A question to members of the freepeoplesmovement

[black magick hustla]

Why do you support Castro?

I mean, you do not accept petit bourgeoisie in your rank, but yet Castro came from a considerably wealthy family. Why then do you support him?

And if you support him, why not accept petit bourgeoisie in your ranks then? Because if Castro was able to restrain his "class prejudice", I bet some other petit bourgeosie could.

Just curious.

[AmerGuerilla]

FPM doesnt accept petit bourgeoisie but it doesnt mean because you came from that kind of family that you are petit bourgeoisie. Im not 100% positive but Im pretty sure Fidel never owned a small buisness.

[LoneRed]

Is there a clause in the FPM principles that one, must be working class?

[Red Flag]

The FPM supports Comrade Fidel because the Cuban people do. He is their chosen leader, tempered in the most serious of revolutionary struggles.

He was born to a landed family, but he broke with his class background and became proletarianized in the fight for justice.

Remember that he was never a lawyer for profit. He used his law skills to help unions, workers, activists and political parties free of charge.

He had a small apartment where he lived with his wife and child. He wouldn't accept any money from his wife's bourgeois family.

Often Fidel couldn't pay the rent. At one point all of his furniture and possessions were repossesed due to debt. His friends put together money secretly (because he wouldn't allow them to do it if he knew about it) to get his possessions back before he found out they were gone.

He lead an uprising of workers and farmers for which he was imprissoned. From the walls of the prison he became a hero and cherished leader. Once released he dedicated himself full time to the revolution.

He spent the next few years in the jungles fighting the hated dictatorship's henchmen.

When the revolution was victorious, one of the first things seized for public use was Fidel's family's farm.

[Red Flag]

Is there a clause in the FPM principles that one, must be working class?

Yes. There has been since its formation.


Originally posted by Organizational and Proceedural Program of the FPM+--> (Organizational and Proceedural Program of the FPM)VII. Rules
1. All members must be a member or the working class or class allied to it. At any time that a member becomes a part of an enemy class (i.e. the petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie) they shall be immediately expelled from our movement.[/b]
http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?13


FPM
Membership Requirements
To join you must meet the following requirements:

1. You are not a police officer, member of armed forces, government official, or boss.
2. You will participate when at all possible in FPM actions and decision making.
3. You have read our manifesto and Organizational and Procedural Program, and agree and have familiarized yourself with our general aims and proceedures.
http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?8

Members of other classes (such as the petty bourgeoisie) can join as supporting members if they wish. Supporting members carry out FPM work, can attend meetings, etc., but have no voice or vote and cannot hold any leadership positions.

They can also support as sympathizers, distributing literature, etc.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 28, 2006 05:34 pm

Remember that he was never a lawyer for profit. He used his law skills to help unions, workers, activists and political parties free of charge.

So he didnt break with his class background, after all. ;)

[which doctor]

So Fidel Castro would not be allowed to be an FPM member at all?

[Leo]

You are not a police officer, member of armed forces, government official, or boss.

This doesn't say anything about class, property and profession; it is clearly restrictions of several cases but not all of them.

Also, I remember that there were thousands of organized revolutionary and socialist policemen and soldiers, at least in Turkey (whom all were imprisoned and tortured after the coup), so I am not really sure about automatically excluding policeman or soldiers coming from a proletarian background from an organization.

[Red October]

as a supporter of democracy, i cant support fidel in any way. hes a dictator, and i cant put my support behind a dictator even if he claims to be a socialist. socialism is about freedom, even for people who oppose socialism. a dictator is a dictator, no matter which way you spin it.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Many of the thoughts and ideas of the FPM seems nice, but this seemingly immoderate support of present day Fidel and the regime is at least to me the biggest hitch.

[combat]

This is absurd. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky would have been expelled from this "group"; and before Robespierre and Crowell. Really absurd. All these anarcho-stalinists only hamper the recomposition of the far left.

[LoneRed]

All members must be a member or the working class or class allied to it


The bold is my emphasis, thats where it gets fuzzy

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So Fidel Castro would not be allowed to be an FPM member at all?

He would be allowed. Please read the thread before you post in it.


Originally posted by Red Flag
The FPM supports Comrade Fidel because the Cuban people do. He is their chosen leader, tempered in the most serious of revolutionary struggles.

He was born to a landed family, but he broke with his class background and became proletarianized in the fight for justice.

Remember that he was never a lawyer for profit. He used his law skills to help unions, workers, activists and political parties free of charge.

He had a small apartment where he lived with his wife and child. He wouldn't accept any money from his wife's bourgeois family.

Often Fidel couldn't pay the rent. At one point all of his furniture and possessions were repossesed due to debt. His friends put together money secretly (because he wouldn't allow them to do it if he knew about it) to get his possessions back before he found out they were gone.

He lead an uprising of workers and farmers for which he was imprissoned. From the walls of the prison he became a hero and cherished leader. Once released he dedicated himself full time to the revolution.

He spent the next few years in the jungles fighting the hated dictatorship's henchmen.

When the revolution was victorious, one of the first things seized for public use was Fidel's family's farm.

* * *


So he didnt break with his class background, after all.

What? This doesn't make any sense. Going from being the son of a landed petty-bourgeoisie to a full time volunteer lawyer (that assisted workers and farmers), to the point where he couldn't even afford to feed himself, was breaking with his class background.


This doesn't say anything about class, property and profession; it is clearly restrictions of several cases but not all of them.

It does say something about class, it says that capitalists and their henchmen and enforcers aren't allowed in a revolutionary proletarian organization.


Also, I remember that there were thousands of organized revolutionary and socialist policemen and soldiers, at least in Turkey (whom all were imprisoned and tortured after the coup), so I am not really sure about automatically excluding policeman or soldiers coming from a proletarian background from an organization.

Sure, it happens alot. But, the FPM isn't going to allow the armed agents of the capitalist state to join its ranks. Sure they could be sympathetic, distribute FPM literature, form a group that supports the FPM work, etc.*, but in order to join they'd have to leave their current positions and become a part of our (working) class again.

* The FPM has, infact, been contacted quite a few times by several soldiers of a few different countries (including some imperialist ones). The last I heard, some U.S. soldiers who are about to go off to Iraq (against their own wishes) have begun distributing FPM literature clandestinely.


Many of the thoughts and ideas of the FPM seems nice, but this seemingly immoderate support of present day Fidel and the regime is at least to me the biggest hitch.

If you can't recognize, and defend, an existing socialist revolution (as "unpure" as they are in the real world), you won't be able to identify, participate, or in any real way help spark one in the country you live in.

Cuba is a socialist country. Its people support Comrade Fidel, and have chosen him to be their leader. Even the bourgeoisie can't deny the popular support he has.

We are critical of aspects of the Cuban revolution, both past and present, but its positives far outweigh its negatives; and in the one-sided hostile environment that exists (in the world at large, as can even be seen by posts here) toward the Cuban revolution, it's much more important to defend it than to publicize criticisms against it.

When folks began to understand what socialism is, and understand that Cuba is socialist, then we'll have a firm basis to discuss it, debate it and critize it from.


This is absurd.

Is it? Being determines conciousness, remember? The working class is the revolutionary class, remember?

"Secondly. If people of this kind from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should whole-heartedly adopt the proletarian point of view. But these gentlemen, as has been proved, are stuffed and crammed with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas. ...if these gentlemen [petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie] form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. The time, moreover, seems to have come. How the Party can tolerate the authors of this article in its midst any longer is to us incomprehensible. But if the leadership of the Party should fall more or less into the hands of such people then the Party will simply be castrated and proletarian energy will be at an end.

"When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle-cry: the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who say that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must first be freed from above by philanthropic bourgeois and petty bourgeois. If the new Party organ adopts a line corresponding to the views of these gentlemen, and is bourgeois and not proletarian, then nothing remains for us, much though we should regret it, but publicly to declare our opposition to it and to dissolve the solidarity with which we have hitherto represented..." (Marx and Engels to August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Wilhelm Bracke, etc., 1879), remember??


Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky would have been expelled from this "group"; and before Robespierre and Crowell. Really absurd. All these anarcho-stalinists only hamper the recomposition of the far left.

When (and if) they became proletarianized they would.

Before Engels had done so, he realized he needed to, as expressed to Marx in a letter which he wrote "I have allowed myself to be persuaded by the arguments of my brother-in-law [Emil Blank] and the doleful expression on both my parents’ faces to give huckstering another trial and for days have been working in the office. Another motive was the course my love affair was taking. But I was sick of it all even before I began work; huckstering is too beastly, Barmen is too beastly, the waste of time is too beastly and most beastly of all is the fact of being, not only a bourgeois, but actually a manufacturer, a bourgeois who actively takes sides against the proletariat. A few days in my old man’s factory have sufficed to bring me face to face with this beastliness, which I had rather overlooked. I had, of course, planned to stay in the huckstering business only as long as it suited me and then to write something the police wouldn’t like so that I could with good grace make off across the border, but I can’t hold out even till then. Had I not been compelled to record daily in my book the most horrifying tales about English society, I would have become fed up with it, but that at least has kept my rage on the simmer. And though as a communist one can, no doubt, provided one doesn’t write, maintain the outward appearance of a bourgeois and a brutish huckster, it is impossible to carry on communist propaganda on a large scale and at the same time engage in huckstering and industry."

I don't want to go to far into the bios of each of these folks, describe when (and in some cases if) they became proletarianized, etc.

But, for example, Marx had children starve to death. At one point he had to pawn his clothes. He pawned other things for writing paper, etc. This is hardly the lifestyle of the bourgeoisie.

Sorry you belong to Nordenists little petty-bourgeois socialist clique, but don't take your frustrations out on working class revolutionaries (imagine, working people forming their own organization! And excluding the petty-bourgeoisie! The horrors! :lol:)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The bold is my emphasis, thats where it gets fuzzy

I don't really get it. You don't know which classes are allied to the working class?

The poor peasantry is one (if you think that still exists.. I tend to lean towards the analysis that most "poor peasants" are agricultural workers), the unemployed (which are workers, but are also mistakenly labeled lumpen at times), "housewives" (to which the same case applies as the unemployed), in some places (like mauritania) outright slaves, and in some cases poor elements of the lumpen-proletariat.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I don't know if I have my facts straight,
but what do you think about how at first the Cuban Revolution at first was Nationalist and Castro even said there isn't a Communist among our ranks, then later Castro declared himself Marxist-Leninist and the revolution Socialist-- did the Cuban people know what Socialism was, do they now?

How is Castro even Marxist-Leninist if the Revolution wasn't a coup, but maybe an trading of ideologies?

If my facts are straight, yeah, I do uphold Socialism to Communism-- but the rejection of Nationalism for Socialism is just dishonest in this sense, because if the people don't know what their fighting for it just won't work. Though, personally I don't believe Castro to be this "evil" man. I would like to see socialism flourish but I don't think his methods are the best. Castro is no Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il.

[LoneRed]

deciding which classes are allied to it, is up to the person who stated that.

Many groups do believe that the petty-bourgeois, or sections of it, can aid the working class movement

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

When we say it, we're basing ourselves on established communist principles.


Many groups do believe that the petty-bourgeois, or sections of it, can aid the working class movement

Sections can aid it at certain times, in certain situations and in certain ways. Marx and Engels figured that out ages ago.. but that doesn't mean we allow them to make decisions in our movement.

"...if these gentlemen [petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie] form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time."

&

"The relationship of the revolutionary workers' party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party which they aim to overthrow; it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't know if I have my facts straight,
but what do you think about how at first the Cuban Revolution at first was Nationalist and Castro even said there isn't a Communist among our ranks, then later Castro declared himself Marxist-Leninist and the revolution Socialist-- did the Cuban people know what Socialism was, do they now?

The revolution progressed, as most real revolutions do, from a democratic one to a socialist one. It was one in the same revolution. The working class is the only class capable of carrying out the democratic revolution in the age of imperialism, but it can only do it successfully if it continues forward to the construction of socialism.

Alot of the early talk by sections of the revolution's leadership was based around easing fears and dealing with anti-communist propaganda.

Have you ever heard the speech in which Fidel "announces" that the Cuban revolution was a socialist one? He asks the huge crowd "do you like the agrarian reform?" and they all scream "yes!" He asks do you like the urban housing reform?" and they all scream "yes!" He asks if they like the nationalizations, the education and health campaigns, the grass roots democracy, and they all scream "yes!" He says, well then, you like socialism! and they burst into an extremely loud applause.

There's a book by Rius on the Cuban Revolution called "Cuba Para Principiantes" (English version is called "Cuba for beginners") explains the whole process, in a pretty humorous way (Rius is a famous Mexican cartoonist.. he did some cartoon books on Marx, Mao, etc. check him out if you haven't).

[combat]

Stop your shit..please. You'd rather support a bureaucratic regime than workers. How do you dare to speak about marxist militants. Please grow up.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Way to address the issues I raised & way to ignore Marx and Engels' own words! That was top notch dodging there.

[Solitary Mind]

I don't know if I have my facts straight,
but what do you think about how at first the Cuban Revolution at first was Nationalist and Castro even said there isn't a Communist among our ranks, then later Castro declared himself Marxist-Leninist and the revolution Socialist-- did the Cuban people know what Socialism was, do they now?

The Cuban people know its socialism, he presented it to them a while back in his speech, he asked if they supported the Reform Laws, and they(the citizens) cried yes several times, and the soldiers standing in the front raised their rifles, and then he asked if they supported the changes in education and health, and again they cried yes repeatedly and again rifles in the air....he then said "well this is socialism! and we defend this SOCIALIST revolution with our rifles!"

so yes they know that it is socialist

oh and castro didnt consider himself a marxist yet because at the moment he wasnt yet even politically aligned so much, he just believed what he did and admired people such as Marx, Lenin, Jose Marti and people like that, and wanted Cuban independance, in time, his readings and analysis of things caused him to become a Marxist-Leninist

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 04:30 am
Stop your shit..please. You'd rather support a bureaucratic regime than workers. How do you dare to speak about marxist militants. Please grow up.
so your saying that the Cuban Workers support a Bureaucratic regime rather than themselves....hmmmm

you should really read on Cuba, you might learn a thing or two

[Leo]

Sure, it happens alot. But, the FPM isn't going to allow the armed agents of the capitalist state to join its ranks.

This is going off-topic but how do you think you can prevent if real armed agents of the capitalist state infiltrates into your organization? I mean with its intelligence technologies the state is able to learn everything about you, and they could easily send an agent to infiltrate.


Sure they could be sympathetic, distribute FPM literature, form a group that supports the FPM work, etc., but in order to join they'd have to leave their current positions and become a part of our (working) class again.

Well, I will admit that I don't really know much about the situation of policemen and soldiers in the US, but in Turkey it is mostly kids coming from working class families who end up as cops and soldiers. Would you not be refusing a chance to have armed agents of the revolution in the ranks of the capitalist state?


The FPM has, infact, been contacted quite a few times by several soldiers of a few different countries (including some imperialist ones). The last I heard, some U.S. soldiers who are about to go off to Iraq (against their own wishes) have begun distributing FPM literature clandestinely.

There you go! And, just an advice but I would say don't underestimate how revolutionary and radical policemen and soldiers can get. For example revolutionary policemen in Turkey once they had conducted an attack to main fascist (grey wolves) headquarters all by themselves. First they cut off the electricity of the neighborhood the headquarters was in, then they bombed the place and finally they went in themselves. It was quite an impressive attack.

[LoneRed]

Does the FPM say that Cuba as it is today is a socialist country?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

oh and castro didnt consider himself a marxist yet because at the moment he wasnt yet even politically aligned so much, he just believed what he did and admired people such as Marx, Lenin, Jose Marti and people like that, and wanted Cuban independance, in time, his readings and analysis of things caused him to become a Marxist-Leninist

He actually did. He didn't label himself a communist at all times, but he understood that what Marx said was true.

If you go back and look at the letters he wrote when he was in prison, he asks people to send him books by "Marx, and Lenin".

Raul was a known communist, who was a member of the Partido Socialista Popular's youth wing well before the revolution.

[Red October]

the FPM people have a nice way of dodging the issue that castro is a dictator. he doesnt hold free elections for the people, something thats should be integral to any socialist society. lets quote malcolm X:
"You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."

it doesnt matter whether you think fidel is socialist or not. it doesnt matter what end of the political spectrum a dictator comes from, they're still bad. maybe fidel isnt as bad as kim jong il or saddam, but that doesnt make him good. fidel deserves to be fought against just as much as any other 2 bit latin american dictator.

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 29, 2006 03:24 pm
the FPM people have a nice way of dodging the issue that castro is a dictator. he doesnt hold free elections for the people, something thats should be integral to any socialist society. lets quote malcolm X:
"You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."

it doesnt matter whether you think fidel is socialist or not. it doesnt matter what end of the political spectrum a dictator comes from, they're still bad. maybe fidel isnt as bad as kim jong il or saddam, but that doesnt make him good. fidel deserves to be fought against just as much as any other 2 bit latin american dictator.
The FPM has not dodged any such thing. It's ironic you quote from Malcolm X, who thoroughly supported Fidel Castro - and defended him from attacks. Malcolm once said, "you won't find any anti-Castroites in Harlem. We eat them up."

http://irelandsown.net/MALFIBLU.JPG

What is a dictator? Usually a dictator has complete, unchecked control over the economy. If you accept that definition, then Castro is not a dictator. There have been numerous and cited examples of mass debates on the direction and character of the economy.

Is your reactionary assumption based on the longevity in his role as leader? Again, you fall short of dictator. It would be silly - and dangerous to throw away leaders because they've been there "too long." And besides, the bourgeois have their leaders that stick around a long time too - even in the U.S. Sure they have the parody of "term limits" but look at who is really making decisions and who has.

Alan Greenspan, how long did he serve as Chairman of the U.S. Reserve?
Henry Kissinger, how long did he serve as National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State?

Childish accusations based on bourgeois slanders doesn't strengthen the proletarian movement. It harms it.

[VenceremosRed]

And, I would be interested in hearing what Red October 1922's notion of "free election" is. Should proletarian democracy allow competition with the bourgeoisie?
If you think yes, then you aren't serious, and need to go back to your suburban home and live in idealist world.

Anytime the proletarian movement has to compete in the arena of bourgeois democracy against the bourgeoisie - it looses. Not because it isn't "popular" enough - but because that is the nature of bourgeois democracy. Some games aren't worth playing.

Castro led a revolution that ended oppressive imperialist relations and spread the seeds of socialist development. And you call him a dictator. I wonder which class you represent?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+October 28, 2006 09:33 pm--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ October 28, 2006 09:33 pm)
So Fidel Castro would not be allowed to be an FPM member at all?

He would be allowed. Please read the thread before you post in it. [/b]
I did read the thread.


FPM
Membership Requirements
To join you must meet the following requirements:

1. You are not a police officer, member of armed forces, government official, or boss.
2. You will participate when at all possible in FPM actions and decision making.
3. You have read our manifesto and Organizational and Procedural Program, and agree and have familiarized yourself with our general aims and proceedures.

Bolded for emphasis. <_< Surely you cannot deny the fact that Fidel Castro is a government official.

[black magick hustla]

So then.

All marxist-leninist communist leaders have been actually petit bourgeosie who "broke" with their class background&#33;

Why are there so many leninist leaders that had to break with their class? Does this imply that actually, the petit-bourgeoisie has much more potential to foster revolutionary leaders that the proletariat?

I don&#39;t see a Lenin, Trotsky, and Fidel Castro that started as a proletarian....

[VenceremosRed]

Marmot: ironically, your way of thinking is very Stalinist. In fact, Stalin agreed with you entirely. He was from a peasant background, and Khrushchev was from the working class. Think about that before spouting class mechanics.

Mao believed, and I agree with him, that your background alone did not determine your class - it was your outlook. In bourgeois society, the structure of class hierarchy tends to have the lower classes imitating the upper classes. This is seen everywhere - in fashion, personal predications, and even politics.

But a proletarian outlook is one of genuinely our class. Of course it isn&#39;t just outlook alone either - if one spouts communism but actively exploits the means of productions for the acquisition of capital - they certainly aren&#39;t a communist.

Marmot can keep touting his absurd, mechanical and STALINIST modes of thought -- the rest of us are building a revolutionary movement.
:hammer:

[Red October]

castro was not freely elected by the people. if he wanted freedom for cuba he could have held elections after the revolution. freedom of speech and expression shouldnt just apply to leftists, but to everyone. i believe in socialism, but not in dictatorship. castro&#39;s longevity as a leader isnt due to democracy, unlike other leaders such as FDR who were in power for a long time. they were elected, castro seized power and kept it through force. castro is one of therichest men in the world, but so many of the cuban people live in poverty. how can you support him? he doesnt want democracy or freedom for cuba, he wants to keep his power.

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 29, 2006 07:07 pm
castro was not freely elected by the people. if he wanted freedom for cuba he could have held elections after the revolution. freedom of speech and expression shouldnt just apply to leftists, but to everyone. i believe in socialism, but not in dictatorship. castro&#39;s longevity as a leader isnt due to democracy, unlike other leaders such as FDR who were in power for a long time. they were elected, castro seized power and kept it through force. castro is one of therichest men in the world, but so many of the cuban people live in poverty. how can you support him? he doesnt want democracy or freedom for cuba, he wants to keep his power.
:rolleyes:

"castro was not freely elected by the people."

This can be easilly refuted here (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/dictator.htm). And no, he was not elected "by the people" (as a whole) but specifically by the proletariat, and its allies - which make the overwhelming majority. You need to drop your bourgeois liberal mindset. Please.

Socialism is dictatorship. Every state is. It is a dictatorship of one class over another. Democracy is a function of the state - and extends only to the ruling class, in Cuba&#39;s case -- the proletariat.

Instead of repeating bourgeois slanders against Castro -- all of which I have heard and put down before -- do some reading.

Cuba Truth Project (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/cuba/qanda.html&#092;)

Cuba FactFile (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/faq.htm)


castro&#39;s longevity as a leader isnt due to democracy, unlike other leaders such as FDR who were in power for a long time

You&#39;re kidding me, right? You&#39;re defending a bourgeois politician against a communist leader like Castro -- and calling Castro the dictator?

Look, obviously you haven&#39;t really studied this. That&#39;s okay. Ask real questions. Give opinions based on facts. Then we have real, substantive debates.

What we have now is ignorence meeting opposition. :D

[LoneRed]

can someone answer my question?

Well it doesnt seem that its needed after hearing what Venred has to say,

Cuba is NOT the dictatorship of the Proletariat, it is the Rule of a minority over a majority, granted it appeases the workers more than say, the USA, but it is not socialism, nor is something to advocate or support as a "socialist society"

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 07:03 pm
Marmot: ironically, your way of thinking is very Stalinist. In fact, Stalin agreed with you entirely. He was from a peasant background, and Khrushchev was from the working class. Think about that before spouting class mechanics.

No.

I am actually trying to make a point.

I don&#39;t believe the petit bourgeoisie are as bad as the guys from the CL and FPM say. That is why, I am saying this.

The petit bourgeosie, as a class may be reactionary--but they do not sustain themselves from the exploitation of workers. The only that truly sustain themselves by exploitation are the bourgeosie.

That is why I think PB individuals can be revolutionary.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 07:27 pm
can someone answer my question?

Well it doesnt seem that its needed after hearing what Venred has to say,

Cuba is NOT the dictatorship of the Proletariat, it is the Rule of a minority over a majority, granted it appeases the workers more than say, the USA, but it is not socialism, nor is something to advocate or support as a "socialist society"
The FPM believes Cuba is a grassroot democratic nation. I do still not know if this is entirely true--but I suspect it is not really the case.

[Red October]

im not defending FDR, just making the point that he was elected many times, and castro was not. my vision of socialism includes all people, including the bourgeousie, who i think can be integrated into the proletariate. i believe socialism is about equalizing classes, not putting one class over another, because arent we trying to create a classless society? here is the webster&#39;s definition of democracy:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"

does cuba have free elections? no. wasnt the revolution started to secure democracy and freedom from oppression? i dont see any democracy in cuba, and instead of replacing a dictator with a democracy, they put in another dictator.

[Solitary Mind]

Freedom Of Speech doesn&#39;t only apply to leftists, and theres plenty of castro critics within cuba, even some that make music that he has supported, and force is only used against Anti Revolutionaries, remember, its a small island of 11 million, look what castro himself was able to accomplish, he&#39;s alot smarter than you think

richest men in the world? you havent been following up on anything but Forbes have you? did you not read where castro challenged Forbes, the FBI, CIA, w/e to prove he even had one single dollar in an overseas account? to this day, they have found nothing, and if he was so rich, he certainly doesnt have the time to enjoy much now does he? again try reading a bit, it wont kill you

Marx talks about the Dictator of the Proletariat, so assuming that Castro was even a dictator, he would be one that is for his people.

and cuba has the lowest poverty index in latin america

RedOctober...READ&#33;&#33; please, venceramosred gave you plenty of links that you can easily click on, and read about cuban democracy

[Red October]

tell me, are the cubans allowed to elect their own leader? no. where are the general elections to decide who gets to lead the cubans? im not saying castro is stalin or kim jong il, just that cuba is not a democratic country. i know castro has done good things for cuba and cuba is better than many other latin american countries, but its still not truly socialist in my opinion. and go read the amnesty international page about cuba. it might do you some good.

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 29, 2006 08:41 pm
tell me, are the cubans allowed to elect their own leader? no. where are the general elections to decide who gets to lead the cubans? im not saying castro is stalin or kim jong il, just that cuba is not a democratic country. i know castro has done good things for cuba and cuba is better than many other latin american countries, but its still not truly socialist in my opinion. and go read the amnesty international page about cuba. it might do you some good.
friend, ive told you, read some of the links you&#39;ve been provided with, so that i dont have to explain so much, i would rely onto you the information my grandpa who works in cuba(or rather, for the cuban government) has told me, but that obviously could be false since i can show you no evidence, so read some of the links shown to you

[Red October]

i know, i read the links. they said some nice stuff, but i dont find it as credible as other sources. here: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-cub/index

i could also say the things that were told to me by a friend who was just on a church trip to cuba, but it is only anecdotal, not statistical.

[Solitary Mind]

yes i can see much on Human Rights, im guessing their specialty is something OTHER than democracy in Cuba.

and always take statistics and word of a cuban over a visitor not used to the conditions, i myself am a Cuban, have visited, and have talked with many other Cubans, the place is no hell hole

[LoneRed]

No one is saying that they can&#39;t be revolutionary, but just because someone is labeled revolutionary, doesnt mean they are fighting the good fight.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 09:24 pm
No one is saying that they can&#39;t be revolutionary, but just because someone is labeled revolutionary, doesnt mean they are fighting the good fight.
ok

communist revolutionaries

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 29, 2006 04:27 am
Have you ever heard the speech in which Fidel "announces" that the Cuban revolution was a socialist one? He asks the huge crowd "do you like the agrarian reform?" and they all scream "yes&#33;" He asks do you like the urban housing reform?" and they all scream "yes&#33;" He asks if they like the nationalizations, the education and health campaigns, the grass roots democracy, and they all scream "yes&#33;" He says, well then, you like socialism&#33; and they burst into an extremely loud applause.
But alot of those reforms at that time in third-world nations across the world were programs nationalist adopted. Say in Cuba maybe minus incentives for private businesses.

How much do they teach about Socialism and other political theories at schools in Cuba?


There&#39;s a book by Rius on the Cuban Revolution called "Cuba Para Principiantes" (English version is called "Cuba for beginners") explains the whole process, in a pretty humorous way (Rius is a famous Mexican cartoonist.. he did some cartoon books on Marx, Mao, etc. check him out if you haven&#39;t).

One of the first books I bought was "Marx for Beginners" by Rius-- I&#39;ve looked back on it and it&#39;s not all completely accurate, he said that college scholarships, national healthcare, and labour unions are all because of Marx, aswell as say that we all put our faith in Marx-- I don&#39;t need "faith".

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 29, 2006 08:24 pm
im not defending FDR, just making the point that he was elected many times, and castro was not. my vision of socialism includes all people, including the bourgeousie, who i think can be integrated into the proletariate. i believe socialism is about equalizing classes, not putting one class over another, because arent we trying to create a classless society? here is the webster&#39;s definition of democracy:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"

does cuba have free elections? no. wasnt the revolution started to secure democracy and freedom from oppression? i dont see any democracy in cuba, and instead of replacing a dictator with a democracy, they put in another dictator.
Marmot: You enitre argument is crude and meaningless.

Communists (Castro included) support the most expansive, genuine and inclusive democracy - proletarian democracy. What you are talking about is bourgeois (liberal) democracy. There is a qualitive difference.

Castro has been elected, a number of times from the various democratic functions of the Cuban state.

But MORE, much MORE then that - he is supported and loved by the Cuban masses. Communists aren&#39;t liberal democrats. Formal structures are of only significance to us in that they may provide a better form suited for proletarian democracy -- but they do not change the class charecter of the democracy.

Socialism is still a class epoch. There will be one class over another - like it or not - until the complete abolition of classes.

You&#39;re basing your arguments on slanders and lies - not facts and reality.

Look, I encourage the spirit in which you are raising these criticisms. But you need to do more investigating before heaping opinions out in cyberspace.

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 29, 2006 08:41 pm
tell me, are the cubans allowed to elect their own leader? no. where are the general elections to decide who gets to lead the cubans? im not saying castro is stalin or kim jong il, just that cuba is not a democratic country. i know castro has done good things for cuba and cuba is better than many other latin american countries, but its still not truly socialist in my opinion. and go read the amnesty international page about cuba. it might do you some good.
Amnesty International is a bourgeois organization.

"Human Rights" is good when fighting "bad" countries (that oppose U.S. imperialism) but "Human Rights" turn a blind eye to countries that encourage/welcome U.S. imperialism.

Do some more research.

Communists are probably the biggest supporters of human rights. You have the truth turned upside down. :wacko:

[black magick hustla]

wait

where did i say that

[Leo]

the most expansive, genuine and inclusive democracy - proletarian democracy.

I just can&#39;t help pointing out how pointless this term is everytime. As Bordiga says: "Democracy both in its literal sense as well as in the dirty use means "power belonging not to one but to all classes". For this reason, just as we reject bourgeois democracy and democracy in general, we must exclude, as a contradiction in terms, class democracy and workers democracy."

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 29, 2006 10:58 pm

the most expansive, genuine and inclusive democracy - proletarian democracy.

I just can&#39;t help pointing out how pointless this term is everytime. As Bordiga says: "Democracy both in its literal sense as well as in the dirty use means "power belonging not to one but to all classes". For this reason, just as we reject bourgeois democracy and democracy in general, we must exclude, as a contradiction in terms, class democracy and workers democracy."
damn council communists and there damn utopian ideologies they should learn instead from the glorious vanguard

[Red October]

"human rights" is not an entity that can turn a blind eye to pro-us countries, and amnesty international certainly doesnt do that. they oppose human rights violations in america too. dont call something bourgeousie because it offers evidence against your argument.

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 30, 2006 12:07 am
"human rights" is not an entity that can turn a blind eye to pro-us countries, and amnesty international certainly doesnt do that. they oppose human rights violations in america too. dont call something bourgeousie because it offers evidence against your argument.
human rights is defined, if the people who define it are pro us...well, you get it

[Red October]

human rights has been defined by many different organizations, and the definitions pretty much agree with each other. i&#39;ve seen many of these, and none of them could really be construed as "pro-us". human rights are human rights, and they arent biased towards anyone.

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 30, 2006 12:23 am
human rights has been defined by many different organizations, and the definitions pretty much agree with each other. i&#39;ve seen many of these, and none of them could really be construed as "pro-us". human rights are human rights, and they arent biased towards anyone.
well apparently the US still does what it wants, without ur organizations really saying shit

[Red October]

nope. amnesty international has worked to free political prisoners all over the world, including the us.

[LoneRed]

Castro has been elected, a number of times from the various democratic functions of the Cuban state.


Just because he has been elected, doesnt mean its a proletarian democracy, One man in charge is not a proletarian democracy.




Socialism is still a class epoch. There will be one class over another - like it or not - until the complete abolition of classes.


But in Cuba it is NOT one class over another, in the sense you&#39;re talking about, its a group of people over society, One Man, or a group of men do NOT equal the working class

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 12:56 am

Castro has been elected, a number of times from the various democratic functions of the Cuban state.


Just because he has been elected, doesnt mean its a proletarian democracy, One man in charge is not a proletarian democracy.




Socialism is still a class epoch. There will be one class over another - like it or not - until the complete abolition of classes.


But in Cuba it is NOT one class over another, in the sense you&#39;re talking about, its a group of people over society, One Man, or a group of men do NOT equal the working class
Why am I not suprised LoneRed is a supporter of the Communist League?

[VenceremosRed]

The stench of bourgeois democracy on this thread really stinks.

People&#39;s power is a lot more then just elected formal leaders. There is a leader/led dynamic (See Marx on the mental/manual labor contradiction) but we can&#39;t gloss over it, or ignore it. Some leaders will be leaders in a movement.

The problem is that a lot of you are seeing this from the scope of bourgeois democracy - and all the limitations that go along with that. We can (and should) hold regular elections, and have formal mechanisms in place to keep leaders accountable (I even argue for multiple parties - like Nepal) but formal structures aren&#39;t the point.

The aim of proletarian democracy is to draw more people into participation of the state, and Cuba has done this.

Washington led a bourgeois revolution, and it almost named "new king." He ran uncontested in the first U.S. presidential election, and there was a cult of personality around him. Yet bourgeois democracy was still there. See my point?

Get beyond the shallow imagery. Castro is a symbol, like Che or Ghandi or Winston Churchill. The point is that is the political line behind that symbol?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Democracy, the general sense, is defined as "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

Of course this is an abstract meaning, leaving out class divisions (what "people?"), and things change when the concept is applied to the real world.. and we materialists are only interested in the real world.

So, bourgeois democracy, which most of us live under now, is "government by the ; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

Workers&#39; (proletarian) democracy, which is what socialism is, is "government by the [working] people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the [working] people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

As well, since workers&#39; make up the majority of the population, workers&#39; democracy is real democracy (majority rule).


[b]Bolded for emphasis. Surely you cannot deny the fact that Fidel Castro is a government official.

Obviously, what is meant by that requirment is official in a bourgeois government; but since you can&#39;t tell (or don&#39;t care) what the differences between a bourgeois and workers&#39; states are, you don&#39;t surprise me.

The FPM doesn&#39;t have any branches or members in Cuba. Cuba is socialist.. we don&#39;t fight for socialism in countries that are already socialist. So it wouldn&#39;t make any sense for Comrade Fidel to join an organization that fights for socialism, when he&#39;s already a part of a socialist government.

When people say "Would Marx be allowed in the FPM, would Fidel, etc." they mean it in a hypothetical way.. not in the ridiculous way which you do.. otherwise our answer would be "Marx can&#39;t join, he&#39;s dead; Fidel can&#39;t join, he&#39;s a &#39;government official,&#39;" etc.


[b]Amnesty International is a bourgeois organization.

Indeed. As Fidel said, "On what moral grounds can the rulers of a nation in which millionaires and beggars exists; Indians are exterminated; Blacks are discriminated against; women are prostituted; and huge numbers of Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and other Latin Americans are scorned, exploited, and humiliated, speak of human rights?

“How can the representatives of a capitalist and imperialist society based on the exploitation of man by man, combined with egoism, individualism, and a complete lack of human solidarity, do this?

“How can those that train and provide military supplies to the bloodiest, most reactionary, and most corrupt governments in the world, such as those of Somoza, Pinochet, Stroessner, the gorillas in Uruguay, Mobutu, and the shah of Iran, just to name a few, mouth this slogan?

“How can the leaders of a state whose intelligence agencies organized assassination attempts against the leaders of other countries and whose armies dropped explosives in Vietnam equivalent to hundreds of atom bombs, such as those that exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and who murdered millions of Vietnamese without even deigning to apologize to the country or pay indemnity for the lives lost – the leaders of a state that has traditionally intervened in Latin America, subjects the people of this part of the world to its exploiting yoke, and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of children every year due to illness and starvation – how can they speak of human rights?

“In short, how can the imperialist government that forcibly maintains a military base in our territory and subjects our people to a criminal economic blockade speak of human rights?”

You want to talk about human rights? Talk about the rights of the humans the Cuban revolution has saved, with the dramatic increases in life expectancy, and the immense drops in disease and infant mortality that it brought. Talk about how it abolished institutionalized racism and sexism. Talk about how it brought millions of people into the sphere of public life.

Nah, you&#39;d rather talk about the handful of "journalists" (read: U.S. agents) who sit in Cuban jails for plotting to overthrow the revolution.. cause they&#39;re more important than the petty stuff I brought up, right?


One of the first books I bought was "Marx for Beginners" by Rius-- I&#39;ve looked back on it and it&#39;s not all completely accurate, he said that college scholarships, national healthcare, and labour unions are all because of Marx, aswell as say that we all put our faith in Marx-- I don&#39;t need "faith".

I just leafed through it and I can&#39;t find where it says any of that.. It does say that the communist movement (of which Marx is "the father), is responsible for public education and such.. and that&#39;s true.

The "faith" bit might be different in the English version.. (although I&#39;ve read that and don&#39;t remember anything).. I&#39;ve got the Spanish version here and I don&#39;t see that..

Regardless, it&#39;s a generally possitive book, and I&#39;d recommend it. Cuba for Beginners is another I&#39;d recommend.


But alot of those reforms at that time in third-world nations across the world were programs nationalist adopted. Say in Cuba maybe minus incentives for private businesses.

There have never been any "reforms" that match the revolutionary change in Cuban society after the revolution. ALL land was redistributed or nationalized, as was ALL industry. The urban reform gave everyone a place to stay. It said that all renters would pay no more than 10% of their monthly income, and after 5 years would own their houses. It gave full employment. It gave free (and of the best quality in the world) education and healthcare. It allowed workers and farmers to enter the decission making process for the first time in Cuban (and Latin American) history. It ended institutionalized racism (before the revolution, Black Cubans were even banned from beaches -- this on a tropical island&#33;), institutionalized sexism, and to a large part domestic servitude. It allowed all workers to join a union, to elect their union reps, and to determine their wages and production level collectively. It allowed people to nominate and elect their representatives from fellow their workers. It allowed women and youths to fight for their rights in strong, collective bodies. I could go on and on.

No nationalist, "peronist" or otherwise, did, or even could make these sorts of social transformations in the third world.


How much do they teach about Socialism and other political theories at schools in Cuba?

Alot. Outside of school, there&#39;s also the young pioneers, television and newspaper discussion and debate, and the best learning experience of all: growing up in a socialist society&#33;

In recent years there&#39;s more study of varying parts of communist theory as well, i.e. Trotsky&#39;s theories, etc.


i could also say the things that were told to me by a friend who was just on a church trip to cuba, but it is only anecdotal, not statistical.

Is this friend from an imperialist country? Has he ever been to a third world country before? Anyone traveling from an imperialist country to a third world country for the first time will probably be surprised by how bad it is.. but anyone traveling from a third world country to Cuba will be absolutely amazed to see what they have accomplished under the hard conditions they face..

See: How Cuba compares to its neighbors (http://www.canadacuba.ca/education/compare.php)


tell me, are the cubans allowed to elect their own leader? no.

Yes. They are..

But it&#39;s much more than that (elections in which one choses a leader or "ruler" for a certain period of time).. it&#39;s a real, participatory democracy in which the Cuban workers and farmers are involved in every aspect of society. It&#39;s real democracy&#33;

See: Let&#39;s talk about Cuban democracy (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys5b.html)

Participation is key to Cuba&#39;s democracy (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/cubasi_article.asp?ArticleID=50)

The Truth About Cuba (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys5a.html)

American vs. Cuba democracy (http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html)

Five reasons why the people rule in Cuba (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/cubasi_article.asp?ArticleID=53)


Cuba is NOT the dictatorship of the Proletariat, it is the Rule of a minority over a majority, granted it appeases the workers more than say, the USA, but it is not socialism, nor is something to advocate or support as a "socialist society"

Oh yeah? What is this analysis based on?


Castro is one of therichest men in the world, but so many of the cuban people live in poverty.

This bourgeois lie (started by the capitalists behind Fortune magazine, which made based their bullshit on the entire wealth of Cuba... in otherwords, they took the entire wealth of Cuba, and said "Fidel owns all of that, so that&#39;s all his wealth"), has been refuted so many times on here I can barely stand to do it again.

Even by the admission of Cuba&#39;s enemies, the leadership of the Cuban government has very little privilege..

"They [Fidel&#39;s family] have privileged positions but they don&#39;t seem to have many luxuries ... certainly not like the &#96;juniors&#39; in Mexico,&#39;&#39; said Latell, referring to the Mexican slang for rich kids."

...

" Fidel Castro and wife Dalia live in a two-house complex in western Havana. The living room of the main house is described by visitors as furnished with simple wood and leather sofas and chairs and Cuban handicrafts. "

"The only luxury visible to visitors, said Fuentes, is a big-screen television that Castro uses to satisfy his interest in foreign news reports and videos secretly recorded by Cuba&#39;s intelligence services."

...

"The houses of Fidel and Raúl are large but simply appointed."

...

"An acquaintance who has visited both Fidel and Raúl&#39;s homes described them as very large by Cuban standards but relatively simply appointed with Cuban-made furniture, with Raúl&#39;s home &#96;&#96;a bit nicer than Fidel&#39;s.&#39;&#39;

...

"I think that when this [Cuban revolution] ends ... most people in Miami will be surprised by their low level of life.&#39;&#39;

"Added exile author Norberto Fuentes: &#96;&#96;The most avaricious cabinet minister lives no better than the average Cuban in Miami. He has one car, not two. An air conditioner in the car? No air conditioner.&#39;&#39; - Source (Anti-communist Miami Herald) (http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/fidel/castro-family.htm)

&

"Some ordinary Cubans grumble about privileges they perceive to be enjoyed by their leaders, but few express the opinion that there is widespread corruption at top government level. " - Source (AP article) (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45498&hl=)

And yes, Cuba is a poor country.. but with what it has, it&#39;s managed to create a society with the lowest HPI (human poverty index) in the third world. Check it out.. (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/cuba/poverty.html)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Just because he has been elected, doesnt mean its a proletarian democracy, One man in charge is not a proletarian democracy.

Why not? Why should the Cuban people throw out their chosen representatives, just to prove they can? If they want to chose the same person for a position, because they feel that she or he is representing them and serving their interests, why shouldn&#39;t they?

What sort of "great man theory" are you basing your analysis on? What kind of materialist analysis of the concrete situation in Cuba leads you to believe that a small group of (apparently "classless" since you don&#39;t mention) people rule society against the interests of the working class?

Sorry, but asserting that Cuba isn&#39;t socialist, without anything to back that up, isn&#39;t going to fly.


nope. amnesty international has worked to free political prisoners all over the world, including the us.

Comrade, you should really study a bit before you try to assert alot of things that are incorrect, and in the end make you look bad.

Amnesty International is bourgeois, both in makeup and in outlook. It objectively represents the bourgeois (capitalist - imperialist) order.

I understand you probably have a possitive motivation behind your support of "human rights," as in your apparent support for Ghandi, but you need to grasp everything involved..

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don&#39;t see a Lenin, Trotsky, and Fidel Castro that started as a proletarian....

There have been leaders that were born proles. I&#39;m not going to go through a whole list, and some were rather shitty, but there have been some.

Tito was a worker.. Kruschev.. Debs.. Stalin (father was a petty bourgeois shop owner for a very short period, then went bankrupt and was forced to work in a shoe factory.. mother was a surf)... etc.


I don&#39;t believe the petit bourgeoisie are as bad as the guys from the CL and FPM say. That is why, I am saying this.

"Bad"? What sort of moralisitc nonsense is this?

The point is that being determines conciousness (I can&#39;t seem say that enough here).. and being a proletarian revolutionary is impossible without being a proletarian&#33;

It remains as true today as when it was originally said: The liberation of the working class must be done by the workers themselves&#33;


The petit bourgeosie, as a class may be reactionary--but they do not sustain themselves from the exploitation of workers.

Sure they do..

Small shop owners, that employ workers? They make profits from the exploitation of workers, and get a part of the wealth extracted from the exploitation of the workers that create the products they sell.

Same with some small farmers (the petty bourgeois ones).

Then we have the managers, who help the bourgeoisie in its exploitation of the working class.. more and more of the petty bourgeoisie belongs to this sector..

Some petty bourgeois don&#39;t.. but they&#39;re shrinking in number.. many have been sucked into the proletariat.


That is why I think PB individuals can be revolutionary.

In what sense? Proletarian revolutionaries? Can they fight for the construction of a workers state? Why would they? That would be going against their own interests and lowering their status in society&#33;

[LoneRed]

The grave keeps getting deeper,

Castro is more than a symbol, he is the Leader of Cuba, He can&#39;t represent the working class, because one man can never represent the working class. He may represent a section of it, but to his bias. I will never take a society with a one man executive as socialism. Its a contradiction

[LoneRed]

Why not? Why should the Cuban people throw out their chosen representatives, just to prove they can? If they want to chose the same person for a position, because they feel that she or he is representing them and serving their interests, why shouldn&#39;t they?


They should throw them out, Because They can govern and should govern instead of some outdated leader, or representative.






Sorry, but asserting that Cuba isn&#39;t socialist, without anything to back that up, isn&#39;t going to fly.



umm.. lets see, Socialism, is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the organizing of the means of production by the Working class themselves, the rule of society by the working class.

This may happen in some small instances in cuba, but not to any degree to be named socialist

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

They should throw them out, Because They can govern and should govern instead of some outdated leader, or representative.

Why is he "outdated"? The Cuban workers don&#39;t think so.. Isn&#39;t up to them to decide if he&#39;s "outdated"?

What does their having representatives and delegates have to do with which class rules?

The bourgeoisie has representatives in the bourgeois state.. why can&#39;t the workers have representatives in a workers&#39; state?

Do you think that socialism (working class rule) means there&#39;ll be no elected representatives or delegates? Marx didn&#39;t think so..


umm.. lets see, Socialism, is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the organizing of the means of production by the Working class themselves, the rule of society by the working class.

This may happen in some small instances in cuba, but not to any degree to be named socialist

What is this based on? Seriously, I want to know. It seems like you&#39;re just posting random shit here. I don&#39;t see any explanations, I don&#39;t see any analysis of concrete conditions, I don&#39;t see any mention of anything actually going on in Cuba....

[chebol]

That&#39;s because the arguments being made against democracy in Cuba, and against Fidel, are being made not only to the exclusion of reason, but against it, relying on the decaying threads of bourgeois ideology. The more facts we throw at them, the more they have to dodge, and the less rational their &#39;arguments&#39; can be made to appear.

Worse, it&#39;s based on a tubborn naiivety that is reinforced by counterrevolutionary propaganda, and the occasional knee-jerk response. It&#39;s surreal.

[black magick hustla]

There has been prole born leaders....

Of course there has been&#33; However most of the "biggest fish" were not prole-born


Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 30, 2006 03:31 am



"Bad"? What sort of moralisitc nonsense is this?

C&#39;mon, it is just fucking semantics.

You know english is not my first language. Ok, detrimental to the communist movment.


Is that better?


It remains as true today as when it was originally said: The liberation of the working class must be done by the workers themselves&#33;


That is why leaders should be working class, but that doesn&#39;t means the petit-bourgeoisie shouldn&#39;t participate in communist revolutionary action.

Whites have aided black liberation, and men have aided feminist movements.

Was that wrong then?



Sure they do..
The petit-bourgeois that generally joins communist groups is much more an independent professional rather than a "small shop owner, etc"

They definitely do not exploit any worker.

You are right about small capitalists and people from the manageral class though. Those should definitely not join communist groups--because they are actively working against an egalitarian society.


In what sense? Proletarian revolutionaries? Can they fight for the construction of a workers state? Why would they? That would be going against their own interests and lowering their status in society&#33;

See above.

It is not fighting against their interests--communism in the first world means less hours of work and a secure economical foundation. That is in the interest of everyone that works for a wage.

[cenv]

We can debate dictatorship and democracy in Cuba until our faces are blue, but there&#39;s no point in it, because we can&#39;t determine the conditions in Cuba without input from Cuban people. Does anyone here actually known people from/in Cuba? If so, what do they have to say about the conditions there? If they&#39;re educated on communism, do they think it&#39;s a workers&#39; state?

[VenceremosRed]

Marmot: If Castro won in a election against Bush - would that be "more" valid?

Fidel is a leader because of his experience, his boldness and foresight. Being a leader doesn&#39;t equate to being a dictator -- leaders are everywhere, in every movement. Why should we trash proletarian leaders because the ruling classes slander them? What sense does that make for people like yourself claiming to want to end class divisions? It seems you have some preconcieved notions, largely stemming from bourgeois theorists - about democracy.

Seriously. Read any of the links CompañeroDeLibertad or myself provided, and criticize those. Don&#39;t start out with ignorance and argue that - start with knowledge, and argue with that&#33;

Where Marx, Lenin, Mao not leaders? Was Huey Newton, James Connolly, Ho Chi Minh, Rosa Luxemburg, Amaral Cabral, Che Guevara, not leaders?

"Of course there has been&#33; However most of the "biggest fish" were not prole-born"

Stalin wasn&#39;t a "big" fish? :huh:

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 05:05 am
We can debate dictatorship and democracy in Cuba until our faces are blue, but there&#39;s no point in it, because we can&#39;t determine the conditions in Cuba without input from Cuban people. Does anyone here actually known people from/in Cuba? If so, what do they have to say about the conditions there? If they&#39;re educated on communism, do they think it&#39;s a workers&#39; state?
There have been numerous links pointed out; thus far none of the Cuba critics have bothers to investigate them -- in typical "Communist" League fashion.

[cenv]

Originally posted by VenceremosRed+October 30, 2006 05:13 am--> (VenceremosRed @ October 30, 2006 05:13 am)
[email protected] 30, 2006 05:05 am
We can debate dictatorship and democracy in Cuba until our faces are blue, but there&#39;s no point in it, because we can&#39;t determine the conditions in Cuba without input from Cuban people. Does anyone here actually known people from/in Cuba? If so, what do they have to say about the conditions there? If they&#39;re educated on communism, do they think it&#39;s a workers&#39; state?
There have been numerous links pointed out; thus far none of the Cuba critics have bothers to investigate them -- in typical "Communist" League fashion. [/b]
Actually, I&#39;ve checked them all out, but none of them answer my question. And what makes you think I&#39;m a Cuba critic? I&#39;m a lot more interested in finding out what Cuba&#39;s really like than defending any position, as you&#39;ll notice that I didn&#39;t jump into the middle of the argument. I just asked a question. So I&#39;ll request that you save your obnoxious remarks for people that are actually interested in arguing with you and swapping insults.

All the sites you linked me to just describe Cuba and talk about how good it is. That&#39;s fine, but they don&#39;t seem to mention where they&#39;re getting their information from, and as far as I can tell, they aren&#39;t published by Cuban comrades, although it&#39;s quite possible that I missed something. I&#39;d love to think that Cuba is a socialist country, but I&#39;m not going to be so sure until I hear an opinion from the Cuban people on it. Hence my original question, which still stands.

[VenceremosRed]

On the issue of determining what is proletarian, and what is bourgeois, I wanted to bring this up from Mao&#39;s "On Practice (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm)" -

Marxists hold that man&#39;s social practice alone is the criterion of the truth of his knowledge of the external world. What actually happens is that man&#39;s knowledge is verified only when he achieves the anticipated results in the process of social practice (material production, class struggle or scientific experiment). If a man wants to succeed in his work, that is, to achieve the anticipated results, he must bring his ideas into correspondence with the laws of the objective external world; if they do not correspond, he will fail in his practice. After he fails, he draws his lessons, corrects his ideas to make them correspond to the laws of the external world, and can thus turn failure into success; this is what is meant by "failure is the mother of success" and "a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit". The dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge places practice in the primary position, holding that human knowledge can in no way be separated from practice and repudiating all the erroneous theories which deny the importance of practice or separate knowledge from practice. Thus Lenin said, "Practice is higher than (theoretical) knowledge, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate actuality." The Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism has two outstanding characteristics. One is its class nature: it openly avows that dialectical materialism is in the service of the proletariat. The other is its practicality: it emphasizes the dependence of theory on practice, emphasizes that theory is based on practice and in turn serves practice. The truth of any knowledge or theory is determined not by subjective feelings, but by objective results in social practice. Only social practice can be the criterion of truth. The standpoint of practice is the primary and basic standpoint in the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge.

What I take from this personally, is that sorting "worker" from "petti bourgeois" is pretty difficult in the stratified situation in the U.S.

On average, working people in the U.S. are bettter off then the rest of the world. This is derived from the spoils of imperialism. So how do we "know" who is exploited, and who is an exploiter?

Well, I don&#39;t think the solution is in Stalin&#39;s method of mechanically labeling your class orgins to determine ones class background.

Rather, it&#39;s a dialectic of your class orgin AND your social-being.

"Marxists hold that man&#39;s social practice alone is the criterion of the truth of his knowledge of the external world." - Mao, On Practice.

A worker in a facotry can have some pretty reactionary ideas - and a middle class intellectual can have some pretty revolutionary ideas (Marx).

It&#39;s simplism to say working class orgin = proletariat.

The proletariat, is the most advanced of the oppressed.

What I am saying is that IDEAS, even from the proletarian, don&#39;t determine reality.

[Leo]

Originally posted by Lonered
proletarian democracy

:o Please stop using this term already&#33;

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by cenv+October 30, 2006 05:40 am--> (cenv @ October 30, 2006 05:40 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 05:13 am

[email protected] 30, 2006 05:05 am
We can debate dictatorship and democracy in Cuba until our faces are blue, but there&#39;s no point in it, because we can&#39;t determine the conditions in Cuba without input from Cuban people. Does anyone here actually known people from/in Cuba? If so, what do they have to say about the conditions there? If they&#39;re educated on communism, do they think it&#39;s a workers&#39; state?
There have been numerous links pointed out; thus far none of the Cuba critics have bothers to investigate them -- in typical "Communist" League fashion.
Actually, I&#39;ve checked them all out, but none of them answer my question. And what makes you think I&#39;m a Cuba critic? I&#39;m a lot more interested in finding out what Cuba&#39;s really like than defending any position, as you&#39;ll notice that I didn&#39;t jump into the middle of the argument. I just asked a question. So I&#39;ll request that you save your obnoxious remarks for people that are actually interested in arguing with you and swapping insults.

All the sites you linked me to just describe Cuba and talk about how good it is. That&#39;s fine, but they don&#39;t seem to mention where they&#39;re getting their information from, and as far as I can tell, they aren&#39;t published by Cuban comrades, although it&#39;s quite possible that I missed something. I&#39;d love to think that Cuba is a socialist country, but I&#39;m not going to be so sure until I hear an opinion from the Cuban people on it. Hence my original question, which still stands. [/b]
Acually, they did answer all your questions. You&#39;re looking for a myopic opinion of a Cuban extolling Cuban democracy -- that probably exists. It&#39;s like finding a right-wing republican extolling American democracy. It&#39;s entirely subjective.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Please stop using this term already&#33;

I explained the term a page back.. read the thread.

[Leo]

I think this is what you are reffering;


Democracy, the general sense, is defined as "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

Of course this is an abstract meaning, leaving out class divisions (what "people?"), and things change when the concept is applied to the real world.. and we materialists are only interested in the real world.

So, bourgeois democracy, which most of us live under now, is "government by the [bourgeoisie]; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the [bourgeoisie] and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

Workers&#39; (proletarian) democracy, which is what socialism is, is "government by the [working] people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the [working] people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

As well, since workers&#39; make up the majority of the population, workers&#39; democracy is real democracy (majority rule).

But this doesn&#39;t adress my concern: "Democracy both in its literal sense as well as in the dirty use means "power belonging not to one but to all classes". For this reason, just as we reject bourgeois democracy and democracy in general, we must exclude, as a contradiction in terms, class democracy and workers democracy." (Bordiga)

This is why I think a different term which would create less confusion and which woul underline the dictatorship of the proletariat more, something like proletarchy. But democracy both in its literal sense as well as the political sense means power of the people or "power belonging not to one but to all classes".

We want proletarian dictatorship, not democracy. The only reason to use word-tricks like "Workers&#39; democracy = Working People&#39;s Rule" can be to take a pie in the sky of all who are illusioned by the lies bourgeoise spreads about democracy.

[LoneRed]

is this conversation actually happening. Im living in la-la land. Cuba is NOT a socialist society. IT doesnt matter if there are more social programs to help the people, or the ruler is less tyrannical, for socialism to be applicable, the society has to be run by the workers themselves, not a one man executive. how can he truly represent the thousands of people in cuba? HE&#39;s ONE man.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Um.. please read some of the links posted earlier. People aren&#39;t going to engage you in a serious way if you keep asking questions that have already been answered dozens of times.

One man doesn&#39;t rule Cuba, or any country for that matter. Cuba is ruled by the working people of Cuba. They elect representatives, which are fully accountable, meet with them regularly, have no special privilege, and which are fully recallable. These representatives form bodies which can carry out immediate action when that sort of thing is needed.

All wages and production are set by the workers themselves. Major laws are debated publicly, then voted on by everyone. Women, youths, etc. have mass organizations that inject them into the process, etc. etc. etc.

Read the links.. I just don&#39;t have the strength to keep posting this shit over and over.

If you want to counter the content of the links with factual evidence, okay. If you&#39;re just going to keep posting things from your ass, don&#39;t expect a serious response.

[LoneRed]

Cuba is ruled by the working people of Cuba. They elect representatives, which are fully accountable, meet with them regularly, have no special privilege, and which are fully recallable.

That is so far from the truth

That reminds of justifications for Bourgeois republics I have heard. By saying this you are acknowledging it is a republic, Cuba, that is. Show me a representative that is "fully accountable".

So you&#39;d rather them have representatives, then rule society on their own? Why the need for Fidel then? Is he just a figurehead? one who happens to have quite a bit of power?. Wherever there is a one man executive, or executive at all there is NOT proletarian rule.

Its contradictory. So each representative meets with each member of the working class to learn what they want and what to vote on etc...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, actually they do. Read the links.

It&#39;s obvious to me by now that you&#39;re not trying to address this in a serious way.. so this will be the last time I respond.

Representatives are nominated at the local level in public meetings. Between 2 and 8 people are nominated. Then, biographies of each candidate are placed in public places where they can be seen by all. Then the elections happen. Elected representatives take part in public meetings with everyone else on a regular basis. People raise their issues, make decisions, etc. and the representative takes that to the next level. If the people feel a representative hasn&#39;t done enough or is doing things wrong, they can recall him by popular mandate. This is done in Cuba on the regular. In one part of Havana, dozens of representatives have been recalled. Apparently it happens so much there that no representative has ever served a full term.

From these local reps, national reps are elected, and from them, the council of state (president, vice presidents, etc.). All the reps, all the way up, are accountable to the folks who elected them in the same way.

Of course I "admit" Cuba is a republic. It&#39;s called the "Republic of Cuba". The group you support, the Communist League, calls for the creation of a "Workers&#39; Republic" in the United States, so I&#39;m not sure where all this anarcho, "ultra democracy" stuff is coming from.

You can&#39;t have gigantic mass meetings on every issue. It&#39;s just not practical. All local level decisions are made by local bodies that way, workplace decisions made by workplace committees, industry decisions made by union member meetings, etc. but sometimes you need to make an immediate decision.. the CL realizes this obviously, since it has a Central Committee.

Decisions and reps are always recallable. No major decision is made without broad discussion and debate in all the mass organizations, in the papers, in the unions, in the workplace committees, in the CDRs, and in the block meetings... after all this happens, and changes are made, etc., a national vote is held on to determine if the decision should be enacted.

[LoneRed]

There is a HUGE difference between a Worker&#39;s Republic and the republic of Cuba.

So the national reps elect the head of state? how is that accountable to the people?

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 01:02 am
There is a HUGE difference between a Worker&#39;s Republic and the republic of Cuba.

So the national reps elect the head of state? how is that accountable to the people?
I think the whole demand for a "Worker&#39;s" Republic is very narrow. I think it stems from a white nostalgia for 19th century Europe.

It seems that you LoneRed are advocating some sort of direct, utopian democracy. Have you actually participated in an organization/movement that practiced that style of "democracy"?

I have. It was a nightmare. There was no unity at all, disorganization, and even though there weren&#39;t supposed to be "leaders" -- there really was, except because of the formal set up - they were completely unaccountable, because, hey, technically their not "leaders."

Direct democracy sounds good. But what would it look like in reality? The Paris Commune was destroyed in a matter of months, is that really an example?

I totally agree with the spirit that you&#39;re coming from - I think elections, recalls, debates are good things&#33; But ultimately there still just formal structures, and can ultimately only cover up the real class nature of a society.

I think the Paris Commune would have turned bourgeois if it was destroyed by external contradictions. Marx criticized the commune for not really going all the way, and said this is why they failed. I think he was right.

I unite with you in wanting to break down social divisions and get to a genuinely democratic society, and building a revolutionary movement along the way. But I urge you to join with a movement actually capable of doing that.

<span style=&#39;font-family:Optima&#39;>Long Live the Oaxaca Commune&#33;</span>

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So the national reps elect the head of state? how is that accountable to the people?

Because the head of state is elected first as a rep, then from the reps he&#39;s elected to be head of state. Understand?

S/he is still recallable and fully responsible to those who elected him/her.

Again, please read the links.. All of this is covered.


Originally posted by Alarcon+--> (Alarcon)There are tendencies and differences among countries. In my opinion there are several essential problems, that&#39;s why representative democracy has been criticized. One of them is reducing the democratic practice, people&#39;s involvement, to just voting.
A famous phrase by Rousseau, talking about the oldest parliamentary system in the world, the British one, sums it up: The English - he would ironically say - believe that they are free men, but they are free only on election day, when they vote for their representatives.
All the U.S. electoral propaganda talks only about elections. That is what democracy is for them. However, throughout history, the concept of democracy is not only reduced to voting, but the practice of authority, government by the people themselves or through their representatives.
The elections in Iraq, in Afghanistan, what were they all about? A macabre show. It does not matter that those countries were occupied, that there was torture, fraud and lies. Some of them voted, and because of that they consider that a democracy.
The second problem was defined by Rousseau as a farce, a fiction novel. It is delegating authority to someone, which is its essence, that&#39;s why it is called representative democracy. The representative assumes power in the name of the others. But that can be done only with social justice. Rousseau said that if there is no equality among men, there is no representation. The exploiter cannot represent the exploited. That&#39;s why he believed that democracy was utopia. That was not discovered by Marxism, it is prior to the French Revolution. In the XX Century already, Hans Kelsen from Austria explained how the so-called modern representative democracy is only a fiction. The representative is not obligated to act in the name of the people he represents. He cannot be their spokesperson. That&#39;s why a social revolution is necessary. In lay terms that means that there cannot be democracy with massive unemployment, with most of the people under the poverty level, with illiteracy, with landowners. Justice comes first. We did that in Cuba. When we started the system of representative democracy in 1976, we had already done away with those scourges, because there were big social changes.
But more was achieved. Neighbors proposed the candidates directly, and they elected whoever they wanted, and they decided with their vote, who will be delegate. Candidates came from the people&#39;s ranks, the elected person had to give account to the people, and that person could be recalled at any time.
Besides, the involvement of the electors is maintained, as it happened in the Workers&#39; Parliament, in the discussions of the Party&#39;s Call to Congress, as it is done during the electoral process. Everybody is involved in one way or another, from the manufacture of electors&#39; registries, or people at home preparing children to watch the polls or to be part of the electoral tables, or those who have been nominated as candidates. Hundreds of thousands of people participate.
In the United States, for example, a detailed investigation not long ago discovered that thousands of people did not even know where they could go to vote. According to that country&#39;s rhetoric, the low percentage of voters is something positive. They say that they have free elections, therefore, they are free not to vote. This points to the falsity of that society, because if it were a true democracy, people would feel motivated to participate in government.
Greece was exactly the opposite. They would meet in a public square to make a decision. They felt motivated to that, because they were going to discuss issues they were interested in. In Cuba, people participate in the nomination process, in the accounting process, because that&#39;s when neighbors examine neighborhoods problems with the delegate. And, of course, our system is not perfect, and our delegates do not have a magic wand. [/b]


Originally posted by [email protected]
That&#39;s right. But the most serious specialists have always questioned whether the presidential system is more democratic. England has classic democracy, and they never elect the king or the Prime Minister. The representatives are the ones who elect the President. For a really democratic presidential system, the electors themselves should elect and recall. All the people would have to vote again. In some polls, the President has a 90% rejection, and they have to wait until his mandate is over, because there is no recall.
In the parliamentary system, such as Cuba, that is possible. Besides, it creates mechanisms obligating the government to respond to representatives. When there is a dynamic relation with the electors, it is easier for them to govern through their representatives.
That is, those who elect control those who are elected. In the Presidential system, electors are eliminated from that process, reducing their function to just one day, voting for their president.
In any Cuban community, people nominate and elect candidates and delegates who become part of the municipal government, once they are elected. Those who have been elected have to give an account of their work. But also, the people can recall them at any time.

...

And the provincial presidents, of the National Assembly and the Chief of States must be elected by their organizations, by their own members. The Cabinet of the Government is also approved by those delegates and representatives in the name of the people who elected them, and they give an account for their functions.


Alarcon
On each war stage, the mambises [guerillia fighters against Spain, primarily escaped slaves] approved the constitutions, elected their representative bodies and governments, enacted laws; the Republic of Cuba-in-Arms existed –including in liberated land– it had democratic institutions and did not have electoral parties. Later, during Marti&#39;s times, we also had a non-electoral party. Its function was to unify the patriotic movement, but it was not responsible for electing the delegates in the representative Assemblies and the government in the free territory. They even had to give account.
Already at that time Cuba was making a contribution. Nowhere in the so-called democratic world, civil and political rights for all were recognized. Of course, we are not even talking about women who even on the 19th Century were not considered citizens. Even ex-slaves had those rights, when in the rest of the world, there were income, education, and age requirements, restricting participation. So that whites and wealthy people were the ones with civil rights. At that point the international struggle tried to open those possibilities. Even today these demands continue in some countries.
In Cuba there were Blacks as leaders of the Freedom Army and in the Government of the Republic in 1868, something unusual. In the United States, a century later, in 1965, a law was passed about the right of Blacks to vote.
All Cubans are born with the right to vote, as well as the free, universal, and automatic registration in the electoral registries, and that comes down from the times of the Republic of Arms. Those possibilities were lost with the U.S. intervention, imposing income, age, and education requirements in order to vote. That explains why only seven percent of the population voted in those first elections of 1900. They built an elitist society.
At the time of the mambises, everybody could participate. This is proven by the fact that Ana Betancourt spoke in the Assembly of Guáimaro defending women rights, when women were far from being considered equal to men.
Now delegates are elected by the people, and continue relating to them. The people continue participating in several ways in the practice of power, beyond election day.

[cenv]

Originally posted by VenceremosRed+October 30, 2006 03:12 pm--> (VenceremosRed @ October 30, 2006 03:12 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 05:40 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 05:13 am

[email protected] 30, 2006 05:05 am
We can debate dictatorship and democracy in Cuba until our faces are blue, but there&#39;s no point in it, because we can&#39;t determine the conditions in Cuba without input from Cuban people. Does anyone here actually known people from/in Cuba? If so, what do they have to say about the conditions there? If they&#39;re educated on communism, do they think it&#39;s a workers&#39; state?
There have been numerous links pointed out; thus far none of the Cuba critics have bothers to investigate them -- in typical "Communist" League fashion.
Actually, I&#39;ve checked them all out, but none of them answer my question. And what makes you think I&#39;m a Cuba critic? I&#39;m a lot more interested in finding out what Cuba&#39;s really like than defending any position, as you&#39;ll notice that I didn&#39;t jump into the middle of the argument. I just asked a question. So I&#39;ll request that you save your obnoxious remarks for people that are actually interested in arguing with you and swapping insults.

All the sites you linked me to just describe Cuba and talk about how good it is. That&#39;s fine, but they don&#39;t seem to mention where they&#39;re getting their information from, and as far as I can tell, they aren&#39;t published by Cuban comrades, although it&#39;s quite possible that I missed something. I&#39;d love to think that Cuba is a socialist country, but I&#39;m not going to be so sure until I hear an opinion from the Cuban people on it. Hence my original question, which still stands.
Acually, they did answer all your questions. You&#39;re looking for a myopic opinion of a Cuban extolling Cuban democracy -- that probably exists. It&#39;s like finding a right-wing republican extolling American democracy. It&#39;s entirely subjective. [/b]
No. What I&#39;m saying is that there&#39;s no real way to tell whether Cuba is as democratic and socialist as FPM and co. claim without asking someone that has experience with Cuba&#39;s political system first hand (i.e. someone from/in Cuba). For me, it&#39;s not enough to read the Cuba Truth Project&#39;s website (and others like it) and believe that Cuba is a workers&#39; republic. I need to actually hear from Cubans that they have a democratic system that works as described and brings power to the people.

I think most people arguing from either side don&#39;t really have enough experience with Cuba to know whether it&#39;s as democratic or un-democratic as they claim, and nowhere on the links you provided does it cite the sources of the information. I&#39;m not about to just take your word for it without hearing what comrades in Cuba think of the system, because they know better than anyone.

So my original question still stands: Does anyone know people from/in Cuba, or are you all just debating this issue without much basis for your perspectives? I&#39;m just curious. Again, I&#39;m not trying to get involved in an argument, but I want to find out the actualy truth about Cuba.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Um, just look at some of the previous threads on this and you&#39;ll get your answer.

I have been to Cuba, and even lived and worked there for a bit. Chebol has done the same. Some others here have been there aswell.

I&#39;m in daily contact with several Cuban comrades (via email and sometimes the phone). Some are political, some are not. I made some very close friends there, and we stay in contact.

The FPM didn&#39;t just make up a conclusion out of thin air. Our outlook is based on the reality on Cuba. We analysed that reality through years of research (by FPM members), travel there, communication with folks there, etc.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread, you can pick up "Conversations With Cuba" By C. Peter Ripley. He&#39;s not friendly to the revolution by any means, but he documents his conversations with alot of regular Cubans (including the first Cuban he ever met, a taxi driver, whose first words to him were "Fuck Castro"). In the book you&#39;ll see that people&#39;s complaints are more about the problems getting things, which is caused by the blockade and imperialist encirclement. They talk about the democratic process, how involved they are in everything, how Black folks and women have rights for once. How workers and farmers now rule, when they were once "nothing" in society.

Another (better) book is "Cuba: Dictatorship or Democracy," by Marta Harnecker. It was written in the 70&#39;s when the bigest expansions in grass roots democracy (at the time) were occuring. The book is made up almost entirely of documented accounts of conversations, debates in workplaces and community meetings, in union meetings, etc. You really get a feel for what real democracy is actually like.

Check them out, as well as some of the links posted earlier.. or go their for yourself.

We know that no source is neutral. All sources have bias, determined by their outlook, their material conditions, etc.

So on the links.. I think we can trust a working class, communist source alot more than we can capitalist media, don&#39;t you?

[cenv]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 31, 2006 02:11 am
Um, just look at some of the previous threads on this and you&#39;ll get your answer.

I have been to Cuba, and even lived and worked there for a bit. Chebol has done the same. Some others here have been there aswell.

I&#39;m in daily contact with several Cuban comrades (via email and sometimes the phone). Some are political, some are not. I made some very close friends there, and we stay in contact.

The FPM didn&#39;t just make up a conclusion out of thin air. Our outlook is based on the reality on Cuba. We analysed that reality through years of research (by FPM members), travel there, communication with folks there, etc.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread, you can pick up "Conversations With Cuba" By C. Peter Ripley. He&#39;s not friendly to the revolution by any means, but he documents his conversations with alot of regular Cubans (including the first Cuban he ever met, a taxi driver, whose first words to him were "Fuck Castro"). In the book you&#39;ll see that people&#39;s complaints are more about the problems getting things, which is caused by the blockade and imperialist encirclement. They talk about the democratic process, how involved they are in everything, how Black folks and women have rights for once. How workers and farmers now rule, when they were once "nothing" in society.

Another (better) book is "Cuba: Dictatorship or Democracy," by Marta Harnecker. It was written in the 70&#39;s when the bigest expansions in grass roots democracy (at the time) were occuring. The book is made up almost entirely of documented accounts of conversations, debates in workplaces and community meetings, in union meetings, etc. You really get a feel for what real democracy is actually like.

Check them out, as well as some of the links posted earlier.. or go their for yourself.

We know that no source is neutral. All sources have bias, determined by their outlook, their material conditions, etc.

So on the links.. I think we can trust a working class, communist source alot more than we can capitalist media, don&#39;t you?
Thanks for your response, comrade. It was very helpful. I&#39;ll be sure to check out some of the earlier threads and the literature you recommended. Also, I never said I trusted capitalist media sources. Quite to the contrary. I simply didn&#39;t want to form an opinion without ensuring that the information was coming from Cubans. Btw, d&#39;you know how I might be able to get in touch with people from Cuba? I&#39;m interested in learning more about the conditions there.

[The Author]

What an interesting thread...

People are actually fighting about the issue of Fidel Castro&#39;s class background. One must remember that as the productive forces develop, and go into an antagonistic tension with the relations of production, class antagonisms develop to the point where the potential for revolution takes place. What this means is that the class struggle develops from a hierarchy of classes and strata into a struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; the other strata such as the petit-bourgeoisie or intelligentsia either slip into the bourgeois camp or the proletarian camp. Hence why you had Communists that at one time belonged to the petit-bourgeois become more radicalized as the antagonisms between the classes and between the relations of production and productive forces became more acute. Such was the case for Lenin, Marx, Fidel Castro, etc.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No, comrade Fidel wasn&#39;t "forced" into the proletariat, as communists traditionally talk about. Fidel&#39;s family didn&#39;t lose their land in the competition of capitalism. He voluntarily left behind his class background and became proletarianized.


Btw, d&#39;you know how I might be able to get in touch with people from Cuba? I&#39;m interested in learning more about the conditions there.

Hmm.. There are a few pages that some Cubans go to. Lemme dig up some links. Of course, you gotta remember that because of its limited resources, there isn&#39;t free net access for everyone. You get a lot of people that use computers and the net for work, teachers and students.

I&#39;m told there are also some Cuban women on some dating sites. There are lots of women from Latin America on some of these sorts of sites... we could discuss why, but this thread is far enough of course as it is.

[LoneRed]

I am not advocating this utopian democracy you speak of, but instead a society that is controlled by the working class. The Representatives in Cuba, how did they come to "power", are they members of the working class, surely if they were, they aren&#39;t now. and secondly as the higher the elections go, the less in tune with the people they become, just because Fidel was supposedly "elected" by representatives doesnt mean he&#39;s accountable to the people.

and one man in power for over 40yrs, how is that proletarian rule, It is NOT

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 31, 2006 03:16 am
No, comrade Fidel wasn&#39;t "forced" into the proletariat, as communists traditionally talk about. Fidel&#39;s family didn&#39;t lose their land in the competition of capitalism. He voluntarily left behind his class background and became proletarianized.


Btw, d&#39;you know how I might be able to get in touch with people from Cuba? I&#39;m interested in learning more about the conditions there.

Hmm.. There are a few pages that some Cubans go to. Lemme dig up some links. Of course, you gotta remember that because of its limited resources, there isn&#39;t free net access for everyone. You get alot of people that use computers and the net for work, teachers and students.

I&#39;m told there are also some Cuban women on some dating sites. There are lots of women from Latin America on some of these sorts of sites... we could discuss why, but this thread is far enough of course as it is.
CompañeroDeLibertad: I think "CriticizeEverythingAlways" (I&#39;m not trying to speak for him/her) is saying that the social pulls created by the productive forces "forced&#39; Fidel to chose a side. Like the saying goes, you can&#39;t stay still on a moving train. ;)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Oh yeah, that&#39;s probably pretty correct. He was also pulled to the left a little organically, by the movement itself.

LoneRed just continues on with the same bullshit that was refuted a page or two back, so I&#39;m not going to bother with him anymore.

[cenv]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 31, 2006 03:16 am

Btw, d&#39;you know how I might be able to get in touch with people from Cuba? I&#39;m interested in learning more about the conditions there.

Hmm.. There are a few pages that some Cubans go to. Lemme dig up some links. Of course, you gotta remember that because of its limited resources, there isn&#39;t free net access for everyone. You get alot of people that use computers and the net for work, teachers and students.

I&#39;m told there are also some Cuban women on some dating sites. There are lots of women from Latin America on some of these sorts of sites... we could discuss why, but this thread is far enough of course as it is.
Much appreciated. And yeah, I&#39;m aware that it&#39;s somewhat hard to find Cubans on the net, which is why I asked for recommendations on how to get in contact with one.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No problem. I know years ago there were some Cubanos on FacePic. I don&#39;t even know if that site is still up. Also, you have to watch out for people that list the country they were born in.. otherwise you might end up talking to some guy in Miami, who lists "Cuba" as his location.

[LoneRed]

why does the FPM choose to hold onto the past? The only progressive thing about Cuba is its anti-imperialist stance.

VenRed, you say the people elected Fidel and the reps so its a socialist country

In America The reps and president were "elected" by the people as well, and i dont see socialism anywhere

[LoneRed]

There is an obvious difference in the FPM&#39;s vision of Class and the leagues.

If the "revolution" was still being fought in Cuba, then why arent steps, being taken after 40+ years to set up true Workers Rule?

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 07:37 pm
So Fidel Castro would not be allowed to be an FPM member at all?
I dont think Castro needs to be an FPM member because his struggle is different against imperialists then most of the worlds.

Lets be real here people.

[LoneRed]

So i would assume that you think Venezuala as socialist as well?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Of course not.