Cuba

[JC1]

Alot of leftist's claim that Cuba is run by a bureacratic class.

I was wondering witch class you guy's think rules.

I'm inclined to think that no such bureacracy exist's, for several reason's. These include the fact that the highest wage availible in cuba is a mere 300 peso/per month, so I can safely say that there is no material basis for a parasitic class in that country. I would also like to point out the Cuban gov't distributes arms to every household and gives all it's citizen's millitary training. Wouldn't a society ruled by bureacrat's fear a armed and trained working class ?

And if Cuba is ruled by a bureacracy, is this bureacracy a class on it's own, or rather a parasitic section of the working class ?

[redstar2000]

My guess is that it will turn out to be an emerging modern bourgeoisie based on the officer corps of the professional military...I think something of that sort may have been involved in China's "transition" to modern capitalism.

What exists now seems to be a Bonapartist despotism (named after Napoleon III in France)...something quite common in class societies where no single class is strong enough to rule "in its own name".

There is much yap on the left about proletarian power in Cuba...but I don't place a lot of stock in it myself.

The "ferment" that one would expect to see in a genuine proletarian democracy is missing...and that's a bad sign.

Where there is no public ideological struggle, that generally means that what's going on "out of sight" is not good.

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

[More Fire for the People]

I would say that the workers are in control of Cuban politics albeit in a deformed manner. Not so degraded as the Soviet Union in the 1960s but in such a way that Castro has maintained power for forty years. It is clear that Cuban proletarian democracy has failed to be "pure" on a national level but certainly local Cuban democracy is a success. The problem is that all of the advancements of the Cuban revolution could be undone by the restoration of "small time" capitalism and foreign [bourgeois] investment.

[Comrade-Z]

I would say that the workers are in control of Cuban politics albeit in a deformed manner. Not so degraded as the Soviet Union in the 1960s but in such a way that Castro has maintained power for forty years. It is clear that Cuban proletarian democracy has failed to be "pure" on a national level but certainly local Cuban democracy is a success. The problem is that all of the advancements of the Cuban revolution could be undone by the restoration of "small time" capitalism and foreign [bourgeois] investment.

"Deformed"? "Pure"?

Do the workers control the means of production? It's as simple as that. (I'm sure you'll reply that "the workers control the means of production in a deformed manner" or something similar).

So, what would "pure" workers' control "look like," in your opinion? And why did none of the so-called "socialist" countries ever attain that?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:01 PM
I was wondering witch class you guy's think rules.

The petty bourgeoisie, resting on sections of the working class.

Miles

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The "ferment" that one would expect to see in a genuine proletarian democracy is missing...and that's a bad sign.


What do you mean by the "ferment"?


I didn't get that.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 1 2006, 11:49 PM

I would say that the workers are in control of Cuban politics albeit in a deformed manner. Not so degraded as the Soviet Union in the 1960s but in such a way that Castro has maintained power for forty years. It is clear that Cuban proletarian democracy has failed to be "pure" on a national level but certainly local Cuban democracy is a success. The problem is that all of the advancements of the Cuban revolution could be undone by the restoration of "small time" capitalism and foreign [bourgeois] investment.

"Deformed"? "Pure"?

Do the workers control the means of production? It's as simple as that. (I'm sure you'll reply that "the workers control the means of production in a deformed manner" or something similar).

So, what would "pure" workers' control "look like," in your opinion? And why did none of the so-called "socialist" countries ever attain that?
I wrote that late at night. I did not mean "pure" in such a sense as absolute but in the sense of concrete. Do the workers own the means of production? Yes, but there is always the threat that some public enterprises will suddenly be private enterprises. The Cuban proletariat has yet to ensured its political power.


So, what would "pure" workers' control "look like," in your opinion?
The reorganization of anarchy in production into organized, associative, centralized production. "Organized" in the sense that labour is based upon democratic consensus-making and scientific production. "Associative" in the sense that labor is organized into its own political unit, i.e. the state and its divisions, as the dictatorship of the proletariat. "Centralized" in that production is based upon a national scale, alienating no one sector from another.


And why did none of the so-called "socialist" countries ever attain that?
They did, but as I said in a deformed manner, :o the USSR (1917-1977), PRC (1949-1976), and Cuba (1961 - 2000s). I would say Hungary had the potential at becoming a conrete socialist state in the Hungarian Revolution but it was cluttered with revisionists, fascists, and social democrats.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by JC1
...the highest wage availible in cuba is a mere 300 peso/per month, so I can safely say that there is no material basis for a parasitic class in that country.

That's not enough info to make such a conclusion, because the fact that the highest wage in Cuba is 300 pesos per month in itself says nothing, unless you don't know what such exchange value represents in Cuba and it's specific standard.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:45 AM

The "ferment" that one would expect to see in a genuine proletarian democracy is missing...and that's a bad sign.


What do you mean by the "ferment"?


I didn't get that.
Furious public controversy on "what to do next" and over "what mistakes have been made" and "who made them" and "how to correct them".

I think that's the best sign of a revolutionary society. If you don't see that, then chances are there's "not much happening"...and what is happening is not good.

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

[Andy Bowden]

There was plenty of ferment during the special period on what decisions to take next for Cuba.

It was probably the major factor in Cuba overcoming the crisis.

[Severian]

Working people hold power in Cuba.

People who say otherwise...tend to have a hard time explaining the facts about Cuba. Often, they turn out not to know the facts, or know only incorrect "facts."

This has been discussed many times on this board:
This thread probably turned into the highest-level discussion on this topic so far (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41124&st=0&#entry1291947172)

A few of those inexplicable facts (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44169)

A good article on why Cuba is run by the workers, followed by a complete inability by anyone to even seriously attempt to refute it. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44197)

On the class struggle in Cuba and the repeated defeats of the bureaucracy (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35695&st=50)

Go back one page for a classic example of Redstar's supremely self-confident ignorance - he proclaims that Cubans are blocked by the Cuban government from the internet, or maybe just this board, a claim which is thoroughly refuted. Some lovely stuff with the "Miami Cuban" anarchists calling for the disarming of the revolution, and their friends on this board trying to make excuses for 'em, too.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Working people hold power in Cuba.[/b]

Does this strike you as an astonishing assertion?

Well, you have to keep in mind that Severian has a rather...um, unique "definition" of "workers' power"...


Severian
Workers' power is not the same thing as socialism. -- emphasis in the original.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291948279 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41124&view=findpost&p=1291948279)

The "Alice in Wonderland" quality of such assertions leaves me, for the moment at least, speechless. :lol:

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

[Comrade-Z]

Some lovely stuff with the "Miami Cuban" anarchists calling for the disarming of the revolution, and their friends on this board trying to make excuses for 'em, too.

How does "All power to the working class!" translate into disarming the revolution?


Do the workers own the means of production? Yes

No. You are conflating the Cuban State with the working class. State control does not mean workers' control. And no, the entirety of the working class does not control the State. The Cuban State is a power above and outside the control of the working class. That's obvious.


The reorganization of anarchy in production into organized, associative, centralized production. "Organized" in the sense that labour is based upon democratic consensus-making and scientific production. "Associative" in the sense that labor is organized into its own political unit, i.e. the state and its divisions, as the dictatorship of the proletariat. "Centralized" in that production is based upon a national scale, alienating no one sector from another.

Please don't use the bourgeois definition of anarchy. Just because Marx used it doesn't mean it makes sense.

Is labor organized on a democratic basis in Cuba? Do workers control their own enterprises? Do organizations directly and democratically controlled by the working class control production? You know neither are the case. The State controls production, and you know that it is not directly and democratically controlled by the working class.

The Cuban State is not a dictatorship of the proletariat. It is a dictatorship of capital over the proletariat. If it were a dictatorship of the proletariat, one easy clue that would be easy to discern would be that there would be furious dissent and debate within the anti-capitalist milieu. Fascists, theists, capitalists, etc. would all be ruthlessly persecuted, of course, and for good reason, but you would still have TONS of anarchist voices, council-communist voices, trotskyist voices, non-Leninist voices, dissident marxist voices, etc.

And having this anti-capitalist public discourse would in no way endanger Cuban society or make it prone to invasion or overthrow. In fact, it would strengthen it because each worker, by furiously engaging in the shaping of Cuban society, would feel that there was much more at stake. The way things are going now, the average worker is so far removed from the shaping of Cuban society, policy, and most importantly, significant production decisions, that it seems likely that the Cuban workers won't give a hoot when Cuban goes openly capitalist like Russian, China, Vietnam, etc.


They did, but as I said in a deformed manner, the USSR (1917-1977), PRC (1949-1976), and Cuba (1961 - 2000s).

If that's your idea of what "deformed" workers' States look like, then I don't think I even want to experience a "pure" one. It sounds like utter hell even compared to the "wonderful" life we have now in the belly of the beast, and that's not saying much.


I would say Hungary had the potential at becoming a conrete socialist state in the Hungarian Revolution but it was cluttered with revisionists, fascists, and social democrats.

Not to mention Soviet troops! Oh wait, you already mentioned fascists. Nevermind.

[More Fire for the People]

No. You are conflating the Cuban State with the working class. State control does not mean workers' control. And no, the entirety of the working class does not control the State. The Cuban State is a power above and outside the control of the working class. That's obvious.
I disagree, any Cuban election will prove otherwise. The state cannot be seperate from society. The state is a dictatorship of a certain class. There isn't a Cuban bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeois remains insignificant, and guess what? The vast majority of workers either participate in the government or support the Cuban state. It is very evident from the Cuban Consitution, real data, election statistics, voting methods, etc. that the Cuban proletariat controls the government.


Is labor organized on a democratic basis in Cuba?
Yes.


Do workers control their own enterprises?
Depends, if you mean the petty-bourgeois notion of "workers' councils" as means of ownership then no. But if you mean that the proletariat own the means of production [via the proletarian state], then of course yes.


Do organizations directly and democratically controlled by the working class control production?
Why would this be desirable? So that science and adequate production can be subjugated to invidividual interests? No, the proletariat owns and manages the Cuban economy in a scientific manner with consensus-decision making as the basis of leadership.


If that's your idea of what "deformed" workers' States look like, then I don't think I even want to experience a "pure" one. It sounds like utter hell even compared to the "wonderful" life we have now in the belly of the beast, and that's not saying much.
What would my "idea" of a "pure" workers' state look like? Like a democratic, centralized, and scientific federation of Paris Commune-like governments that transcends anarchy in production and traditonalistic oppression [i.e. acheives racial / sexual liberation and the transcendence of religious superstition].

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill
The state is a dictatorship of a certain class.

Usually. However, there are temporary periods in the histories of most countries where no single class had either the means or even the desire to rule in its own name.

This is particularly likely in periods of transition between one form of class society and another.

Prior to 1959, for example, Cuba was ruled by a colonial bourgeoisie...a capitalist class entirely subordinate to U.S. imperialism.

When that class was destroyed, there was no class ready to "take over". The petty-bourgeois 26th of July Movement merged with the somewhat more proletarian Popular Socialist Party (pro-Moscow Leninists) to "run the new government" and created a state-monopoly capitalist regime along Russian lines.

Maoists claim that this regime quickly became "colonialized" by the USSR...but the evidence, I think, is mixed.

The growing importance of foreign direct investment in the Cuban economy now is clearly incompatible with any notion of "workers' power" in Cuba. Why would a "proletarian state" invite their international exploiters to return?

Those decisions are made by a Cuban elite that has not yet matured into a modern capitalist class.

History suggests that it will do that...but the timing is admittedly difficult to predict. Many people think that "when Fidel dies", Cuban "socialism" will be "wrapped up" and wholesale privatization will begin (as in Russia, Eastern Europe, etc.) more or less at once.

But it could be somewhat slower...as in China and Vietnam, for example.

Either way, the result will eventually be a modern Cuban capitalist class running a modern bourgeois state apparatus and trying to "carve a niche" for itself in the global marketplace.

The lasting achievement of the Cuban revolution may well be its permanent escape from U.S. hegemony; particularly if it becomes part of a Latin-American-based capitalist "economic community".

Not easily done...but distinctly possible. :)

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

[anomaly]

Honestly, the reason some leftists continually label Cuba as 'socialist' or a 'worker's state' is beyond me. Saying such things implies that, if one is a socialist, one actually want to build another Cuba. Well, that's not what we want. At least that's not what I want.

It is rather easy to see that the working class holds little if any power in Cuba. Castro, with his brother by his side, has ruled since the revolution ended in 1959. The press is run by the state (some leftists aren't even allowed to write). This kind of talk--that Cuba is 'democratic' or a 'workers state' or 'socialist'--only hurts our cause.

[norwegian commie]

Honestly, the reason some leftists continually label Cuba as 'socialist' or a 'worker's state' is beyond me. Saying such things implies that, if one is a socialist, one actually want to build another Cuba. Well, that's not what we want. At least that's not what I want.

The cuban goverment has only done what is nessesary to maintain its ideology and to keep the capitaists out of their workers state.
Whell is cuba a workers state? most definetly.

It is the last bastion of communism in this world and i belive we must support that the best whay we can. Cuba gives so much to the other countries in Latin-Amerika whell not oo the goverment but to the PEOPLE too the workers, and the distrubution of medecine nd doctors happens on the workers, the peoples own request.



It is rather easy to see that the working class holds little if any power in Cuba.

Cuban workers have much power if not all in cuba!
Think about... The entire revolution where buildt on the workers belives and envolvement. this mens that all the men who became leaders or representatives of the peoples where men BY the people.


Castro, with his brother by his side, has ruled since the revolution ended in 1959. The press is run by the state (some leftists aren't even allowed to write). This kind of talk--that Cuba is 'democratic' or a 'workers state' or 'socialist'--only hurts our cause.

Whell the fact that his brother is next too him has got nothing directly to do with their blood. Raol was an active revolutionary during the revolution and worked his way up in the goverment, his eager sopporting of the revolution and exellent political work gve him the position next too Fidel... Alsoe at this time US tried to kill him all sort of ways and Fidel needed someone hee could absolutely rely on.

You sit here complayning about the totalitarian regime but the people i have talked too on Cuba praised Fidel and said he was the reason they had the things tey had. if he hadnt come they would be working for slave wages in a mobster-capitalist country. That is why the people still LOVE fidel.

You sitting here hating him is just nonsence

[anomaly]

I never said I 'hate' Fidel. I think he is a very 'good' despot, but a despot nonetheless. I do support him, but not because he is a 'socialist', but because he has been able to successfully repel US imperialism. But, to say Cuba is a 'workers state' is frankly untrue.

Indeed, some have commented that Cuba was never 'Communist' in the sense that the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were. Rather, Cuba always has had 'Castroism' since the revolution.

However, that you claim Cuba is 'communist' is frankly embarrassing. When I say communism, I mean a stateless, classless society. Not a despotism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by norwegian commie
[Cuba] is the last bastion of communism in this world...

Do you know what communism is? :blink:

What is Communism? A Brief Definition (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[norwegian commie]

jeez...
i wont even open that ink... Of course i know what communism is, and am aware that it is not existing on Cuba. But the goverment on cuba have maintained its ideology and political belief.

But the ground, the foundation of communism is not nearly on cuba.
Cuba is a country on their way to propper communism, or at least that s what castro has been trying to do. Without any other commies a world-revolution is impossible, and for the communist society to work you will need a world-rev

Then you can start abolishing the state, money ect... and only then will we be liveing in a classeless, moneyless, stateless society....

Castro is a communist, cuba is communist the rest of the world is however capitalist and therefor "the last bastion of communism"
the period before that is socialism, a step towards communism, the transisitory stage.

If cuba where to abolish the state, military, money, ect they would have No possibility to obtain oil, or any trade, they would be saotaged by the USA and the entire society would collapse badly! Without the world you can not start a propper communist society.

That is why i dont expect the final communist step by a country witout the possibility to go throug with it.

Castro has established and kept the society in a "equal for all" kind of fashion, and that i think is great! They manage to pull this throug, even thoug USA has a tradng blocade costing billions

[Dean]

Originally posted by norwegian [email protected] 7 2006, 12:42 PM
jeez...
i wont even open that ink... Of course i know what communism is, and am aware that it is not existing on Cuba. But the goverment on cuba have maintained its ideology and political belief.
the cuban government has a lot of economic programs to help out those in need, and a lot of popular support, it would seem. however, there is little to no democratic control over the state, which is a necessary aspect of a state run by the working class. Free speech is stifled and unpopular ideas are kept out of public schools, just like you're not supposed to talk about religion on these boards. I've been chastized for mentioning the idea that religion has done any good at all here. Don't let these people get to to you... some of them are base, dull and offensive, but some other's can give you some insight into the issues. I don't think Cuba is a good example of a revolutionary state, but I do respect it more than most due to it's ideological claims. I think that it could be a good, socialist state if it got its act together.

[norwegian commie]

I think that it could be a good, socialist state if it got its act together.

whell in my opinion CUba has gotten its "act together" moore than any other socialist states.

And how are they sopposed to get their act together without any other socialist countries. Cuba beeing a lone wolf can accomplish little. However cuba still dos a lot of solidarity work for other 3-world countries.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dean
I've been chastised for mentioning the idea that religion has done any good at all here.

You have earned it.

Of course, Cuba has a higher "official opinion" on superstition than RevLeft...

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

Perhaps, in your eyes, that would elevate Cuba's "standing". :lol:

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 4 2006, 05:33 PM

Some lovely stuff with the "Miami Cuban" anarchists calling for the disarming of the revolution, and their friends on this board trying to make excuses for 'em, too.

How does "All power to the working class!" translate into disarming the revolution?
From the exile anarchists' screed:
First, a leftist alternative in Cuba should consider an urgent demilitarization in the widest sense of the word. It would consist of not only the re-dimensioning of the armed forces, with the attendant savings and the corresponding transfer of resources to other sectors of the economy infinitely needier.
....
For sure you’ll tell us that the revolution would not survive without “its” armed forces but that’s nothing but a fallacy the “Commander in Chief” and his minions have gotten you accustomed to. This is because the Cuban armed forces are constituted as a response to a hypothesis of conflict – in theory, a U.S. invasion – that is wrongly proposed or that will not happen.
The link at the beginning of that thread's broken but here's another link to the same text. (http://jakarta.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=161&topic=miscellaneous)

This screed represents a part of Cuban anarchism - the part which chose to join the CIA-supported counterrevolution, fight in the mountainside in CIA-supported counterrevolutionary groups as they brag themselves, and go into exile. ("In particular, two important operations took place in the same zone, the Sierra Occidental, in which operations were difficult because the mountains aren’t very high, they’re narrow, and they’re near Havana: “There was direct contact with the guerrilla band commanded by Captain Pedro Sánchez in San Cristobal; since some of our compañeros participated actively in this band . . . they were supplied with arms . . . We also did everything we could to support the guerrilla band commanded by Francisco Robaina (known as ‘Machete’) that operated in the same range.”")

As their own history complains, another group of Cuban anarchists chose to support the revolution.

("Manuel Gaona Sousa, an old railroad worker from the times of Enrique Varona and
the CNOC, a libertarian militant his entire life and a founder of the ALC, and in the first years of Castroism the ALC’s Secretary of Relations-and hence the person dealing with overseas anarchist media and organizations-betrayed both his ideals and his comrades. In a document titled A Clarification and a Declaration of the Cuban Libertarians, dated and signed in Marianao on November 24, 1961, Gaona denounced the Cuban anarchists who didn’t share his enthusiasm for the Castro revolution.")source for both quotes (http://www.ainfos.ca/04/feb/ainfos00387.html)

So guess which kind of Cuban anarchists were praised by certain posters on this board, starting with TAT and Redstar? It's a straight-up which-side-are-you-on class question.

Too bad that Gaona's documents haven't been put up anywhere on the web; only those denouncing him for supporting the Cuban revolution.