariat are the same thing. If you wish to distinguish between Leninist socialism and Marxist socialism, then do so another way as what you&#39;re doing now doesn&#39;t make much sense.



To think there will be no need for leadership is unfalsifiable aty this point - neither of us have the answer, because were theorizing. Personally, I don&#39;t think you are even close to right - you sound anarcho--and I don&#39;t agree with it.

Your thought that people need to be led is infantile.


I simply think anarcho is dogmatic, ahistorical, and won&#39;t work.

Your answer is dogmatic :lol:



It will be a Proletarian revolution, but it will need leaders.

No it won&#39;t.


We always have, and no event in history contradicts that fact-it doesn&#39;t make me that uncomfortable- in fact without Capitalism there to fuck us up, I don&#39;t even think it would be a huge problem.

Using history to judge how an event that has never happened before in the history of man doesn&#39;t work.


The state is a major cause of hierarchy in the first place. As long as the state exists, communism will not exist. That is not what I want.

Socialism isn&#39;t about perpetuating the state.



You admiration for authority is something I find most unsettling. You say that revolution requires a &#39;brilliant&#39; group of people (hmmm, the vangaurd?) to &#39;understand&#39; the bourgeoisie. You doubt the capabilities of the proletariat just like Lenin did. You do not think they are &#39;advanced enough&#39; as a class to &#39;do it themselves&#39;.

Well, they weren&#39;t advanced enough in Mao&#39;s China. :)



There are some kinds of production that probably must be centralized -- electric power distribution, for example. (At least until we develop and install technology that would allow dispersed electric power generation.)


Such as individual power sources for homes? Those already exist, and the demand for them is increasing. Check out solar power shingles. By the time the revolution happens we might not even need centralized power&#33; :cool:


I do not use them interchangeably, simply because &#39;socialism&#39; is so often used in a Leninist context. Marx said they were the same, I realize this, but when today when one says socialist, one usually thinks of the old Leninist regimes.

By this definition, it is rather obvious that socialism must exist before communism. If the working class never have rule, they never have victory in the revolution.

With the Leninist connotation, however, I find it much clearer to say that I want the dictatorship of the proletariat but not socialism. And so I say this.

You should really find other ways to distinguish between the two. What you&#39;re doing now to distinguish between them confuses people. Just say "Marxist socialism/Leninist socialism". I&#39;d rather call Leninist socialism socialism consolidated in a state.

[Led Zeppelin]

They see themselves as "experts at revolution"...and sincerely believe that the rest of us should follow their orders "just like we follow a doctor&#39;s orders".

Believe that?

Yeah, they really do think that...inspite of all the "western" evidence of the last century to the contrary.

I think the proletariat will conclude otherwise. Revolution is far too important to be left in the hands of self-appointed "experts".


redtsar2000 seems to forget that "Leninists" are not "classless", they are proletarians themselves, you want to "take them from society and make them classless beings", sorry, that doesn&#39;t work, not if you go by Marxism.

If we take this analysis of Leninists further, we come to the same conclusion that Lenin himself also came too; without the proletariat there can be no Leninist party, is that so hard to understand? Are you not capable of "getting that"?

So, then, my question to you is, since Leninists can&#39;t achieve anything without proletarian or mass support, why are you so scared of them? Why do you keep "whining" about them?

Is it because deep down you are thinking to yourself; "damn, they might be right"?

Well good, you should be "scared" of them, because reality is proving you wrong on a daily basis, every nation on earth has a Leninist party, yet you say that "advanced proletarians no longer believe in parties", these parties exist because of them, not despite of them.

[anomaly]

Lazar---

Do you honestly think that the Cuban revolution has been a success, in light of its original goals? The goal was to bring &#39;socialism&#39;...originally. It has utterly failed to do this, and has become just another tyrannical state. Every Leninist state became this. And so each one failed. I am quite confident, well, moreso worried, that when Fidel Castro dies, Cuban &#39;socialism&#39; (to make it &#39;less confusing&#39;, let us say &#39;Leninist socialism&#39;) will disappear. I am worried that much blood will be spilt, and that US imperialism will no longer be able to be repelled. I previously said that I respect the Castro regime, because of the reasons I stated. Castro has been able to keep living standards relatively comparable to other Carribean states, despite the US embargo.

Whether one finds this an &#39;admirable&#39; quality or not, it is really not the point. The point is whether we should look to Leninist theory for future revolutions. You suggest that in the third world, Leninist &#39;socialism&#39; is &#39;the only way forward&#39;. I must disagree. I contend that there must be a better way forward, there must be some way. I could be wrong, obviously, and perhaps we&#39;ll learn soon enough (with the events taking place in Latin America) whether Leninism really is &#39;the only way&#39; for the thrid world.

Are you advocating Leninism in &#39;certain cases&#39;? Or are you not advocating it at all?

I do think that we should begin &#39;revolting now&#39;. But I do think we should also begin theorizing and searching for something better than Leninism in the third world. Perhaps there is &#39;no better way&#39;, but I&#39;d say it&#39;s still worth a try. Perhaps you disagree.

[Zeitgeizt]

Lazar
Great post

Anomaly - you are far too dogmatic.


Red Star2000 you demonstrated some excellent points about a possible revolution in the U.S. not needing a vanguard, but despite all the rationalizations and hypothesizing aside - it will be the most complicated revolutionary project in history, with the most amount of difficulty annd obstacles to overcome on a myriad of levels, and I see the fact of a centralized leadership as something which may still very well be needed.

Anyway Creative thinking, and I commend you for it.

Anomaly - you are the king of boring - not an original thought comers out of your mouth. You&#39;re out of your element.
Do you honestly think that the Cuban revolution has been a success, in light of its original goals? The goal was to bring &#39;socialism&#39;...

Learn your history neophyte. The original goal of Castro&#39;s revolution was agrarian reform, the country didn&#39;t turn Socialist until 1961 when it found it couldn&#39;t maintain peaceful relations with it&#39;s #1 trading partner the U.S., and therefore turned to the Marxist model - which may have been on the agenda, but was not openly stated.


RedStar: I still think your condemnation of Cuba has less to do with independent thought and more to do with blind hatred for the concept of vanguard, which you dismiss as simply elitism, intellectual, as well as technocratic chauvinism - which I am sure exists to some degree, but not to the degree you are emphasizing it, and even if this dynamic does exist (which I know it does) , it is not the product of theory as much as it is the product of context. Centralizing planning would exist without Capitalism encirclement...I believe that..we need to find news ways to adminster it, and maybe with some room to breath we could do it...it will be no easy task, as I am sure Marx, Lenin, Engels would agree.

"To pronounce a verdict in a social vacuum is to condemn oneself to empty moralizing".

I am going to post a piece in here by Harry Magodff called Approaching Sociaslism. You make some good points Redstar2000, and appreciate your ideas, maybe we can dicuss the content of this new piece I will post.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by "Marxism"&#045;Leninism
redtsar2000 seems to forget that "Leninists" are not "classless", they are proletarians themselves...

The class composition of the membership of Leninist parties has varied widely in the "west". But with regard to the leadership, historically, it&#39;s clear that nearly all of it was petty-bourgeois.

Only a very occasional worker ever rises "towards the top" of a Leninist party.

And this is crucial because, in a Leninist party, everything of substance is decided at the top. Their power over the party is absolute...or as close to that as makes no difference.

Thus the party&#39;s "line" changes over time to reflect the class interests of the radical petty bourgeoisie...usually some version of "left" reformism.

A Leninist party may "start out" sincerely "revolutionary"...but it doesn&#39;t take all that long for the rot to set in.

Before you can say "V.I. Lenin", they&#39;re "running for office" on a left-reformist platform. And then you&#39;ll find them campaigning for "left" bourgeois politicians.

End of story.


So, then, my question to you is, since Leninists can&#39;t achieve anything without proletarian or mass support, why are you so scared of them?

Because of their demonstrated capacity to really fuck up potential revolutionaries.

Young people who join Leninist parties are so repulsed and disgusted by their experiences that they usually come out completely soured on the whole idea of proletarian revolution.

They conclude that because Leninism is "a racket" that "everything is a racket" and that there is "no hope" for anything better than the shit we live in now.

Even worse, some of them actually "switch sides" and become outright reactionaries.

At least the pay is better. :o

So yeah...I want to put Leninism "out of business" in the "west" -- so that young potential revolutionaries can find their way to revolutionary activity with their dignity and integrity intact.

Instead of ending up crawling back to the ruling class with their tails between their legs begging forgiveness for their "youthful follies".

Clear?

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

[Zeitgeizt]

Because of their demonstrated capacity to really fuck up potential revolutionaries.

How do they "fuck up" potential revolutionaries? Where is your documentation of this? Are there revolutionaries of another class that are fighting for Socialist revolution, but the Leninists some how come in and destroy it?

Are the Cubans destroyed because of Castro? I doubt that

Look at Richard Nixon, and Ronald R. They both came from modest backgrounds, but they served the class interests of the plutocrats...


You are petty bourgeois yourself, and just because I am working class doesn&#39;t mean that you will do any better as a revolutionary leader than I Will?

It doesn&#39;t matter where you come from but rather where you&#39;re at.


The petty bourgeois lawyers such as Castro fought on the side of the workers. Society is complex and the workers tend not to have access to the organs of society because they are structurally marginalized. If a working class man becomes a civil rights lawyer, and then fights for the workers is he no longer working class or did he know become petty bourgeois by osmosis (subjectively) Objectively---in pure Marxist terms--- he has a working class consciousness, but unfortunately if you understood anything about the working class you would realize we hardly have our own leadership. The world we live in as very complex, and for one to become a revolutionary usually takes "the pedagogy of the oppressed” to help a worker understand his role vis a vis their social relations to the means of production, but this alone is not the determining factor in what makes him a true revolutionary, or an idealist, as you like to call them "benevolent despots".


Can you please respond to some of my comments in my last post.

[anomaly]

Zeitgeizt, I think it was demonstrated earlier that what you said is extremely dogmatic. I simply cannot help it that I disagree with your Leninist views...they are far too regressive for my taste. You continually toss accusations my way: that I am &#39;dogmatic&#39;, or that I am &#39;boring&#39; or &#39;unoriginal&#39;. Well, let me tell you, that all three may be of good use to characterize yourself. But, I await you meaningless accusations once more. They seem to be your best strategy in debating&#33; :lol:

Fidel Castro was quite interested in &#39;Marxism&#39; from the beginning, as was Che Guevara (who, until 1964, was Castro&#39;s &#39;right hand man&#39;). Of course this wasn&#39;t openly stated, because some of Castro&#39;s biggest supporters were very critical of &#39;Marxism&#39; (the kind of &#39;Marxism&#39; such as that found in the USSR and China), and so Castro kept this intention hidden, so that he could keep their support. He also made sure that his own power was secured from the beginning.

I hardly think I&#39;m &#39;out of my element&#39;. I again suggest you look in the mirror. You seem to be very good at sucking up to those you perceive as intellectual superiors (Lazar and Redstar) however&#33; Perhaps you will find a position in one of those nice Leninist parties yet&#33; :lol:

[chebol]

anomaly, there&#39;s no space in a leninist party for such &#39;sucking up&#39;. What we have here instead is the very worst of the marxist tradition, infantile &#39;ultra-leftism&#39; walking hand-in-hand with the other "great" trend- economism (also known as menshevism, otzovism, etc, according to the period and it&#39;s proponents)


Either way reflects an essentially unscientific and childish approach to socialism. Redstar, with all his wit and acerbic bite, is just one in a long line of people who fail to understand marxism, and instead give it a form more useful for bashing the heads of those less sure of their politics. The phenomenon of the &#39;intellectual marxist&#39; &#39;decrying&#39; the nasty vanguardist in favour of &#39;workerism&#39; and &#39;real revolution&#39; is nothing new. It is a symptom of both a failure to understand Marx, and history. And it is the refuge of the scoundrel (where instead of everything being &#39;decided at the top&#39;- which it isn&#39;t, as Leninism happens to be fundamentally democratic- everything is decided by Redstar [or whoever has the pen and can formulate the best-sounding idea {that doesn&#39;t actually threaten the bourgeoisie or require actually changing anything} this week])

To better understand one side of the argument at least (I&#39;ll not be proscriptive), I recommend two of Lenin&#39;s writings for anyone interested.

"What Is To Be Done?" and "Left-wing Communism- An Infantile Disorder".

Maybe if people read these then this discussion would be more useful. At least then those that disagree with Lenin would be able to do so in a way that reflected what he actually stood for, rather than semi-understood pith about "the vanguard" and flogging of the old horse about "leninist failure". (And what exactly have Lenin&#39;s critics acheived then- apart from a cushy corner too throw peanuts at &#39;incorrect models&#39; and tacit state sanction)?

[anomaly]

Well, the 20th century really didn&#39;t give much of an opportunity to the &#39;critics of Lenin&#39;, did it? Especially since if a revolutionary group wanted aid from the USSR or China, it would have to go the Leninist route.

It seems to me that Lenin himself &#39;misunderstood&#39; Marxism. Clearly he failed to correctly implement socialism. He perverted the definition of socialism with his &#39;democratic&#39; centralism.

Why is it that anything that is not Leninist is condemned by Leninists as automatically &#39;unscientific&#39; and &#39;childish&#39;? Excuse me, but I fail to see the &#39;science&#39; involved in Leninism.

I also fail to see the &#39;fundamentally democratic&#39; nature of Leninism. Perhaps I am simply looking at history &#39;too much&#39;&#33; Every single Leninist revolution has been followed by despotism. Are you thus claiming to support this tyrannical product of Leninist revolutions?

[Zeitgeizt]

Anomoly. Read Infantile Leftism. You are misunderstanding cause and effect.

Take the comrade who posted above advise. It can&#39;t hurt to reah where you are making your mistake. You are correct Leninist models have "failed" but that is not because of Leninist theory...Listen to the Reflections on the Overthrow of Communism...Again nobody has the definitive word on the subject, but you are lost in space here..

Also read Infantile Leftism.

[anomaly]

Then why have Leninist models failed? It seems rather simple for you grasp&#33; Perhaps that is because you believe it&#33;

Is it because of the &#39;wrong leaders&#39;? Were the proletariat &#39;holding the vanguard back&#39;? Please tell me, I&#39;d like to know&#33;

I know quite well of Leninist theory, and there is no document, even any document written by Lenin himself, that will &#39;awaken me&#39; from my dark and obviously un-holy slumber&#33; You must accept that some people are going to disagree with you, I know you don&#39;t like it.

Now, in your own words, why have (all) Lenist models failed in the past, if it was not because of Leninist theory itself? What is your take?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)I am going to post a piece in here by Harry Magdoff called Approaching Socialism.[/b]

Fine.

You know I actually met him back around 1964 or thereabouts. He had a really nice apartment in the part of Manhattan called Washington Heights.

He seemed pretty damn old to me then...because I was 22 and everybody over 30 seemed pretty damn old. I think he was in his 40s or 50s then.

One thing sticks in my mind about that encounter. Magdoff didn&#39;t criticize Leninism as such...but he expressed a distinct aversion to all of the existing Leninist parties in the United States at that time. It was almost as if he found them all to be an embarrassment.


How do they "fuck up" potential revolutionaries? Where is your documentation of this?

Well, I&#39;ve seen it with my own eyes.

But there are many books by former members of the American Communist Party and there are even books by ex-Maoists as well.

And some of the most infamous contemporary neo-conservatives were involved with Leninist parties in their youth.

It&#39;s the numbers that tell the real story. I read once that between 1936 and 1956, over one million people "passed through" the CPUSA.

What happened to all those people?

What happened to the thousands of young Maoists and Trotskyists from the 60s and 70s?

We know they didn&#39;t go on to start "new" and "better" Leninist parties. They didn&#39;t "start" anything.

I think the only plausible conclusion is that they simply dropped out of radical politics altogether...because they found the whole experience repulsive.


You are petty bourgeois yourself...

Bad guess&#33; :lol:

Father&#39;s occupation: telephone lineman (union member)
Mother&#39;s occupation: telephone operator (union member)
Uncle&#39;s occupation: railroad worker (brakeman) (union member)
Grandmother&#39;s occupation: aluminum factory worker (union shop steward)
Grandfather&#39;s occupation: telephone lineman

During my own working years, all my jobs involved clerical shitwork. For some reason I was never even once offered a promotion to management. :lol:

I view myself as part of a very old but historically very small tradition: that of the worker who educates himself "far above his station" in life.

I brought my own class outlook to my study of history, politics, etc. And instead of being seduced by the pleasant mythologies of bourgeois academics, I became more hostile to the prevailing order as time passed.

Now, I am very "dogmatic"...as you (and others&#33;) have pointed out on numerous occasions. My opposition to anything that stinks of class society has become intransigent.

Not least are those comfortable folks who propose to "tell me what to do" for my own "good". :angry:


It doesn&#39;t matter where you come from but rather where you&#39;re at.

The problem here is that anyone may say anything. It is in what they do that their real class orientation becomes clear.

Why shouldn&#39;t a kid that grows up in a family of petty-bourgeois managers think that he can "manage" a revolution? He was taught -- in a thousand subtle ways -- that he was "born to rule".

I don&#39;t know about you, but I could almost "smell that" when I used to run into a petty-bourgeois Leninist leader. Just the way they stood in front of a room projected that "inner confidence" that he was standing "where he belonged".

They were "the star of the show"...and I wished I&#39;d brought some rotten fruit to throw&#33; :lol:


The petty bourgeois lawyers such as Castro fought on the side of the workers.

As it happens, I was never a client of Mr. Castro. But I was represented by some "movement lawyers" back in the 60s...and they sucked&#33;

In fact, were I to find myself charged with anything now, I would act as my own attorney. At least I would have my mind on my case...instead of an afternoon golf date&#33; :angry:


If a working class man becomes a civil rights lawyer and then fights for the workers, is he no longer working class?

As he moves about in "lawyerly circles", he will indeed lose his "working class" orientation. The change will be gradual...but I imagine that sometime in his 30s or 40s he will "reevaluate" his own material interests and act accordingly.

I actually know of one such person who was a civil rights lawyer in the 60s...and last I heard of the bastard, he was an assistant district attorney persecuting prostitutes.

What a shithead&#33; :angry:


...if you understood anything about the working class you would realize we hardly have our own leadership.

Is that because we are "inherently incapable" or because we&#39;ve been told that we&#39;re "incapable" so much that most of us have come to accept that idea?

Do you really imagine that some puffed-up petty-bourgeois "radical" understands your own class interests "better" than you do?

That it&#39;s "a law of nature" or something?


chebol
What we have here instead is the very worst of the marxist tradition, infantile &#39;ultra-leftism&#39; walking hand-in-hand with the other "great" trend- economism (also known as menshevism, otzovism, etc, according to the period and it&#39;s proponents)

Rolling out the heavy artillery, eh?

Well, I am an ultra-leftist and I do think that Martov (a Menshevik writer) was right about the impossibility of socialism in the Russia of 1917.

Now go make the most of it&#33; :lol:


The phenomenon of the &#39;intellectual marxist&#39; &#39;decrying&#39; the nasty vanguardist in favour of &#39;workerism&#39; and &#39;real revolution&#39; is nothing new. It is a symptom of both a failure to understand Marx, and history. And it is the refuge of the scoundrel...

Scoundrel?

What does that make someone like yourself who can write this "with a straight face"...


Leninism happens to be fundamentally democratic

Is motherfucking liar too harsh? :lol:


Maybe if people read these then this discussion would be more useful.

Chances are, I read both of them before you were born...and I&#39;ve actually read all of Lenin&#39;s Collected Works written after 1917.

You obviously have not&#33; In addition to which you are apparently completely ignorant of the entire history of Leninist parties in the "west".

I frankly challenge your competence to even discuss these matters, as you seem to know nothing of what actually happened in the 20th century.

I suggest you return to your ikon of St. Vladimir and light some more candles.

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

[Zeitgeizt]

Now, in your own words, why have (all) Lenist models failed in the past, if it was not because of Leninist theory itself? What is your take?

Please listen to the Michael Parenti lecture Reflection on the Overthrow of COmmunism.

Redstar: I am not a Maosit or a Trotskite...you must be aware of that much?

[chebol]

Not rolling it out Redstar. Just reminding people that it&#39;s there. I&#39;m not going to bother using it on you seriously- you&#39;re too pig-headed. My aim is that others on this board actually read what took place in the C20th, and before, and WHY. So that they may be able to see through both the lies of the capitalists, and the delusions that you spread on this board.

Now, however, it being almost christmas, I might indulge in a little response, just to keep the juices flowing.

Make up your mind, Redstar, am I a liar or ignorant?

I assume there is a line in my sig that makes it clear to you that I haven&#39;t read all of lenin&#39;s works? Or is it your famous mystical source of knowledge coming to the fore? Or is it, like so much of the rest of what you write, bullshit?

In any case, it appears that because Redstar doesn&#39;t think I was around writing bullshit at the same time or earlier than Redstar started to, I have no right to refute his bullshit. Because I dare to touch the heart of his problem- he is fundamentally NOT a revolutionary.

Any number of nice references, and not so nice insults to critics, cannot hide it. Yes, Redstar, you are a scoundrel. A dodging, evasive, prolix and occasionally offensive scoundrel, who sits at the edge of the world throwing peanuts at those who struggle, fail, and occassionally succeed, at changing it a bit- all because it doesn;t fit your own perfect little schema.

Yes, many hundreds of thousands of potential revolutionaries have been chewed up and spat out by "leninist" and "trotstkyist" parties during the 20th century. This is one of the greatest shames- crimes- of the left in history- that during the period of greatest need and potential, the schematism and sectarianism of these groups made it impossible for many of these people to become and remain professional revolutionaries, dedicated to overthrowing capitalism.

But they tried. And we can still try. To succeed we must overcome this schematism, and apply scientific principle to the class struggle. Take lessons from failures, and successes, and adapt them to new circumstances.

But this is not what Redstar wants. Instead, he creates his own schematism. Not only is he fundamentally opposed to &#39;leninist parties&#39; (regardless of whether those using the name deserved it from their actions, or of the deadly betrayals of those same ultra-lefts and mensheviks that he so proudly admits allegiance to now) and uses their failure to prop up his own views. Not only this. No. It becomes a fait accompli. Let us talk left&#33; Let us rhetoricise revolutionarily&#33; Let us laud our personal proletarian pedigree&#33; Let us demand the revolution be perfect, and clean, and free from ALL vestiges of capitalism&#33; Let it come into being, not as Marx suggested with the aid of midwifery on the stage of history&#33; No&#33; Let it spring forth, fully armed, as did Athena from mighty Zeus&#39; head&#33; Only then will we countenance it&#33;

And woe betide any that attempt to provide leadership to the people, other than sitting by and spewing out demagogic filth. Your certain failure is only proof of the misleadership and failure of "leading" the masses, who must so obviously simply awake one morning, fully marxist (maybe after having read Redstar&#39;s peculiar ranting online the night before by mistake).

Let the planet and all it&#39;s people go to hell first&#33; Until the revolution, we must sit by and condemn those that try, for, if we do not help them, they MUST fail, and thereby prove us right again.

If all people were truly as cynical as Redstar, then the future surely is bleak&#33;

For the sake of humanity, redstar, get over yourself, and step up to the fucking plate&#33; :castro:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by che_bol
Make up your mind, Redstar, am I a liar or ignorant?

No reason you can&#39;t try for both "prizes".


Yes, Redstar, you are a scoundrel. A dodging, evasive, prolix and occasionally offensive scoundrel, who sits at the edge of the world throwing peanuts at those who struggle, fail, and occasionally succeed, at changing it a bit- all because it doesn&#39;t fit your own perfect little schema.

Flame war, eh?

No, you&#39;d be overmatched. Why should I waste my time trading insults with a pissant groupie like yourself?

So go ahead and "change the world a bit"...I&#39;m sure that you&#39;ll be real careful not to "go too far".


If all people were truly as cynical as Redstar, then the future surely is bleak&#33;

Bleak for guys like you&#33; :lol:

It&#39;s going to get even bleaker. Count on it&#33;

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

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 12:31 AM

Now, in your own words, why have (all) Lenist models failed in the past, if it was not because of Leninist theory itself? What is your take?

Please listen to the Michael Parenti lecture Reflection on the Overthrow of COmmunism.

Redstar: I am not a Maosit or a Trotskite...you must be aware of that much?
I asked what is your take. I didn&#39;t ask for Michael Parenti&#39;s take. I really don&#39;t care what he thinks. I am not talking to him. So, same question. Why has the Leninist model failed continually in the past, if it is not due to Leninism itself?

[KC]

Do you honestly think that the Cuban revolution has been a success, in light of its original goals? The goal was to bring &#39;socialism&#39;...originally. It has utterly failed to do this, and has become just another tyrannical state.

I would love for you to provide evidence of Cuba&#39;s "tyranny" or its lack of democracy and worker power. This evidence cannot be slander, it must contain facts. A great way to prove my point wrong is to find an article that analyzes Cuban government and politics in detail that supports your claim that Cuba is a "tyrannical state". Also, please respond to my questions in my post. You have failed to do so. I am interested in your response to this one in particular:


Originally posted by Me+--> (Me)
So are you saying Cuba isn&#39;t socialist or democratic? If so, why not? If you&#39;re not saying that, then why can&#39;t we respect Cuba for being so?[/b]

I am looking forward to your response&#33;


Every Leninist state became this. And so each one failed.

Every "socialist" state that has devolved into capitalism has done so for various reasons. It is not possible to blame all of these countries&#39; problems on Leninism itself. You might as well go protest against Bush because of all of the awful things he&#39;s done if you are going to pull that kind of crap.


I am quite confident, well, moreso worried, that when Fidel Castro dies, Cuban &#39;socialism&#39; (to make it &#39;less confusing&#39;, let us say &#39;Leninist socialism&#39;) will disappear. I am worried that much blood will be spilt, and that US imperialism will no longer be able to be repelled.

Then you are out of touch with Cuban politics or the democratic system that is set up. You are also apparently unaware of Castro&#39;s powers and claim that he is a dictator with infinite power. Please, read up on Cuban politics. You will learn much&#33;



Whether one finds this an &#39;admirable&#39; quality or not, it is really not the point. The point is whether we should look to Leninist theory for future revolutions. You suggest that in the third world, Leninist &#39;socialism&#39; is &#39;the only way forward&#39;. I must disagree. I contend that there must be a better way forward, there must be some way. I could be wrong, obviously, and perhaps we&#39;ll learn soon enough (with the events taking place in Latin America) whether Leninism really is &#39;the only way&#39; for the thrid world.

Well I would be glad to hear your input on this subject of "how to move forward" until material conditions arise.



Are you advocating Leninism in &#39;certain cases&#39;? Or are you not advocating it at all?


I am advocating Leninism in certain cases. I don&#39;t agree with Lenin on everything, as I am more of a Marxist than a Marxist-Leninist, but I do believe that consolidated state-socialism is a much better system for people to live under than the harsh conditions of capitalism. Whether or not these systems devolve back into capitalism, the living standards of these countries will be raised, and people will be at least temporarily freed of their chains.



I do think that we should begin &#39;revolting now&#39;. But I do think we should also begin theorizing and searching for something better than Leninism in the third world. Perhaps there is &#39;no better way&#39;, but I&#39;d say it&#39;s still worth a try. Perhaps you disagree.

I would love to hear input on this subject. So far, I have heard nobody even so much as speak of developing new theories. Most people here are set in their theories as "the only way" and what they don&#39;t realize is that different situations call for different ways to deal with things. Theory can be a great guide, but it is certainly not set in stone (nor should it ever be; that is why it is called "theory" and not "law")&#33;




Anomaly - you are far too dogmatic.


If anybody is dogmatic, it is you. Anomaly might be somewhat utopian, but from what I have read from him in his last post, he is at least open to new ideas. Being tolerant of change is a much more important skill to have than knowledge of theory.



Anomaly - you are the king of boring - not an original thought comers out of your mouth. You&#39;re out of your element.

Let&#39;s keep the mud-slinging to a minimum. We are here to debate, not attack each other.


Centralizing planning would exist without Capitalism encirclement...I believe that..we need to find news ways to adminster it, and maybe with some room to breath we could do it...it will be no easy task, as I am sure Marx, Lenin, Engels would agree.

Bureaucracies are to be avoided at all costs. All other options should be exhausted before we even consider scaling such a slippery slope. That stated, bureaucracy should be avoided at all costs, as the closer we get to centralized planning, the closer we get to centralized power, the closer we get to power centralized in a group of people, the closer we get to corruption and a new ruling class.



Look at Richard Nixon, and Ronald R. They both came from modest backgrounds, but they served the class interests of the plutocrats...

This is a bad example, as being determines consciousness. This actively supports what redstar is claiming, which is "absolute power corrupts absolutely".


You continually toss accusations my way: that I am &#39;dogmatic&#39;, or that I am &#39;boring&#39; or &#39;unoriginal&#39;.

You are rather utopian in your ideals.


Well, let me tell you, that all three may be of good use to characterize yourself. But, I await you meaningless accusations once more. They seem to be your best strategy in debating&#33; laugh.gif

Your best response to his accusations would have been to not make one in the first place.


Fidel Castro was quite interested in &#39;Marxism&#39; from the beginning, as was Che Guevara (who, until 1964, was Castro&#39;s &#39;right hand man&#39;). Of course this wasn&#39;t openly stated, because some of Castro&#39;s biggest supporters were very critical of &#39;Marxism&#39; (the kind of &#39;Marxism&#39; such as that found in the USSR and China), and so Castro kept this intention hidden, so that he could keep their support. He also made sure that his own power was secured from the beginning.

I would consider this more ad hominem than anything. Why do you think Castro made sure he got power? At face value, of course, this sounds like a horribly dastardly thing to do&#33; However, let&#39;s consider his position and his post-revolutionary status and actions. Castro is fighting a guerrilla war which has a majority support by the population. He is successful in his overthrow of the Batista regime. Do you expect him to hand over power to someone else so they could "fuck up" the revolution? Mind you, I think this is somewhat of an asshole maneuver, and I don&#39;t support it, but what you are chasing at is shadows. Castro made sure he got into power so he could see that Cuba was handled properly. He had an idea for Cuba, that was supported by the majority of the population, and he didn&#39;t want to see that dream squashed. Now, let&#39;s consider his post-revolutionary actions. How did he live? Do you think he lived like a king? What did he do all day? Most of his time was spent patrolling the island, listening to the people&#39;s input, and moving Cuban government in the direction that the people wanted it to go. If he was in it solely for the power, I hardly see why he would have done any of this, why his movement would have created such a democratic state, and why his movement would offer all of these things to his people when he could take this all for himself.

Castro&#39;s position on this issue is very similar to Che&#39;s position in Bolivia. What I am speaking of is how he demanded that he control Guerrilla Operations instead of the Bolivians, because he didn&#39;t want to see it go awry.

Now, do I support such moves? No. Do I support the outcome of such moves? That is on a case-by-case basis, but in the case of Castro demanding power, the outcome was rather incredible.


You seem to be very good at sucking up to those you perceive as intellectual superiors (Lazar and Redstar) however&#33;

As do you&#33; Of course, you don&#39;t do it directly or open it admittedly, but it is definitely there&#33;


Every single Leninist revolution has been followed by despotism.

False (see: Cuba). I suggest for you to list all of the Leninist states that you can, and study them extensively (or perhaps even just a little). You will realize that each case for their devolution into capitalism is special and that generalizations such as the ones that you make aren&#39;t realistic at all.


Then why have Leninist models failed? It seems rather simple for you grasp&#33; Perhaps that is because you believe it&#33;


You are still generalizing&#33; "Leninist models [have] failed" for numerous reasons&#33; You cannot pin it down to one reason&#33; You cannot pin it down to Leninist theory itself. I welcome you to support this with facts. I would like you to prove that every Leninist state has failed because of Leninism itself. That is, of course, what you are claiming, isn&#39;t it?



Now, in your own words, why have (all) Lenist models failed in the past, if it was not because of Leninist theory itself? What is your take?

Well. Economic factors. Military factors. Capitalist influence. Environmental disasters. The list goes on. Are these all caused by Leninism? Are you willing to support that outrageous claim?



Fine.

You know I actually met him back around 1964 or thereabouts. He had a really nice apartment in the part of Manhattan called Washington Heights.

He seemed pretty damn old to me then...because I was 22 and everybody over 30 seemed pretty damn old. I think he was in his 40s or 50s then.

One thing sticks in my mind about that encounter. Magdoff didn&#39;t criticize Leninism as such...but he expressed a distinct aversion to all of the existing Leninist parties in the United States at that time. It was almost as if he found them all to be an embarrassment.

I don&#39;t see how any of this is relevant?



But there are many books by former members of the American Communist Party and there are even books by ex-Maoists as well.

Maoists are Leninists as much as you claim Leninists are Marxists. Even you should know that.



It&#39;s the numbers that tell the real story. I read once that between 1936 and 1956, over one million people "passed through" the CPUSA.

What happened to all those people?

What happened to the thousands of young Maoists and Trotskyists from the 60s and 70s?

We know they didn&#39;t go on to start "new" and "better" Leninist parties. They didn&#39;t "start" anything.

I think the only plausible conclusion is that they simply dropped out of radical politics altogether...because they found the whole experience repulsive.

Or perhaps they realized that Leninism in the United States doesn&#39;t work. Or perhaps they got a job and their lives changed their consciousness. Or they felt powerless because utopian "intellectuals" like "you" made them "feel" that all of their effort was hopeless "and" that nothing can" be done" until material conditions "arise". I have heard criticism of everything offered by you, redstar. I have yet to see you offer any constructive alternatives. You might be content to sit around and shoot the shit about communism all day every day until you die, but theory is nothing without action. I am completely open - better yet, I challenge you - to start a thread based on what people should do now, not in 50 or 100 years when material conditions arise. Let me quote you directly:


Redstar2000

The problem here is that anyone may say anything. It is in what they do that their real class orientation becomes clear.

So what do you do? Not what have you done in the past, but what do you do now? I&#39;m guessing not much, and if I am right, what are you chalking that up to? What&#39;s your excuse? Old age? Destroyed lungs? Hurricane survivor? I&#39;m all ears&#33;



Chances are, I read both of them before you were born..

Appealing to age, as always, I see.

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




I assume there is a line in my sig that makes it clear to you that I haven&#39;t read all of lenin&#39;s works? Or is it your famous mystical source of knowledge coming to the fore? Or is it, like so much of the rest of what you write, bullshit?

I think it&#39;s because he&#39;s so much older than you. After all, he does believe that age is a factor in knowledge.

Redstar, when was the last time your theories changed? Do you think your theories are right? Do you think they are completely and 100% correct? If not, then what do you think is wrong with them? I would love to imitate Socrates on this one and hear you admit that you know nothing before we continue, but of course, I don&#39;t see this happening any time soon.

[anomaly]

The despotism of the Castro regime should be most evident. Let us simply look at the Cuban press. It is not a free press, and a free press is a cornerstone in any democracy. When was the last time the Cuban press openly criticized Fidel Castro? when was the last time anyone threatened Castro&#39;s power in any way? He is a dictator, of that I see no doubt. He might even be a &#39;good&#39; dictator (not in my opinion, but perhaps in your own), but a dictator nonetheless. If you believe that the Cuban system is so &#39;democratic&#39;, I think the burden of proof is upon you, Lazar.

In any case, here is some info on the Cuban poltical system.
http://www.cubapolidata.com/gpc/gpc_institutional_order.html
Most interesting is this: (from link)

notable characteristics of the political sub-system are:
Leninist design
selectivity of membership
class distinction
programmed discipline

most important characteristics of the political sub-system are:
single political party
sanctioned powers of the PCC in the constitution

To give a definite response to your question, which I know you seek, is that no, Cuba is not socialist or democratic. Read the above. It may be true that the powers of the PCC are &#39;sanctioned&#39;, but I&#39;m sure the degree of this &#39;sanction&#39; is very slim.

Here is an article on the press in Cuba:
http://www.rsf.org/rsf/uk/html/ameriques/c...p01/090301.html (http://www.rsf.org/rsf/uk/html/ameriques/cplp01/cp01/090301.html)
Of particular interest is this line: (from link)
In Cuba, where the Constitution stipulates that press freedom must "conform to the objectives of a socialist society", only the official press is authorised

If you consider such details of Cuban politics in any way &#39;democratic&#39;, you must have a warped sense of democracy. But I do suggest you provide some info on the &#39;democratic nature&#39; of Cuba.

It just so happens that Leninist methods are not useful in handing power over to workers, as the original goals were. Despots have been establishes in all cases. If you support despotism, then you may well support Leninism. But I do think there are better ways of doing things in the third world.

I have said previously on this board that the Zapatistas in Mexico provide us with a very hopeful option for &#39;moving forward&#39; in the third world without Leninism. In short, I suggest autonomism.

And no, you have me wrong, Lazar. I suck up to no one. Especially you&#33; But perhaps you believe that &#39;I should&#39;&#33; :lol:

[KC]

The despotism of the Castro regime should be most evident. Let us simply look at the Cuban press. It is not a free press, and a free press is a cornerstone in any democracy. When was the last time the Cuban press openly criticized Fidel Castro?

As long as class antagonisms exist, there is no such thing as a "free press"&#33; Can you not see that? Can you not see that, as capitalist society forces the media to conform to its standards, so also does socialist Cuba? Can you not see how dangerous it would be for Cuba to create "free press"? You might as well criticize cuba for it&#39;s market limitations as a "restriction of the citizens&#39; freedoms"&#33;


when was the last time anyone threatened Castro&#39;s power in any way?

Why would anyone want to? He has done a terrific job with what he does. He is completely dedicated and involved to his country and his people. So why would anybody want to?


If you believe that the Cuban system is so &#39;democratic&#39;, I think the burden of proof is upon you, Lazar.


Here (http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html)


Market capitalism was overthrown in the Cuban Revolution. Since then, many social ills have been greatly overcome, if not eliminated in Cuba. There are very few murders in Cuba. There are more homicides in Denver in a month than in all of Cuba in a year. Women are empowered and safely walk the streets of Havana anytime of day or night. People are secure in their communal existence, in the countryside, in the cities, in the towns. In Cuba there are few police, and most of them are unarmed. America, as we know, is an armed killing field despite, or because of, the world&#39;s most heavily equipped and funded police forces. Compared to Cuba&#39;s relative tranquility, the streets of America are barely civilized. But this is unfortunately the case in all "free market" economies, as a glance at the news will tragically confirm.
Source (http://www.newhumanist.com/macguire.html)

Unfortunately, I am not on my computer as I am home from college for Christmas break, or I would have more for you. This is the only site that I could remember, as I have linked it a lot lately. Perhaps when I get back I will link some more. I&#39;m sure, however, there are others here who could provide you with more information in the meantime.


notable characteristics of the political sub-system are:
Leninist design
selectivity of membership
class distinction
programmed discipline


Of course, you must realize that this offers nothing really in your support. It is a series of facts, all of which are true, but all of which are out of context. No context is offered here at all. Cuba is openly Marxist-Leninist in design. The rest, however, can be easily explained. The last three reasons are, of course, the main factors in determining who is admitted to the CC and who is rejected. They want those most knolwedgable to lead, as they are most qualified for the job. This might gather some offense from members of this board. As redstar might say "Leninists believe that those who know the most are the only ones qualified for the job, and those that get the job eventually constitute a new ruling class"&#33; Of course, what whoever would agree with this doesn&#39;t realize is that all Cubans are able to learn as much about their system and Leninist politics as they want. They are all on an equal platform. There is no class distinction such as the ones that exist in the rest of the world. So you see, these facts out of context offer nothing to debate.



most important characteristics of the political sub-system are:
single political party
sanctioned powers of the PCC in the constitution

You are not required to be in the party to run for office.



And no, you have me wrong, Lazar. I suck up to no one. Especially you&#33; But perhaps you believe that &#39;I should&#39;&#33; laugh.gif

Although I would be flattered, I certainly don&#39;t expect anyone to suck up to me. I am in the same boat as anyone else in the quest for knowledge that we all seek. Of course, I base this on the fact that all I hear from you is in direct agreement with what redstar advocates, so as you might not directly "suck up" to him, you certainly seem to hold his ideas higher up than those of others.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:51 PM

The despotism of the Castro regime should be most evident. Let us simply look at the Cuban press. It is not a free press, and a free press is a cornerstone in any democracy. When was the last time the Cuban press openly criticized Fidel Castro?

As long as class antagonisms exist, there is no such thing as a "free press"&#33; Can you not see that? Can you not see that, as capitalist society forces the media to conform to its standards, so also does socialist Cuba? Can you not see how dangerous it would be for Cuba to create "free press"? You might as well criticize cuba for it&#39;s market limitations as a "restriction of the citizens&#39; freedoms"&#33;


when was the last time anyone threatened Castro&#39;s power in any way?

Why would anyone want to? He has done a terrific job with what he does. He is completely dedicated and involved to his country and his people. So why would anybody want to?


If you believe that the Cuban system is so &#39;democratic&#39;, I think the burden of proof is upon you, Lazar.


Here (http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html)


Market capitalism was overthrown in the Cuban Revolution. Since then, many social ills have been greatly overcome, if not eliminated in Cuba. There are very few murders in Cuba. There are more homicides in Denver in a month than in all of Cuba in a year. Women are empowered and safely walk the streets of Havana anytime of day or night. People are secure in their communal existence, in the countryside, in the cities, in the towns. In Cuba there are few police, and most of them are unarmed. America, as we know, is an armed killing field despite, or because of, the world&#39;s most heavily equipped and funded police forces. Compared to Cuba&#39;s relative tranquility, the streets of America are barely civilized. But this is unfortunately the case in all "free market" economies, as a glance at the news will tragically confirm.
Source (http://www.newhumanist.com/macguire.html)

Unfortunately, I am not on my computer as I am home from college for Christmas break, or I would have more for you. This is the only site that I could remember, as I have linked it a lot lately. Perhaps when I get back I will link some more. I&#39;m sure, however, there are others here who could provide you with more information in the meantime.


notable characteristics of the political sub-system are:
Leninist design
selectivity of membership
class distinction
programmed discipline


Of course, you must realize that this offers nothing really in your support. It is a series of facts, all of which are true, but all of which are out of context. No context is offered here at all. Cuba is openly Marxist-Leninist in design. The rest, however, can be easily explained. The last three reasons are, of course, the main factors in determining who is admitted to the CC and who is rejected. They want those most knolwedgable to lead, as they are most qualified for the job. This might gather some offense from members of this board. As redstar might say "Leninists believe that those who know the most are the only ones qualified for the job, and those that get the job eventually constitute a new ruling class"&#33; Of course, what whoever would agree with this doesn&#39;t realize is that all Cubans are able to learn as much about their system and Leninist politics as they want. They are all on an equal platform. There is no class distinction such as the ones that exist in the rest of the world. So you see, these facts out of context offer nothing to debate.



most important characteristics of the political sub-system are:
single political party
sanctioned powers of the PCC in the constitution

You are not required to be in the party to run for office.



And no, you have me wrong, Lazar. I suck up to no one. Especially you&#33; But perhaps you believe that &#39;I should&#39;&#33; laugh.gif

Although I would be flattered, I certainly don&#39;t expect anyone to suck up to me. I am in the same boat as anyone else in the quest for knowledge that we all seek. Of course, I base this on the fact that all I hear from you is in direct agreement with what redstar advocates, so as you might not directly "suck up" to him, you certainly seem to hold his ideas higher up than those of others.
Did you read the link? Cuba imprisons journalists&#33; Not only do they signify an &#39;authorised press&#39; (that is, of the state&#39;s approval), they imprison journalists&#33; As a student with a respect for journalism, I find this appauling. But perhaps this is just a &#39;neccesity&#39; of Leninism&#33; Our press is certainly not free, but it atleast allows for criticism&#39;s of the president. You will not find this in Cuba, and this is simple evidence of Castro&#39;s rather significant (unelected, undemocratic) power. Please also note that I am in no way claiming our system is &#39;democratic&#39;, but simply illustrating a point.

I am quite sure that there are people who &#39;would want to&#39; challenge Castro for power in Cuba. This, however, is unallowed.

In resonse to your link, I shall submit another, which gives some interesting information: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...507/ai_n8721322 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3688/is_199507/ai_n8721322)
This, in particular, is rather interesting, concerning &#39;democracy&#39; in Cuba:
"...and control over economy, culture, social life and politics by an unelected minority."

This obviously refers to Castro and his appointed brother, who sit, quite undemocratically, in power. The &#39;democratic&#39; elements that were described in your link seem to have little real power. True power in Cuba is held by unelected elements, namely, Castro and his appointees.

You are right, in this debate, I hold Redstar&#39;s ideas &#39;higher&#39; than those of others, simply because I agree with his views on Leninism. And I&#39;m sure people who agree with you may look at your views &#39;higher&#39; than those of others.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lazar
I would love for you to provide evidence of Cuba&#39;s "tyranny" or its lack of democracy and worker power.

I&#39;ve responded to this before, but perhaps you did not notice.

Where is the controversy?

Humans are a contentious species. We argue with each other constantly about both what exists now and what should exist in the future.

But there is no evidence of this in the Cuban media.

Is there a RevLeft on the Cuban intra-net where Cuban communists argue about the future of Cuban society?

I&#39;ve never heard of this...and I&#39;ve read lots of books written by people who visited Cuba.

A society without public controversy cannot be anything but a despotism.

Do you really want to argue that the entire Cuban population "agrees with Fidel 100%"...except for a small group of political mercenaries on the American payroll.

I am not, as you know, in favor of "free speech for reactionaries". But do you imagine that there are no "ultra-leftists" in Cuba who would favor polices considerably more radical than those presently in force?

Where is their voice?


I don&#39;t agree with Lenin on everything, as I am more of a Marxist than a Marxist-Leninist, but I do believe that consolidated state-socialism is a much better system for people to live under than the harsh conditions of capitalism. Whether or not these systems devolve back into capitalism, the living standards of these countries will be raised, and people will be at least temporarily freed of their chains.

I don&#39;t necessarily disagree with this position at all.

The difficulty arises when the remaining "western" Leninists point to such improvements as "proof" that "they know what they&#39;re doing" and "we should follow them".

In the "west", the Leninists have conclusively proved that they don&#39;t know what they&#39;re doing.

The criticism of "third world" Leninist failures derives directly from "western" Leninist claims of success.


So far, I have heard nobody even so much as speak of developing new theories.

I am very much in favor of "new ideas" being developed...and have said so many times.

It may be, for example, that the "Venezuelan model" will replace Leninism in the "third world".

That is, a "Napoleon-like" figure wins a popular election and uses his victory as a mandate to do all the things that a Leninist party would do.

This is certainly a possibility...we have to wait and see how it "works out".

But watch out for those who advocate such a "plan" for the "west"&#33;

It will be just one more radical petty-bourgeois scheme to fasten upon us an "improved" despotism.

That&#39;s unacceptable.


Being tolerant of change is a much more important skill to have than knowledge of theory.

In my opinion, radical skepticism is actually more important than anything else.

I think that&#39;s at the heart of a scientific world view.

It&#39;s so "easy" for us to accept rhetoric "at face value"...and it seems to me that that&#39;s how we "go wrong" more often than any other way.


Maoists are Leninists as much as you claim Leninists are Marxists.

Strange comment. On what grounds do you challenge their "pedigree"?

If anything, the 20th century Maoists were the most successful Leninists. And they seem to be doing "rather well" in a few places even now.

Indeed, there were (and still are) a lot of obvious parallels between Castro&#39;s Cuba and Mao&#39;s China -- to the point where I think it would be perfectly ok to call Cuba a kind of "soft Maoism".


Or they felt powerless because utopian "intellectuals" like "you" made them "feel" that all of their effort was hopeless "and" that nothing can "be done" until material conditions "arise".

I think you still have some work to do if you really want to emulate my "style". :lol:

I also think you vastly exaggerate the "influence" of people "like me".

People did not leave the Leninist parties because a tiny handful of "ultra-leftists" told them that "things are hopeless".

Indeed, that&#39;s so pathetic an "argument" that I can only assume you raised it as an "introduction" to your rant against me personally.


I have yet to see you offer any constructive alternatives.

No, you&#39;ve just chosen to ignore them...for reasons best known to yourself.

But your objection fails for another reason that&#39;s entirely independent of your "criticism".

If someone puts forward a theory, it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the short-comings of that theory even if one doesn&#39;t have an alternative theory at all.

We are not "required" to possess "absolute truth" before we are "allowed" to reject self-evident bullshit.

Had someone said in ancient times THERE ARE NO GODS&#33;...that would have been a true statement entirely regardless of the fact that this early atheist knew, of necessity, almost nothing about objective reality at all.

My criticisms of the Leninist paradigm stand or fall on their own merits...even if I never said a word about any "alternatives".


You might be content to sit around and shoot the shit about communism all day every day until you die, but theory is nothing without action.

And action is nothing without theory.

At this moment, your action is the same as mine..."shooting the shit about communism".

This is a message board...where people "shoot the shit about communism".

Is that a useful activity? Is it important that we have some kind of coherent conception of what the fuck we&#39;re trying to do?

Or do you think it&#39;s all "intellectual bullshit" and we should really just go out and throw rocks at cops?

Well, I&#39;m not "stopping you". If you want to "do something", go do it&#33; And if you write something here about what you&#39;ve done, I may praise it or criticize it...but you&#39;re still free to keep doing it if that&#39;s what you want to do.

I will freely admit that I&#39;m not "very good" at thinking up things "for people to do". And on those occasions where I have made practical suggestions, they&#39;ve not been received with wide-spread approval. Indeed, when they have been implemented, they didn&#39;t "work out" nearly as well as I thought they would.

So...(a) practical suggestions are not what I&#39;m very good at; or (b) my practical suggestions are too far "in advance" of what is actually possible.

Well, those are the breaks. Maybe if I was a "genius", I could think up some "really great projects" for people to engage in.

But, to my endless regret, I&#39;m not. :(

Sorry.


What&#39;s your excuse? Old age?

You got it. I simply don&#39;t have the physical stamina required to effectively participate in practical political activity anymore...and haven&#39;t had it since the mid-1990s.

Rejoice in your youth...it will be over a lot sooner than you now believe. :(


Redstar, when was the last time your theories changed?

In a significant way? Around 1971 or so when I realized that Leninism in the "west" just didn&#39;t make sense.

In "minor" ways? Well, it was only a few days ago that I realized something that I&#39;d been "moving towards" for a long time.

Leninism, properly considered, is an ideology of the radical petty-bourgeoisie. I know that&#39;s "implicit" in a whole lot of things I&#39;ve written over the last three years...but I suddenly realized what I was really getting at without knowing it at the time.

And there have been some "intermediate changes" in my views over the last three years.

But the usual consequence of "sharp" political discussion is a development of one&#39;s own theories -- making them more coherent, more subtle, more nuanced, etc. Theories that are sharply criticized -- like mine have been -- may be refuted or may become even stronger.

I think mine have become stronger. :P


Do you think your theories are right?

Yes. :)


Do you think they are completely and 100% correct? If not, then what do you think is wrong with them?

The largest "gap" in the Marxist paradigm is one I have noted before. Neither I nor any other Marxist can say why great proletarian uprisings happen here and not there or at this time and not some other time.

In this context, historical materialism is still "intuitive" instead of scientific.

I don&#39;t like this at all...but I&#39;m not smart enough to figure out what to do about it. I have suggested to some young comrades who are a lot smarter than I am to look at the possibilities of developing "mathematical models" of late capitalist society and see if it&#39;s possible to anticipate proletarian revolutions.

So maybe something will be really learned in a decade or two.


I would love to imitate Socrates on this one and hear you admit that you know nothing before we continue, but of course, I don&#39;t see this happening any time soon.

If you wish to imitate the infamous Spartan collaborator (and teacher of the Athenian aristocracy), be my guest.

But I will continue to insist that I know a great deal more than "nothing".

Much to your dismay, no doubt. :)

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

[KC]

Very quickly, let me respond to some of these responses.




And action is nothing without theory.

At this moment, your action is the same as mine..."shooting the shit about communism".

This is a message board...where people "shoot the shit about communism".

Is that a useful activity? Is it important that we have some kind of coherent conception of what the fuck we&#39;re trying to do?

You are correct in your assertion that theory and action are both equally important. What I was criticizing is your lack of action.



Or do you think it&#39;s all "intellectual bullshit" and we should really just go out and throw rocks at cops?

I am not in any way shape or form advocating "throwing rocks at cops" (although it would be somewhat entertaining). I do think that you have become horribly unbalance when it comes to theory vs. action. I don&#39;t think that we should act once we have correct theory. I think we should act while we theorize, and our actions will help us determine whether or not our theories are plausible. Theory is nothing without action, and action is nothing without theory. This is because the two play off of each other. One helps guide the other and vice versa. I am against just action, and I am against just theory.



Well, I&#39;m not "stopping you". If you want to "do something", go do it&#33; And if you write something here about what you&#39;ve done, I may praise it or criticize it...but you&#39;re still free to keep doing it if that&#39;s what you want to do.


I do do things. And certainly not such petty things as throwing rocks at cops. What I would like to know is what you do.



I will freely admit that I&#39;m not "very good" at thinking up things "for people to do". And on those occasions where I have made practical suggestions, they&#39;ve not been received with wide-spread approval. Indeed, when they have been implemented, they didn&#39;t "work out" nearly as well as I thought they would.

So...(a) practical suggestions are not what I&#39;m very good at; or (b) my practical suggestions are too far "in advance" of what is actually possible.

Do you attempt to change this? Aside from debating theory, and learning theory, have you made any attempts at developing your ability to brainstorm productive actions for communists to do to forward their movement? Wouldn&#39;t you think that at this point, instead of constantly theorizing, as you have been reading theory for close to around 40 years, that you should rather be working on applying this knowledge of theory into what people should do? Perhaps what you need to do is work on your ability to determine what actions are successful and what aren&#39;t. That would be much more helpful than endless theorizing.



Well, those are the breaks. Maybe if I was a "genius", I could think up some "really great projects" for people to engage in.

But, to my endless regret, I&#39;m not. sad.gif

Sorry.


I know people that have thought up fascinating ideas for actions. They aren&#39;t geniuses. It doesn&#39;t take a genius to do this.



You got it. I simply don&#39;t have the physical stamina required to effectively participate in practical political activity anymore...and haven&#39;t had it since the mid-1990s.

Rejoice in your youth...it will be over a lot sooner than you now believe. sad.gif


That is a rather weak excuse, is it not? How about participating in party meetings in your area and/or helping them further the cause? This doesn&#39;t require a lot of effort, aside from getting to and from where things take place. This could include tabling, flyering, leafletting, debating normal people, etc... Hell, you could even help by writing literature such as flyers and pamphlets. You wouldn&#39;t even have to get up from the computer&#33;




Yes. smile.gif

You are setting yourself up for a huge disappointment, as no theory can be completely right. Unless, of course, you&#39;re god. :lol:



But I will continue to insist that I know a great deal more than "nothing".

By claiming you are completely right, you basically seal your fate in being wrong.

I overreacted in my previous post towards you. For that I apologize. Let me inform you, though, that I am in complete opposition to all of your generalizations, as everyone should be. It weakens your arguments considerably, and doesn&#39;t fail to aggravate people (such as myself).

[redstar2000]

You are really laying it on thick, aren&#39;t you?


Originally posted by Lazar
What I was criticizing is your lack of action.

Yes, and when I explained that, you said


That is a rather weak excuse, is it not?

How the bloody fuck would you know what it is like to be old?

For one thing, you experience physical pain all the time. Every physical action requires enormous effort. You are fatigued all the time. Walk a block and your legs scream in agony.

Need I continue, asshole? :angry:


How about participating in party meetings in your area and/or helping them further the cause?

After all that I have written against Leninist parties, you actually have the temerity to suggest that I should devote my remaining meager energies to "participating in one".

*shakes head in disbelief*


Hell, you could even help by writing literature such as flyers and pamphlets.

Pamphlets are probably beyond me and no one has requested me to write a leaflet for them. If that ever happens, I&#39;ll do it if I generally agree with that particular group.

Interestingly enough, people have occasionally written to me asking my permission to use extensive quotations from the redstar2000papers site for popular leafleting.

Naturally, I am delighted to give my permission -- it means that what I have written makes so much sense to a few folks that they want to "pass it on".


Do you attempt to change this?

No, I accept my limitations. Neither I nor anyone else can do "everything" well.

Perhaps you are one of those people who thinks you "can" do everything "well".

I regret to inform you that when it comes to "shooting the shit about communism", you ain&#39;t so hot.

Perhaps that explains why you wanted to turn this thread into a discussion of me.


Perhaps what you need to do is work on your ability to determine what actions are successful and what aren&#39;t. That would be much more helpful than endless theorizing.

That is "theorizing". There are "theoretical reasons" why some things work better under certain circumstances than others.

But what is most germane here is that under favorable circumstances almost anything "works" and under unfavorable circumstances almost nothing "works".

We live in a period of reaction...and almost nothing is going to "work" in the sense of being dramatically successful.

The reader may also be interested in this post...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291994437 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44291&view=findpost&p=1291994437)


Let me inform you, though, that I am in complete opposition to all of your generalizations, as everyone should be.

Maybe they "should be" but some folks seem to rather enjoy what I have to say and even find my generalizations useful.

That&#39;s good enough for me. :P

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

[anomaly]

Why has this suddenly become a debate over Redstar2000?

Lazar, perhaps in your next post you can try and get back to the actual debate.

[KC]

Why has this suddenly become a debate over Redstar2000?

Lazar, perhaps in your next post you can try and get back to the actual debate.

I was originally not going to reply to redstar&#39;s last post so that the debate could get back on track, but I have since changed my mind and this will be my last post in this thread.




How the bloody fuck would you know what it is like to be old?

For one thing, you experience physical pain all the time. Every physical action requires enormous effort. You are fatigued all the time. Walk a block and your legs scream in agony.

Need I continue, asshole? mad.gif

Well, considering that I am like this for the majority of the winter, I think I could guess at what you&#39;re going through. You see, I have bad knees. Through extensive activity and overuse of my legs, I have developed horribly bad knees. Some days I can barely walk. During the winter the problem gets much worse, and this is the time that I have the most problems. So I think that, without being as old as you, I do get brief glimpses into the life of an old person. One doesn&#39;t have to be old to feel that way, you know. :lol:



After all that I have written against Leninist parties, you actually have the temerity to suggest that I should devote my remaining meager energies to "participating in one".

*shakes head in disbelief*

I am not talking about Leninist parties. If you fail to see the difference (as I know you are against parties and probably do fail to see so) then that is unfortunate.



Pamphlets are probably beyond me and no one has requested me to write a leaflet for them. If that ever happens, I&#39;ll do it if I generally agree with that particular group.


Why are pamphlets beyond you? Also, why not put some literature up on your website to be printed off? You don&#39;t have to do it for a specific group of people.




No, I accept my limitations. Neither I nor anyone else can do "everything" well.

Perhaps you are one of those people who thinks you "can" do everything "well".

I regret to inform you that when it comes to "shooting the shit about communism", you ain&#39;t so hot.

I don&#39;t think I can do everything well. But I do think that I should try my damnedest at doing so. Also, I am not claiming to be good at talking theory. I am here to learn from others, as are you.



Perhaps that explains why you wanted to turn this thread into a discussion of me.

Why I turned this thread into a discussion of you was mostly because of my anger towards over-generalizations that have commonly been used on this forum since I have came here without any indepth explanation of them.




Maybe they "should be" but some folks seem to rather enjoy what I have to say and even find my generalizations useful.

That&#39;s good enough for me. tongue.gif

Generalizations are almost never a good thing to prop yourself up on. Generalizations are a dangerous thing and should be avoided at all costs (although it is a rather hard thing to avoid completely as we are programmed to generalize as a form of protection).

Again, this is my last post in this thread. After this, I don&#39;t give a shit what happens in here. Hell, you could trash all these posts if you want to, redstar. If you want to respond then just know that I probably won&#39;t respond back, unless it is relevant to the debate that this thread was created for (which I take responsibility for turning it off-track, and am attempting to put it back on track).

[Zeitgeizt]

It&#39;s not Lazar who fell off the path.

[anomaly]

Why do you say that?

[redstar2000]

redstar2000 "gets practical". :lol:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291994819 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44291&view=findpost&p=1291994819)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291994845 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44291&view=findpost&p=1291994845)

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

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Redstar, I would think with all your experience you&#39;d know that just because you say something, it doesn&#39;t make it true.

To say there is no open debate in Cuban society is nonsense&#33;

Read &#39;Cuba: Dictatorship or democracy?&#39; by Marta Harnecker; the bulk of the book is made up of documented debates between Cubans at all levels: in the mass organizations (Cuban Federation of Women, unions, and Committees in Defense of the Revolution), in the process of nominating, electing, and recalling representatives to people&#39;s power, in accountability meetings with representatives of people&#39;s power, in nominating fellow workers to become members of the party, in regard to major laws before they are passed, etc. etc.

And this book was written in the 70&#39;s when the organs of People&#39;s Power were still very new&#33; And there are quite a few similar documented accounts, both newer and older.

Just because the National Assembly doesn&#39;t publicize every debate which goes on within the country openly in the daily press (which would be idiotic while 90 miles from the colossus to the north which is constantly trying to overturn the revolution in every and any way) certainly doesn&#39;t mean that there&#39;s no debate occuring&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad
And this book was written in the 70&#39;s when the organs of People&#39;s Power were still very new&#33; And there are quite a few similar documented accounts, both newer and older.

The newer the better.

Oddly enough, the Soviet press in the 1920s was reportedly quite lively...with many articles by the leading Bolsheviks (if not by ordinary workers) openly debating the future shape of the USSR.

By 1930, it was only Joe. :(


Just because the National Assembly doesn&#39;t publicize every debate which goes on within the country openly in the daily press (which would be idiotic while 90 miles from the colossus to the north which is constantly trying to overturn the revolution in every and any way) certainly doesn&#39;t mean that there&#39;s no debate occurring&#33;

If there are debates that go unpublicized in the Cuban media, then how do ordinary Cubans even know what is being debated?

Do you suggest that they are supposed to say to themselves "the leaders know best", and just shut up and do what they&#39;re told?

And that everyone goes along with that except for the American-sponsored political mercenaries?

Sorry...but that is just not credible.

In addition to which, the excuse of "national security" is one with which we are all too familiar in capitalist despotisms.

It is infinitely flexible and, by its very nature, impossible to ever "nail down".

The total suppression of public controversy in the Cuban media "in the name of national security" is, just to begin with, a license to steal.

And maybe worse. :(

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

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If there are debates that go unpublicized in the Cuban media, then how do ordinary Cubans even know what is being debated?

I just talked about that&#33; :lol:

Did you read my post comrade?

These things are hashed out at all levels. Issues which are debated in the National Assembly are also debated (usually before, sometimes during) at the local levels (in the unions, mass organizations, worksplaces, CDR meetings, etc.).

For instance, I can recall one recent debate between the Cuban Federation of Women and the National Assembly. The National Aseembly reported that 36% of the government was made up of women -- a major acheivement considering the make up of most governments (especially in Latin America). Well, the Cuban Federation of Women wanted to know why the number wasn&#39;t 50%, to be completely representative of the population. So there was a debate over how to get to 50%, and why the level wasn&#39;t at 50% now.

That&#39;s just a small example; but there certainly is debate about even small details in Cuba. In fact, I don&#39;t think you can find another country on earth right now in which regular people talk as much about the direction of society (and actually have what they say influence that direction)&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad
That&#39;s just a small example; but there certainly is debate about even small details in Cuba. In fact, I don&#39;t think you can find another country on earth right now in which regular people talk as much about the direction of society (and actually have what they say influence that direction)&#33;

But how do people who "weren&#39;t at the meeting" know what was said?

We are not "serfs" concerned only with what happens in our own tiny "village", are we?

I may be able to gripe about something in my workplace or neighborhood and may even be able to persuade "the powers that be" to do something about it -- and you could fairly argue that that in itself is a big improvement over what usually takes place in advanced capitalist countries.

But what of the wider social implications of my "gripe"? How do I communicate this to other people and learn what they think about my "gripe"?

Do I just "hope" that the local party boss thinks that my "gripe" is "significant enough" to report it to his superior -- who will then decide that "it&#39;s important" and report it up the line until someone finally mentions it to Fidel?

In other words, popular self-determination depends on the mechanisms of communication in place.

There are those who would say that Cuba "can&#39;t afford" those mechanisms -- it&#39;s too costly to make the internet widely available and imported newsprint is too expensive. The first priorities must be food and medicines and spare parts for Cuba&#39;s aging power system.

For all I know, this could be true.

But that doesn&#39;t alter the consequences. As I painfully learned while the power was out in southern Louisiana, when we are "cut off" from the world, we become "like serfs"...knowing nothing about anything except that which we can see around us with our own eyes.

It was a horrible feeling&#33; :o

And I suspect that Cubans who are not "connected" in some fashion to the Party elite live like that all the time&#33;

With such "narrow horizons", how can ordinary Cubans be anything but "at the mercy" of their leaders?

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

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Most people in Cuba are in one mass organization or another (especially the unions & Cuban Federation of Women); but even those who aren&#39;t can attend CDR meetings, the public meetings that their representatives hold, on the job site, etc.

The only excuse for not being involved would be not taking the iniative.


I may be able to gripe about something in my workplace or neighborhood and may even be able to persuade "the powers that be" to do something about it -- and you could fairly argue that that in itself is a big improvement over what usually takes place in advanced capitalist countries.

But what of the wider social implications of my "gripe"? How do I communicate this to other people and learn what they think about my "gripe"?

You can do it at any of the many public meetings.


Do I just "hope" that the local party boss thinks that my "gripe" is "significant enough" to report it to his superior -- who will then decide that "it&#39;s important" and report it up the line until someone finally mentions it to Fidel?

1. Almost half of the elected representatives aren&#39;t party members.
2. To join the party, you must be elected a model workers by your fellow workers.
3. If you&#39;re not satisfied with your representatives you can bring up your problem at an accountability meeting; or if it&#39;s necessary you can iniate a vote to recall them. You can also go &#39;above them&#39; to the provincial level; straight to union leaders, etc.


And I suspect that Cubans who are not "connected" in some fashion to the Party elite live like that all the time&#33;

You suspect wrong (even despite the use of bold :lol:).. visit Cuba and talk to some people.

[anomaly]

I question the true power the &#39;elected representatives&#39; actually hold. In some reading that I&#39;ve done while debating with some &#39;pro-Castro&#39; people in this thread, I have come across the consistent statement that the Party in Cuba enjoys significantly less privileges than the Party did in Eastern Europe. Castro enjoys clear supremacy, and it is quite clear that his position is not up for grabs. If this is not an example of despotism, I don&#39;t know what is&#33;

Here is another good article describing the depotism in Cuba:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Cuba
Of interest are the following bits of information in the article:
"Cuba is led by President Fidel Castro, who is Chief of State, Head of Government, First Secretary of the CPC, and commander in chief of the armed forces."-----All this power is held by someone uncontested for power. This is despotism.

Also from article: "Though not a formal requirement, party membership is virtually a de facto prerequisite for high-level official positions and professional advancement in most areas..."

"All the 609 candidates who ran uncontested for the National Assembly were elected. According to IPU, all seats were won by the Communist Party of Cuba."

Despotism is quite evident. Castro and his appointees hold true power in Cuba, and they may not be challenged for power.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad
You can do it at any of the many public meetings.

A public meeting, by necessity, is limited to people within a small area...other than those who are paid (in one way or another) to attend from a distance.

Public meetings normally have fixed agendas...because starting an agenda "from scratch" is very time-consuming.

Indeed, the people running a public meeting are often prejudiced against anyone raising a new matter "from the floor"...they view it as "extra work for them".

Now imagine a working person in Cuba who does indeed bring forward what s/he perceives as a "serious gripe".

Even if the local meeting (or meetings) receive her/his proposal with favorable interest, there remains no way to communicate her/his ideas to the whole of Cuban society.

It&#39;s not as if you could quit your job and travel all over the island speaking to hundreds of local meetings. Only American-funded "dissidents" can afford to do that.

Imagine a really serious question: what should be the attitude of the government to the Catholic Church and the general propagation of superstition?

Fidel has "laid down the law" now. "Tolerance" is the "official position" and the government may even be providing "secret subsidies" to the Church...probably not voted on by the National Assembly but hidden in some other budgetary item.

No ordinary Cuban is in any position to challenge this rotten capitulation to reaction. S/he can&#39;t even communicate to other Cubans her/his dismay.

I&#39;ve heard that practicing Catholics are now even welcome in the "Communist" Party. :o

What happens when the "26th of July" generation retires or dies? The younger leaders can freely decide to do what China has done and what Vietnam is doing...put the whole country up for sale on the world market.

Who could stop them? Who would even be aware that they&#39;ve done that? Even if there was dissent in the National Assembly, would it get reported?

Sure, after a while it would become obvious to the ordinary Cuban that things had changed for the worse. And maybe protests or even strikes could be organized...that&#39;s actually happened in China.

But it&#39;s too little and too late.

Without media that&#39;s actually open to the working class, the ordinary Cuban must perforce "suffer in silence".

Just like here&#33;


...visit Cuba and talk to some people.

Not a practical option for most people. Only the middle class can afford to make the trip and fluency in Spanish would obviously be essential.

And what Cuban would speak freely to a North American...except those who "can&#39;t wait" for the return of the Yankees.

It&#39;s not as if one can just "drop in" and proclaim that one is an "ardent communist" and everyone just "opens up" like a can of peaches.

In fact, I think if anyone really wants to know "what Cuba is really like", the only thing that makes sense to me is to go and live there for a few years.

Get a regular job and see how much real "workplace democracy" exists. Join your neighborhood CDR and see what they do and what they talk about. Or take some classes at the University of Havana and gain some insight into Cuban student life.

I have grown pretty skeptical of the "benefits" of "political tourism". You go spend a week or two someplace and, yes, you learn a little something about what it&#39;s like there...but not all that much.

And, as we should all know by now, appearances can be deceiving.

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

[Amusing Scrotum]

From what I have read in this thread the proponents of the Cuban system seem to be advocating a system that is very similar to the way local British councils work.

You have the small councils (organs of popular power) which meet and "decide things." However the Cuban economy is centrally planned and therefore the local councils obviously can&#39;t decide the economic factors.

So what&#39;s left? .....they get to decide the little things, the small local controversies. "Shall be build a playground here, shall we erect a statue there etc. etc." Then even the decisions made at the local level have to go up another couple of levels.

This can be done in Britain now. We can elect a local councillor and go to the council meetings and ask questions. And as anyone who has ever asked a question will testify the process is often very tedious and in the end useless.

The problem is that in Cuba, like in Britain, we only get to decide the little things, if we get to decide anything at all. We can even realistically get elected to the local council on a single issue that is particularly contentious.

However we don&#39;t get a say on the big things, neither it seems do Cubans. So basically what is so different about Cuban democracy?
_______

On a side note, I don&#39;t think Cuban can be said to be Leninist. It reminds me more of a kind of social democracy which does some humanitarian things, free health-care, social benefits etc. but never actually does the important thing, giving power to the whole of the working class.

[anomaly]

Actually, the way I notice Cuba differing from other Leninist states is the different roles of the Communist Party.

In Europe, the Party always played a central role, working with the premier. In Cuba, the Party has a more limited role, and Castro has more power. &#39;Social democracy&#39; is (was) claimed to exist in all Leninist states. And they all had social programs, of varying degrees.

[chebol]

Lived there recently Redstar? No? Why don;t you follow your own advice? And until then, stop spinning shit.

I particuarly like the "hypothetical" about the Cuban government (oh, no, sorry, to you it is just Fidel) subsidising the Catholic Church. Nice poser. Let&#39;s think about how darstadly the Castro regime is- funding reaction- until we realise this is just a figment of Restar&#39;s diseased imaginings&#33;

You&#39;ve heard that the PCC now allows Catholics&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? Where? The Miami Herald? Put your money where your mouth is&#33; I&#39;ve also "heard" that Fidel is one of the richest men in the world and that the moon is made of green cheese. Comments from the Almighty?

Once again, it&#39;s clear you have NO understanding of ther People&#39;s power system in Cuba (or, more to the point, you are deliberately misrepresenting it).

Re. going to Cuba. "Only the middle class could afford it????" I&#39;m not sure which First World you live in mate, but in the one I live in, a considerable proportion of the working class can also afford it. A considerable proportion cannot also, I agree, but your clear intention is to skew the discusion so it looks like those that have been there are &#39;middle class&#39; and can therefore have their opinions disregarded.

And, for what it&#39;s worth, the Cuban people ar every open with their politics, including their strident criticisms of the government and bureacracy, where they feel it&#39;s appropriate. You don&#39;t agree, don&#39;t believe me? Shut up and go to Cuba then. That&#39;s right. LIVE in Cuba for a while, say six months, and then come back with your smug face and self-righteous frippery.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by chebol
And, for what it&#39;s worth, the Cuban people ar every open with their politics, including their strident criticisms of the government and bureacracy, where they feel it&#39;s appropriate.

Is there an internet news site which hosts these debates? .....the only sites I&#39;ve ever been able to find on Cuban current events are Granma and Gusano press. Needless to say the standard of journalism on both is terrible.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don&#39;t have time to respond to the last posts in full right now, but:


You&#39;ve heard that the PCC now allows Catholics&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?

He was right, they do.

In 1991, in the 4th PCC Congress they decided to admit Catholics into party for the first time.

[chebol]

I know, the point is that Redstar doesn&#39;t often reference his claims, he just makes them, and expects us to take them at face value because he said so. Heaven forbid :-) that he try to put it in context either.... It might as well be a claim that the moon is cuban baseball set up for 21st century baseball profiteering....

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by che&#045;bol+--> (che&#045;bol)I know, the point is that Redstar doesn&#39;t often reference his claims, he just makes them, and expects us to take them at face value because he said so.[/b]

If you "know", then why do you pretend ignorance?

Just trying to make me "look bad"? :lol:

Here is a source for my claim that the Cuban government is subsidizing superstition...


young Cuban communist
Personally, I&#39;ve been critical about what I see as the gradual acceptance of the catholic church in our country. I am a communist, and therefore of course an athiest, but things have changed and I feel that some people who are not communists are entering our party. I feel that this has a long line here in our country, certain things never occured because people were afraid I think, things weren&#39;t taken far enough. We shouldn&#39;t be spending money to rebuild churches, in a socialist nation we shouldn&#39;t have a city named Saintiago (Saint David)&#33; -- emphasis added.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291905632 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38187&view=findpost&p=1291905632)

I believe the proper translation of "Santiago" is "St. James".

Now that we&#39;ve been informed that Catholics have been joining the Cuban "Communist" Party since 1991, I think it&#39;s reasonable to assume that some of them are "pretty high up".

We know that capitalist countries all subsidize superstition in many ways...it is such a useful illusion.

Why shouldn&#39;t Cuba? :(

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

[Zeitgeizt]

What about Catholics who advocate liberation theology?

Should the Communist Party be reserved only for these who dogmatically believe in atheism...it is an unscientific position to begin with. Agnosticism is a far better creed, because it doesn&#39;t hold absolute truths.

Israel is not democratic state because a Jewish Democracy is a contradiction in terms, because then those who are not Jewish cannot be part of "their democracy".

How un-Marxist can that type of exclusion be? As long as they have the best interests of the Proletariat at heart, why alienate them on some position which needed to be asserted during the mid 19th century, but now will only isolate people further from our ideas...Religion is mental rot - I believe that, but fighting them isn&#39;t going to help if they want to be part of Socialist revolution.

IN response to Castro pulling Catholics into the Socialist Camp..good for him. Much of Latin America is Catholic, and are opposed to us simply because they think we are the devil incarnate (Materialism). People need to be opened up slowly - that is called being nuanced...learn it.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)What about Catholics who advocate liberation theology?[/b]

As far as I am aware they fucked up a load of guerrilla movements in South America. Dragging them either towards reformism or obscurity, in some cases both.


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)Should the Communist Party be reserved only for these who dogmatically believe in atheism[/b]

Atheism and proletarian if you ask me.


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
it is an unscientific position to begin with.

Bullshit.

Pigs can&#39;t fly, is that an un-scientific opinion? .....go to the science forum and talk to the more scientifically intelligent members, they&#39;ll point out how calling atheism "unscientific" is a load of crap.

Plus most scientists are atheists, are they "unscientific"?


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
How un-Marxist can that type of exclusion be?

How would you know? .....you&#39;re not a Marxist.


[email protected]
As long as they have the best interests of the Proletariat at heart

This kind of idealist drivel proves you are about as much of a Marxist as my dog. And actually as a proletarian Communist, I find such statements offencive and demeaning.

Please, stop calling yourself a Communist.


Zeitgeizt
People need to be opened up slowly - that is called being nuanced...learn it.

You know a lot of "radicals" in Marx&#39;s day thought that Jews needed to convert to Christianity before they could become atheists. A slowly, slowly approach.

Marx, rightly dismissed such a stupid approach and you can see his thoughts on this approach here -- The Jewish Question (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/index.htm) -- the religious should be told in direct and blunt terms that religion is stupid.

[Zeitgeizt]

You need to calm down stupid.

I&#39;m a Marxist-Leninist. But you don&#39;t need to be an atheist to be a communist - this is not the early 20th century.

I&#39;ve read the Jewish question many times, but to declare war on Catholicism should not be a top priority for Marxist. We should focus more on the "Political uses of religion". The role the Church has played etc, but if the teaching of Christ---which are very communistic---can be integrated into the ideals of Socialism as in liberation theology (See El Salvador, or Nicaragua you dogmatic moron) then it will not be counter productive.

And don&#39;t tell me to stop calling myself a communist you fucking armchair Socialist.

The reason atheism is unscientific is because science holds no absolutes - even Einstein who was a Socialist was also an agnostic. I am a dialectical materialist, but if dialectics teaches us anything it is that our ideas must always be changing, and adapting to new evidence - or else we are nothing but a bunch of sorry ass theocrats - like yourself who treats Marxism as a religion, not a scientific tool.

People like you are what are wrong with Socialism - Grow up&#33;


To improve your understanding of how religion can be integrated into our ideals read "The Foundations of Christianity).

There should always be a separation of Church and state, but just because someone is Catholic, should not mean that they can&#39;t participate in a communist government - if the material conditions allow for it, and if the party approves that they are not counter revolutionary.

How old are you 17?

P.S. Where did you pullt this fact, from your butt cheeks?


Plus most scientists are atheists, are they "unscientific"?

That is not true. Show us some facts, because to my knowledge most scientists are not Marxists, and tend to not claim to have all the answers to the universe like you do. Read Carl Sagan Demon Haunted World. Of course noone is lighting candles to the prophets, but that doesn&#39;t mean that "god" does not exist ( I don&#39;t think it does) but I have no proof. The only person in the world who seems to is you the "lazy slob".

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)But you don&#39;t need to be an atheist to be a communist[/b]

That&#39;s like saying "you don&#39;t need to be an anti-racist or anti-sexist to be Communist." It&#39;s bollocks. Communism is a "materialist philosophy" and therefore the contradictions between religion and materialism mean that Communists can&#39;t be religious.


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)but to declare war on Catholicism should not be a top priority for Marxist.[/b]

South American Marxists would probably disagree. They face two massive problems, American imperialism and the Vatican. One does the damage, the other justifies the damage and occasionally does the damage too.

Tell me, do you think Aids rates would be so high if using contraception was no a sin?


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
We should focus more on the "Political uses of religion".

You know for all the good the German Communist parties did in the thirties, one of their massive errors was "tactical anti-Semitism." They would put up posters attacking Jewish Capitalists etc.

They were finding the "political uses of anti-Semitism."

Needless to say, Communist (out of principle) should be fundamentally opposed to all reactionary things. We shouldn&#39;t "adapt them." We should oppose them, militantly if possible.


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
Church has played etc, but if the teaching of Christ---which are very communistic


Originally posted by 1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God

Communistic patriarchy? .....perhaps the Leninists could adopt this...


Originally posted by Leninist Christianity
But I would have you know, that the head of every worker is [the] Party; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Party is Lenin&#39;s immortal wisdom.

Religion is a reactionary piece of shit.


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
And don&#39;t tell me to stop calling myself a communist

Why? .....Communists want workers to run society, you want people who "have the best interests of the Proletariat at heart" to run society. You see the huge difference, don&#39;t you?


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
The reason atheism is unscientific is because science holds no absolutes

Tell me what percentage chance do scientists suggest for the prospect of there being a God? .....0.00001 perhaps, maybe 0.000001. That there isn&#39;t a God is perhaps as much of a "scientific absolute" as we can hope for. After centuries of scientific study, absolutely no evidence has even suggested the possibility.


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
even Einstein who was a Socialist was also an agnostic.

What so I&#39;m supposed to bow my head in support of great men because they say its so? .....fuck that.

If we&#39;re in the business of "name dropping," then I&#39;d remind you that Lenin and Castro were and are atheists.


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
like yourself who treats Marxism as a religion, not a scientific tool.

And what do you base this assertion on? .....perhaps that I choose not to worship at Lenin&#39;s tomb and instead advocate that the working class take power for itself. Naughty me. :lol:


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
and don&#39;t ever tell someone who is more of a communist than your sorry cybertariat ass that they aren&#39;t a communist ever again.

My "sorry cybertariat ass" (I notice you too are posting on the internet) will persist in calling whomever I like, whatever I like. Particularly I will point out those people who are fundamentally anti-working class whilst masquerading in "Communist clothes."


[email protected]
There should always be a separation of Church and state

I&#39;d prefer to advocate the destruction of both the Church and the State.


Zeitgeizt
if the party approves

Here&#39;s a thought for you, why don&#39;t you propose that the Cuban people (not the party) decide? .....and anyway, on the basis of the link redstar2000 posted above, there seems to be at least one rank and file party member who opposes this. I&#39;d bet there are more.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)How old are you 17?[/b]

My age is in my profile (not that it matters). I&#39;m 18.


Originally posted by [email protected]
because to my knowledge most scientists are not Marxists

Who the fuck said anything about them being Marxists? ....I said they were atheists.


Zeitgeizt
Show us some facts

Well I&#39;m not sure that there is a census for the science community noting each scientists religious affiliation. However of the top of my head I can say that Richard Dawkins and nearly all of the other "Darwinists" are pretty close to being "militant atheists." Do you think they debate with creationists for the fun of it?

[Zeitgeizt]

I&#39;m not going to bother to reply to the majority of this because it was confused rant, taking facts completely out of context, and randomly posting them in places they don&#39;t belong.


You are correct that Marxism is a Materialist philosophy, which states, "that matter is the only reality which exists".

As far as scientific evidence shows this is correct - as of now, but there is always that .0000001 chance that it doesn&#39;t, so to be an atheist and state that there is no god is an unscientific position. As of now, I happen to agree with that unscientific position, but there is always the chance we are wrong - it&#39;s as simple as that. That is why being an agnostic is the only scientific position to hold...there is no other.

Marx was making a clean break from idealistic philosophy, and metaphysical explanations to explain the world, so he took the firm stance of materialism, and atheism. Marx also noted that religion serves as an opiate, and this is true for the most part, but there are also functionalist aspects to the teachings of the world&#39;s greatest religions...ask Rosa Luxemburg, and Castro who often quotes scripture.

It would be advisable for Marxists---if we want the scientific credibility that we preach----that instead of saying "Matter is the only reality that exists”. Maybe it is time we swallowed our pride and said "Matter is the only reality which we can prove exists". It is a more scientific approach to the question.

Scientific arguments are not limited to Darwinism verse creationism either. Although I believe creationism has lost that battle, and this is true even among many of those who believe in Christianity.




Who the fuck said anything about them being Marxists? ....I said they were atheists.

Yes, and you are still wrong, to my knowledge there is no proof that most scientists are atheists, especially ones from the United States...Most hold the position of agnosticism such as Einstein, Hawkins, and Sagan, just to "throw some names around".

I&#39;m not so sure that communists can&#39;t be religious. I can&#39;t imagine any intelligent one&#39;s would be, but that doesn&#39;t mean that because we advocate "Social ownership of the means of production" that we have all the answers to the fucking universe...that is just stupid, elitist, and unscientific. In some Marxists quest to be all encompassing they lost sight of the fact that we don&#39;t know all there is to know. Science is a great help there.

The Catholic Church is a huge barrier to progress for a variety of reasons, mainly because the backward Vatican are vehemently anti-communist, and also the fatalistic subjective factors which lead people to not take control of their own destiny because they look to the next life for salvation etc.the latter I think is a huge problem, but if we can demonstrate (as liberation theology does) that the teachings of Christ are more compatible with Communism than they are with Capitalism, then we can begin to pull stubborn religionists into our camp, and slowly educate the religion out of them. In all revolutions we find ourselves fighting the status quo, and the Church - we never seem to change too many minds on their side - maybe it is time we took a different approach - see my point?

Also, many Latin American priests now subscribe to Liberation Theology, I suggest you look it up, because you seem to know everything already...that is why your age came shining through in your post...the young, and infantile leftists tend to sound more dogmatic than most.



Religion is a reactionary piece of shit.

Organized religion is a reactionary piece of shit for the most part, but some religions, such as Buddhism have very positive lessons, only the theocrats over time have perverted them to their own benifit. Jesus for example said " a rich man getting into the kingdom of heavan is like a camel trying to fit through the eye of a needle."

If Communism wants to be a democratic society then Communists are going to have to learn to be more tolerant of others opinions - even if they are wrong. IN the context of the dictatorship of the workers (most of whom are religious) we need to launch campaigns which stress science as a tool to answer the questions of the physical world, and not to look to other invisible relams to answer these questions on pure faith...that is a reactionary aspect of religion which needs to go.
Nietschez&#39;s death of god theory is plausible...People always interpret it literally, but basically he thought science would eventually wipe out the need for a god, and therefore individuals would no longer behave morally, and therefore society would be in disarray
...I don&#39;t agree with the latter, but I do with the former. Eventually science will do away with the backwardness of religion.


Needless to say, Communist (out of principle) should be fundamentally opposed to all reactionary things. We shouldn&#39;t "adapt them." We should oppose them, militantly if possible.

Of course we should not adapt them but we should point out that Capitalism is inconsistant with the teachings of the prophets of whatever religion it may be...it is a good staging point to get people to listen to you, instead of saying "Religion is the opiate of the masses"...what does that do but alienate people (workers)? who happen to be religious.... (Mr. Champion of the workers) Unless we can do what you suggest and just get militant on them....great tactics..you are just overflowing with original ideas...I can quote Marx line for line too. You suffer from a seriously bad case of anachronism...you should get it checked out.
By demonstrating that Capitalism is not compatible with their religion we open up the avenues for discourse...you just close them...I know you have that text book open don&#39;t you...try thinking.




What do you base this assertion on? .....perhaps that I choose not to worship at Lenin&#39;s tomb and instead advocate that the working class take power for itself. Naughty me


Relax again mental midget. Marxists gather around Marx&#39;s tomb to celebrate him, just the same as they do Lenin...what a stupid thing you said...I love how this new breed of pure Marxist thinks they are somehow "more Marxist than "Marxist-Leninists". What a childish argument. Ideas change with time - that&#39;s dialectics...Marx often edited his positions. It is called being a free thinker...and being a scientist. Too bad Marx wasn&#39;t alive in 1917, none of us know what he would have thought about it...He may very well have changed his position too.


Lenin advocates the dictatorship of the workers...But he also stresses a centeralized.....ah fuck it you are too American and dogmatic for me to explain this anyway..hopefully when you turn 21. Look up anachronism...you need to learn that word - badly.

You don&#39;t think dialectically. You have not grasped the concept..keep trying though. Here&#39;s a bit of advise...take from the books what works for the battle you are engaged in..what is true for today may not be true for tomorrow, reality is always in flux, and changing, and your ideas need to be expanding - not collecting dust in 1886 Germany, 1917 Russia, 1967 Cuba, but rather right here, and right now...learn what you can from our revolutions and take what works for here...


I&#39;d prefer to advocate the destruction of both the Church and the State.

Yes, and I would prefer a Utopian Socialist world by early next week, but it doesn;t seem to be in the cards...time to actually think nuanced.

[redstar2000]

Zeitgeizt, I simply can&#39;t understand why you haven&#39;t grasped the "basics" of this subject.

Try these...

Communists and Religion -- Part 16 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1135503924&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Is Buddhism "Better"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1101245436&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Leninism and Religion (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083237845&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Agnosticism? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1111678407&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

In fact, as your time permits, I think you need to read all of the 16 parts of my "Communists and Religion" collections...as your own statements suggest that you haven&#39;t seriously thought about this stuff at all.

That petty-bourgeois "teacher" of yours fucked up big time&#33; :o

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

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)It would be advisable for Marxists---if we want the scientific credibility that we preach----that instead of saying "Matter is the only reality that exists”. Maybe it is time we swallowed our pride and said "Matter is the only reality which we can prove exists".[/b]

That&#39;s wordplay and not very clever wordplay at that. Matter has to be in reality before it can be proved. If something is not in reality, we can therefore not even attempt to "prove it." Which therefore means that it does not exist.


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)we never seem to change too many minds on their side - maybe it is time we took a different approach - see my point?[/b]

We don&#39;t seem to attract the support of Capitalists and politicians, perhaps we should change our approach there? .....of course not. This is class war, and you&#39;re either on one side or the other. Religion decided which side of the barricades it was on long ago.


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
many Latin American priests now subscribe to Liberation Theology

You mean the Priests who are busy giving praise to Bob Avakian. Great, so they&#39;ve move from supporting anti-working class Capitalists, to supporting anti-working class Communists.


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
such as Buddhism

What about Tibet?


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
If Communism wants to be a democratic society then Communists are going to have to learn to be more tolerant of others opinions - even if they are wrong.

Next you&#39;ll be suggesting an alliance with the KKK. Only we&#39;ll wear red hoods. :lol:


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
...what does that do but alienate people (workers)? who happen to be religious.... (Mr. Champion of the workers)

I am a working class man and live in a working class area. I can tell you that I don&#39;t know a worker under 60 who goes to Church. Indeed regularly kids draw a cock and balls on the local Churches statue of Jesus and no one gives a shit.

The working class in Europe has mostly realised that religion is a crock of shit. Why should revolutionaries decide to be less progressive than the working class?


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
Unless we can do what you suggest and just get militant on them....great tactics..you are just overflowing with original ideas

For all your posturing and claims of intellectual superiority, you&#39;ve got a lot to learn. Getting militant (towards clerical fascism and classical fascism) is the only tactic that has ever come close to stopping fascism.

Not doubt you are one of those people who think the German Communists should have united with the Social Democrats and "protested" the Nazi&#39;s.


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
Marxists gather around Marx&#39;s tomb to celebrate him

Shows how much you know. Marx is buried in Highgate cemetery and the only elaborate feature is a bust of him that was added some years later.


[email protected]
ah fuck it you are too American and dogmatic for me to explain this anyway

I&#39;m not American and I&#39;ve seen it explained before. Put simply, I don&#39;t do despotism.


Zeitgeizt
You have not grasped the concept

There&#39;s not much to "grasp" with dialectics. Everything changes, everything opposes, blah, blah, blah.

Asking one to think "dialectally" is pure horseshit. If you were really in the know with the dialectic hustle, then you&#39;d really realise that one person can only be either the thesis or anti-thesis, not both.

[anomaly]

"But he also stresses a centeralized..."----Ah, Zeitgeizt, so Leninists hold that they want the &#39;dictatorship of the proletariat&#39;...but they also want a highly centralized state&#33; Need I say that you can&#39;t have your cake and eat it too?

Your feelings on religion and communism, well, they just don&#39;t make any sense.

You may keep arguing your idealist filth here, but may I ask that you stop throwing around ageist remarks: "hopefully when you turn 21...". You did it when I was debating you, and now you&#39;re doing it with ArmchairSocialism. :angry:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Not a practical option for most people. Only the middle class can afford to make the trip and fluency in Spanish would obviously be essential.

I went, more than once, and I&#39;m in no way "middle class", nor have I ever been. There are groups that go, and ways to raise money, etc. if you really want to.

Many working class people (especially in the US) do take vacations to places like my country (the Dominican Republic), and the prices aren&#39;t much different.

About the Spanish, yeah you&#39;re right. Thanks for stating the obvious. What else do you want?

If you don&#39;t speak Spanish then learn some, I don&#39;t know what else to tell you. On the one hand you say we can&#39;t believe anything we hear, and on the other hand you say we can&#39;t go and see in person either.

I&#39;m starting to agree with Severian that you tend to work in abstractions and "the unknowable".


And what Cuban would speak freely to a North American...

Most of them.


It&#39;s not as if one can just "drop in" and proclaim that one is an "ardent communist" and everyone just "opens up" like a can of peaches.

You don&#39;t even have to be an "ardent communist."

White, North American college proffesor and author C. Peter Ripley visted Cuba a number of times and documented his experiences in the book "conversations with Cuba" (this guy isn&#39;t exactly friendly to the revolution).

According to him, alot of people "opened up". The first words out of the mouth of the first person he met were "fuck Castro". Another person, a female school teacher, told him how much the revolution meant to her and all the things it made possible for her family. On his next trip a few years later, when the Cuban economy was at its worst, the same teacher openly criticized alot of policies that were being implemented.

Another younger Cuban, while a supporter of the government, presented a number of criticisms of some of their policies.

So right there you can see that Cubans are usually very open, even to North Americans.


In fact, I think if anyone really wants to know "what Cuba is really like", the only thing that makes sense to me is to go and live there for a few years.

Get a regular job and see how much real "workplace democracy" exists. Join your neighborhood CDR and see what they do and what they talk about. Or take some classes at the University of Havana and gain some insight into Cuban student life.

Yes, that&#39;s certainly the best way to do it. But if, as you said, working class people can&#39;t afford a trip to Cuba, how would they go about this?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad+--> (CompaneroDeLibertad)On the one hand you say we can&#39;t believe anything we hear, and on the other hand you say we can&#39;t go and see in person either.[/b]

Actually, this is what I said...


Originally posted by [email protected]
I have grown pretty skeptical of the "benefits" of "political tourism". You go spend a week or two someplace and, yes, you learn a little something about what it&#39;s like there...but not all that much.

You may dispute this if you wish.

And then I also said this...


redstar2000
In fact, I think if anyone really wants to know "what Cuba is really like", the only thing that makes sense to me is to go and live there for a few years.

Get a regular job and see how much real "workplace democracy" exists. Join your neighborhood CDR and see what they do and what they talk about. Or take some classes at the University of Havana and gain some insight into Cuban student life.

And your reply was...


Yes, that&#39;s certainly the best way to do it. But if, as you said, working class people can&#39;t afford a trip to Cuba, how would they go about this?

That is my point -- what you propose is impractical for nearly everyone.

And then, you go on to say...


I&#39;m starting to agree with Severian that you tend to work in abstractions and "the unknowable".

Up to you.

I&#39;m sure if you want to start a Trotskyist party in the Dominican Republic, he will freely offer you lots of "helpful advice".

I don&#39;t envy you that task...but then, I don&#39;t have to do it. :)

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

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Once again, I provide evidence to the contraire of your claims and you don&#39;t address that.

Instead you give us this shit:


That is my point -- what you propose is impractical for nearly everyone.

Right... <_<

Listen, here&#39;s a summary of what you said, "the only way to know is to go there. But, no proles can afford to go there, and even if they could, Cubans wouldn&#39;t tell them anything anyway. You&#39;d have to go and live and work there; but you can&#39;t do that either, because you can&#39;t afford getting there."

Nice and postmodernist. We can&#39;t know, so let&#39;s just take redstars word for it.


Up to you.

I&#39;m sure if you want to start a Trotskyist party in the Dominican Republic, he will freely offer you lots of "helpful advice".

I don&#39;t envy you that task...but then, I don&#39;t have to do it.

What the fuck does that have to do with what I just said? :huh:

I said I agree with him that you work in abstractions and the "unknowable".

I didn&#39;t say anything about Trotskyism or anything of the sort.

[Zeitgeizt]

I&#39;m convinced you guys are either blind or just fucking stupid.


I&#39;m not advocating Marxists turn religious, what I am saying is that we should stress that the teaching of the Prophets, Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, are all antithetical to the nature, and "moral values "Capitalism, it is a better way to open up discourse with (working religious people), not the THEOCRATS you blind bat.

I&#39;m not saying we should try and make peace with the Vatican either, but Liberation Theology is spreading like wild fire throughout Latin America and it&#39;s clergy who are actively supporting Socialism; learn what the fuck it is before you idiots flap your lips again. This has nothing to do with petty bourgeois you myopic morons, this has to do with tactics.


Note: I don&#39;t believe in this myself, but if it gets Latin American workers fighting for Socialism then fuck it...whatever works. Think for a second, and shut the fuck up about petty bourgeois...all of you..especially you Redstar you moth eaten Marxist..you are teaching these Marxists the wrong shit.


Click this you dusty, rusty, crusty, dogmatic morons:

Liberation Theology - Haiti
General Information

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/liberati.htm

http://www.landreform.org/






While studying at a seminary to become a priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide (later to become president of Haiti) was influenced by the tenets of liberation theology, which taught that Christians must work for social and economic justice for all people. For Aristide, liberation theology meant criticizing the repressive dictatorship of Jean Claude Duvalier and protecting the rights of the poor in Haiti.






Liberation Theology, a path towards winning workers to our side, who would normally fight on the side of the reactionaries....You are so dogmatic that you make me ashamed of the contemporary American Marxist.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by redtsar2000
The class composition of the membership of Leninist parties has varied widely in the "west". But with regard to the leadership, historically, it&#39;s clear that nearly all of it was petty-bourgeois.


This is made up on the spot, the leadership of the Bolsheviks didn&#39;t have a class, they were divorced from class relations, this applies to most, if not all, of the truly Leninist parties.

How could the leadership be divorced from class relations? Pretty simple, they were sustained by the proletariat, yes, the proletarian members of the party sustained their leadership, because guess what, they believed in the vanguard, they believed in the party, something which according to you is impossible, I guess history proved you wrong once again.

You claim for example that Lenin was petty-bourgeois, how could he have been petty-bourgeois? Did he sustain himself economically, or was he sustained by others? The latter is the case, he was sustained by others, and those "others" were proletarians, so if we analyze this with the use of the tool of Marxism we come to the conclusion that Lenin was indirectly proletarian himself, i.e., he had undoubtedly a proletarian consciousness.

The same applies to the likes of Bukharin, Trotsky, Stalin up to a certain point etc.

And the same applies to some (real) Leninist parties today, the leadership is sustained by the proletarian members of the party who are a majority in the party, and who are the backbone of the party, without them the party cannot exist, neither economically nor politically.


Before you can say "V.I. Lenin", they&#39;re "running for office" on a left-reformist platform. And then you&#39;ll find them campaigning for "left" bourgeois politicians.

End of story.


You are talking about parties and individuals who never were Leninists to begin with; Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists etc.

You can avoid the issue all you want, but my point still stands, Lenin&#39;s own party, which was most certainly Leninist since it was led by Lenin himself, succeeded in its task, and the real Leninist parties will do the same, you can point to non-Leninists and refer to them as Leninist to prove your point all you want, it doesn&#39;t work, the workers can see through that crap, and will ignore it as crap.


Because of their demonstrated capacity to really fuck up potential revolutionaries.


Yes, they really "fucked them up" in Russia, leading them to victory and all.

You see, this is why my argument will always be more logical than yours, I have history to prove me right; Leninism succeeded in creating a Socialist state, it&#39;s over, the discussion about Leninism as a method to achieve Socialism should be finished with that simple historical fact, only people who seek to deny history would continue to attack the Leninist method of revolution, sure, post-revolution they "fucked up", let&#39;s discuss and debate about how and why they "fucked up", but pre-revolution they didn&#39;t, so discussing and debating it is mere mental masturbation.

Clear?

[The Red Scare]

Zeit is correct in asserting that Marxism is not inherently anti-religious. Marxism is a dialectical, materialistic philosophy, so until there is absolute scientific proof that no god exists, we must at very least recognize the possibility. To claim that god absolutely and necessarily does not exist would be foolish, dogmatic, and anti-Marxist.

When Marx and Lenin bashed religion, they were both referring to the reactionary theocrats and clergy that were brutally repressing the working class of their respective countries. They spoke out against this organized religion because its purpose was to confuse workers and teach them to be docile and accept the status quo. Revolutionary, anti-establishment religious movements were unheard of in Marx&#39;s Germany and pre-Revolutionary Russia, so of course when Marx and Lenin mentioned religion they spoke out unfavorably against it.

Zeit mentioned Liberation Theology--and I think this is a very important point. Neither Marx nor Lenin lived at a time when a broad religious movement existed that taught working people to reject the notion that they must wait until death to achieve freedom. Liberation Theology says that people have the right to fight against their oppressors and create "heaven" on earth, rather than waiting for some unspecified moment after death. Liberation theology teaches militancy and revolution as a means to achieve its goals. It is specifically hostile to the religious principles that Marx and Lenin similarly criticized.

Without Liberation Theology, we simply would not have the revolutionary situation in Latin America that we have today. Many of the movements that exist now are directly descended from movements founded by liberation theologians, most notably FARC.

Remember Marx&#39;s famous words, "The Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things." Liberation Theology does just that. It proves that in the right hands, religion can be used as a powerful tool to fight capitalism and advance the working class towards socialism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)but Liberation Theology is spreading like wild fire throughout Latin America and it&#39;s clergy who are actively supporting Socialism[/b]

....and Bob Avakian too. :lol:

Seriously perhaps you should ask some of the South American members what they think of liberation theology before you "flap your lips again."

I&#39;m pretty sure "CompaneroDeLibertad" doesn&#39;t hold it in the highest esteem and given his knowledge of South America and South American revolutionaries, he probably has some "interesting" facts on the issue.


Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)Click this you dusty, rusty, crusty, dogmatic morons:[/b]

Wow&#33; I&#39;m "dusty" "rusty" and "crusty."

Those links are mildly interesting, but...


Originally posted by Liberation Theology &#045;&#045; Theological Method
But unlike Marxism, liberation theology turns to the Christian faith as a means for bringing about liberation. Marx failed to see the emotive, symbolic, and sociological force the church could be in the struggle for justice.

How do you think Marx would respond to be told of this "monumental" failure of his?

Plus....


Originally posted by Liberation Theology &#045;&#045; Theological Method
They do not claim to use Marxism as a philosophical world view or a comprehensive plan for political action. Human liberation may begin with the economic infrastructure, but it does not end there.

(Emphasis added.)

What in living fuck is that supposed to mean? .....put mildly, it doesn&#39;t sound positive.

Add to that....


Originally posted by Liberation Theology &#045;&#045; Theological Critique
The strength of liberation theology is in its compassion for the poor and its conviction that the Christian should not remain passive and indifferent to their plight. Man&#39;s inhumanity to man is sin and deserves the judgment of God and Christian resistance. Liberation theology is a plea for costly discipleship and a reminder that follow Jesus has practical social and political consequences.

Socialism is not charity. Its about the working class seizing power for itself. The "Liberation Theologists" seem to be offering is a nicer alternative.

Also what are their views on gay rights, women, contraception etc. I don&#39;t mean their occasional token gestures, but what are their real actions. Are there for instance any women Liberation Theologists? .....any gay Liberation Theologists? .....or even better any lesbian liberation theologists?

Plus, what do they thin of the poor taking up arms? .....it seems like they would disapprove form an "ethical" standpoint....


Liberation Theology &#045;&#045; General [email protected]
Roman Catholic Popes have consistently decried the injustices of the economic and social conditions created by modern industrial societies and proposed remedies for them. They have denounced nuclear warfare, repeatedly urged an end to the arms race, and sought to halt the exploitation of poor nations by rich ones. The protection and promotion of basic human rights in the social, economic, and political orders have been central to these pronouncements. The so-called liberation theology created by some Catholic intellectuals in Latin America has recently attempted to fit these concerns into a less traditional framework of speculation, even utilizing concepts found in Marxist literature.

Denouncing shit don&#39;t get shit done.


Zeitgeizt
Liberation Theology, a path towards winning workers to our side, who would normally fight on the side of the reactionaries

Did you not understand even the most simplest of Communist principles? ....the workers are our side.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by The Red Scare
Many of the movements that exist now are directly descended from movements founded by liberation theologians, most notably FARC.

As I understand it, most of the South American movements were either directly or in-directly set up by Che Guevara and other Cubans during the sixties.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)I&#39;m convinced you guys are either blind or just fucking stupid.[/b]

And I am convinced that you are almost completely ignorant of basic Marxism...thanks to your petty-bourgeois "teacher".

That anyone at this late date could maintain that "liberation theology" is "progressive" -- and do so with a straight face -- leaves their credibility in ruins.

It was never "progressive"...just slightly less reactionary than the urban Catholic aristocracy.

And it was created as a response to the popularity of the Cuban Revolution in Latin America. The "liberation theologians" were afraid of losing "market share" to guerrilla "Marxism"...and acted accordingly.

It is not "spreading like wildfire" in Latin America -- in fact, all the versions of Catholicism are shrinking on that continent...due to both secularization and Protestant evangelicalism. In addition to which "liberation theology" has already been officially repudiated by the Vatican so it&#39;s likely that few priests even bother with the idea any more.

Nor is it in any sense a "path" to "winning" Latin American workers to "fight on our side"...or even your side. Catholicism is opposed to even the tepid reformism of Chavez in Venezuela.


...what I am saying is that we should stress that the teaching of the Prophets, Christ, Mohammad, Buddha, are all antithetical to the nature, and "moral values "Capitalism, it is a better way to open up discourse with (working religious people),...

The "teachings" of all those guys are in perfect accord with the class societies in which they originated.

They all universally "taught" obedience to authority.

And their respective clergies still teach the same thing&#33;

As to "moral values", you must be one pretty sick puppy if you think there&#39;s anything "good" about the barbaric crap that they "teach".

Or worse, that they practice&#33;


Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected]
This is made up on the spot, the leadership of the Bolsheviks didn&#39;t have a class, they were divorced from class relations, this applies to most, if not all, of the truly Leninist parties.

Another idealist Leninist revision of Marxism.

Hey, our leaders are "classless" even if our proposed society ain&#39;t&#33;

:lol:


You are talking about parties and individuals who never were Leninists to begin with; Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc.

Well, that&#39;s a position. If I can say that nearly all of the 20th century "Marxists" didn&#39;t know Marxism from rheumatism (a true statement), there&#39;s no reason in principle why you can&#39;t say the same thing about 20th century Leninism.

But if your contention is valid, how do you explain all the parallels between what Lenin did and what his "heirs" did?

Internal party despotism? Established by Lenin in March 1921. Restoring internal capitalism? Begun by Lenin with the "New Economic Policy" in 1921. Putting the country up for auction to foreign capital? Attempted unsuccessfully by Lenin in 1922. Running for office in bourgeois parliaments? Done by Lenin in (I think) 1907.

In short, it seems to me that when Stalinists, Trotskyists, and Maoists claim that they are just doing "what Lenin would have done", they have considerable historical justification for their claims.


Leninism succeeded in creating a Socialist state.

And Jesus "rose from the dead". :lol:

Your problem is that no one with any sense at all would want to live in your "socialist state".

Not even you.


The Red Scare
Zeit is correct in asserting that Marxism is not inherently anti-religious. Marxism is a dialectical, materialistic philosophy, so until there is absolute scientific proof that no god exists, we must at very least recognize the possibility. To claim that god absolutely and necessarily does not exist would be foolish, dogmatic, and anti-Marxist.

It&#39;s amazing the amount of superstitious ass-kissing that takes place on this board.

It&#39;s as if we had a dedicated link to a fucking theological seminary. :o

There are no gods, period&#33;

If you can&#39;t get that basic fact through your thick skull, then you should quit talking about left politics altogether...because you simply are unable to grasp material reality.

As you illustrate here...


Without Liberation Theology, we simply would not have the revolutionary situation in Latin America that we have today.

As if revolutionary situations don&#39;t arise from material conditions -- they are "created" by enormous loads of superstitious bullshit spread by con-men.

Yeah, right. :lol:

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

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Dec 28 2005, 06:26 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 28 2005, 06:26 PM)
The Red Scare
Many of the movements that exist now are directly descended from movements founded by liberation theologians, most notably FARC.

As I understand it, most of the South American movements were either directly or in-directly set up by Che Guevara and other Cubans during the sixties. [/b]
A couple. That I know of. I&#39;m not sure about others, but I know for a fact that ELN Colombia and ELN Bolivia were founded by the Cuban government.

[The Red Scare]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Dec 28 2005, 07:18 PM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Dec 28 2005, 07:18 PM)
Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 28 2005, 06:26 PM

The Red Scare
Many of the movements that exist now are directly descended from movements founded by liberation theologians, most notably FARC.

As I understand it, most of the South American movements were either directly or in-directly set up by Che Guevara and other Cubans during the sixties.
A couple. That I know of. I&#39;m not sure about others, but I know for a fact that ELN Colombia and ELN Bolivia were founded by the Cuban government. [/b]
The ELN in Columbia wasn&#39;t "founded" by the Cuban government per se, but by a man named Fabio Vásquez Castaño who had been trained in Cuba previously. The major figure behind the ELN was Father Camilo Torres Restrepo, who blended Marxist teachings with liberation theology.

The below poster illustrates one of Torres&#39; famous quotes, "If Jesus were alive today, he would be a guerrillero."


http://www.iisg.nl/exhibitions/affiche/met/d12-851.jpg

[redstar2000]

And don&#39;t forget that famous picture of Che...altered to replace his hat with a crown of thorns.

Shameless bastards&#33; :angry:

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

[VukBZ2005]

Hello you all ;)

I have just been hearing about this thread and I thought that I should post here as I see there may be a need to. From what I have been reading so far, it seems that Cuba is going to become a capitalist society again - sooner, if not later.

The reasoning for this lies in the fact that in the past four decades, I have not seen anything in Cuba that resembles a "dictatorship of the proletariat." I have seen Redstar2000 make some significant points about Cuba - especially on the fact that the media is not open to the popluation at all.

Of course, a Leninist can say that this is because the embargo has left Cuba using resources wisely and the opening of the media is severly restricted by this. But until the fall of the Union of "Socialist "Soviet" Republics in 1991, Cuba had every opportunity to make use of the aid the "Soviets" and their "satellites" were giving them.

They could have built factories throughout the country - they could have imported industrial machinery from places like Cezchloslovakia and Hungary and install them in those factories. The point is - Cuba was not held back by the embargo to hand power down to the working class.

And that now Cuba does not have "Soviet" support any longer, it is still not a excuse for not having a open media; much less, going back and allow the worshiping the catholic church. It is simply not exceptable.

Now, when I turn my eyes to the possibility of revolutions in the third world, I consider Leninism to be nothing more than the transitioning of a society from feudalist underdevelopment to Capitalist development. However, I can not really rule out special cases.

the word "special cases" is something I intend go and explain even further. I am just waiting to see some of your responses first, as I want to actively participate in this thread.

(And please excuse the double-post if there is one - my computer was acting all funny.)

[chebol]

The FARC have zip to do with liberation theology. The ELN have had since Father Camilo Torres joined back in the 60&#39;s I think.

The FARC essentially pre-date the Cuban Revolution.

[Led Zeppelin]

Another idealist Leninist revision of Marxism.

Hey, our leaders are "classless" even if our proposed society ain&#39;t&#33;

Can you please address the arguments I made for this claim instead of laughing at the conclusion of those arguments?

Or is this just your usual way of replying when you are proven wrong?


Internal party despotism? Established by Lenin in March 1921. Restoring internal capitalism? Begun by Lenin with the "New Economic Policy" in 1921. Putting the country up for auction to foreign capital? Attempted unsuccessfully by Lenin in 1922. Running for office in bourgeois parliaments? Done by Lenin in (I think) 1907.


What Lenin did himself for Socialism/Communism in Russia is not what Leninism is, since it was required only for the specific material conditions of Russia at the time.

Leninism as a theory is what he wrote in his books as theory for the movement as a whole, not what he did in specific situations in one nation-state with specific material conditions.

For example, when the NEP was started Lenin never said that all future Socialist nations should do the same, same with everything else you mentioned.

In fact the first example you gave: "Internal party despotism? Established by Lenin in March 1921" is in direct opposition to the theory of Leninism as a whole:


Originally posted by Lenin
Capitalist culture has created large-scale production, factories, railways, the postal service, telephones, etc., and on this basis the great majority of the functions of the old "state power" have become so simplified and can be reduced to such exceedingly simple operations of registration, filing, and checking that they can be easily performed by every literate person, can quite easily be performed for ordinary "workmen&#39;s wages", and that these functions can (and must) be stripped of every shadow of privilege, of every semblance of "official grandeur".

All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen&#39;s wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership.

You need to get real and stop making shit up to prove that a theory is wrong, many have failed to do as such in the past, so will you.


Your problem is that no one with any sense at all would want to live in your "socialist state".

Not even you.


I don&#39;t want to live in a state in which I am not exploited, a state in which I am guaranteed a job, a state in which I am guaranteed free healthcare etc.?

You&#39;d much rather live in imperialist America, I know, but not everyone cares about material wealth that much.

Your latest reply was very weak to say the least, you didn&#39;t even bother responding to my arguments, I know why you can&#39;t respond to them, because you are wrong&#33;

The sooner everyone here realizes this the sooner we can get serious.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by The Red Scare+Dec 29 2005, 12:46 AM--> (The Red Scare @ Dec 29 2005, 12:46 AM)
Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Dec 28 2005, 07:18 PM--> (Guerrilla22 &#064; Dec 28 2005, 07:18 PM)
Armchair [email protected] 28 2005, 06:26 PM

The Red Scare
Many of the movements that exist now are directly descended from movements founded by liberation theologians, most notably FARC.

As I understand it, most of the South American movements were either directly or in-directly set up by Che Guevara and other Cubans during the sixties.
A couple. That I know of. I&#39;m not sure about others, but I know for a fact that ELN Colombia and ELN Bolivia were founded by the Cuban government. [/b]
The ELN in Columbia wasn&#39;t "founded" by the Cuban government per se, but by a man named Fabio Vásquez Castaño who had been trained in Cuba previously. The major figure behind the ELN was Father Camilo Torres Restrepo, who blended Marxist teachings with liberation theology.

The below poster illustrates one of Torres&#39; famous quotes, "If Jesus were alive today, he would be a guerrillero."


http://www.iisg.nl/exhibitions/affiche/met/d12-851.jpg [/b]
Yes, with logitical help from the Cuban government.