Fantastic article on Cuba

[t_wolves_fan]

Article by Julia Sweig (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070101faessay86104-p0/julia-e-sweig/fidel-s-final-victory.html)in Foreign Affairs.

Does an excellent job of illustrating how pointless and backwards U.S. policy towards Cuba is, especially lately (no big surprise).

Thoughts?

[fashbash]

And it raises the interesting question of what will happen to Cuba following Castro. Will his death herald the beginning of yet more Yankie Imperialism, or rather a truely democratic Communist nation?

Also, does anyone know what claim his brother may hold to the country's leadership? Did he play an integral part in the revolution, or is this an example of ascribed, hierachical governance?

[encephalon]

Economic Sanctions. Cuba Remained. A Soviet Union coup. Cuba remained. Fidel dying. Cuba Remains.

The problem that the US policy makers have goes well beyond Cuba. They have consistently mistaken nationalist revolts for communist revolts, and have aligned many nationalists with socialism merely because the two are pushed into the same flock by US pressure. The US is now paying the consequences of the cold war.

Cuba remains because the Cuban people genuinely love their country, no matter how many sparse gusanos claim otherwise. I'm sure they'd readily admit that their country isn't the best it could be, but if the alternative is a puppet of the US then they will defend it to death.

[Guerrilla22]

No Us policy towards Cuba is pointless, Cuba made the mistake of not allowing their country to be domiated by the uS and their still paying for it to this day.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 08:53 pm
Economic Sanctions. Cuba Remained. A Soviet Union coup. Cuba remained. Fidel dying. Cuba Remains.

The problem that the US policy makers have goes well beyond Cuba. They have consistently mistaken nationalist revolts for communist revolts, and have aligned many nationalists with socialism merely because the two are pushed into the same flock by US pressure. The US is now paying the consequences of the cold war.

Cuba remains because the Cuban people genuinely love their country, no matter how many sparse gusanos claim otherwise. I'm sure they'd readily admit that their country isn't the best it could be, but if the alternative is a puppet of the US then they will defend it to death.
Totally agree.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 03:53 pm
Economic Sanctions. Cuba Remained. A Soviet Union coup. Cuba remained. Fidel dying. Cuba Remains.

The problem that the US policy makers have goes well beyond Cuba. They have consistently mistaken nationalist revolts for communist revolts, and have aligned many nationalists with socialism merely because the two are pushed into the same flock by US pressure. The US is now paying the consequences of the cold war.

Cuba remains because the Cuban people genuinely love their country, no matter how many sparse gusanos claim otherwise. I'm sure they'd readily admit that their country isn't the best it could be, but if the alternative is a puppet of the US then they will defend it to death.

I do not think the "push" from nationalism to socilaism is a result of USA policy.
Nationalism and socilaism are closely intertwined, and have always been. Whether it was Karl marx strong support of Bismark, Edward bellamy's creation of the American Nationalist party, the creation of the Czech national Socilaist Party, Scheorner's constant swinging between nationalism and social democratic politics, the two have marched hand in hand since the 19th century. It ought not be surprising: unless there is a spontaneous worldwide revolt, socialism has to express its ideals in some concrete manner, it cannot remain theoretical forever.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 08:03 pm
And it raises the interesting question of what will happen to Cuba following Castro. Will his death herald the beginning of yet more Yankie Imperialism, or rather a truely democratic Communist nation?
It will see a return to market economics with a strong centralised government. Just like all the other Leninist fuck ups throughout history.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 02:56 am
Karl marx strong support of Bismark
Ah... what now?

[Springmeester]

Also, does anyone know what claim his brother may hold to the country's leadership? Did he play an integral part in the revolution, or is this an example of ascribed, hierachical governance?

Raul Castro was a member of the M26 from the start and all out during the guerilla war.


It will see a return to market economics with a strong centralised government. Just like all the other Leninist fuck ups throughout history.

The people in Cuba have been fighting American imperialism for many decades and this is your reaction towards their struggle comrade? Just because you have some criticism on their particulair ideology they are 'fuck ups'? The Cubans need our support, but maybe you would rather like to see American imperialism take over again in Cuba. :angry:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 12:17 pm

It will see a return to market economics with a strong centralised government. Just like all the other Leninist fuck ups throughout history.

The people in Cuba have been fighting American imperialism for many decades and this is your reaction towards their struggle comrade? Just because you have some criticism on their particulair ideology they are 'fuck ups'? The Cubans need our support, but maybe you would rather like to see American imperialism take over again in Cuba. :angry:
Its always astonishing the logic people employ in order to analyse what I write. It's incredible that you have taken what I have said and understood this to be me supporting American imperialism. :wacko:

I'm not talking about the "Cuban people" or referring to them as "fuck ups" :rolleyes: ; I'm talking about the material reality of a "workers" state, which invariably corrupts and sees a return to market economics. I bet you my entire life that within the 10 years of Castro's death the Cuban government will open up the economy.

I support the Cuban working class in their struggle to overthrow the state and create a real transitionary period to a communist society without leaders and centralised authority.

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2006 11:22 am
I support the Cuban working class in their struggle to overthrow the state and create a real transitionary period to a communist society without leaders and centralised authority.
And how is that going to work comrade? The imperialists are everywhere, circling the Cuban coast with military ships, they even have one of the most controversial prisons in that very country! Do you really think NOW is the time for a transitory period towards communism?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Shift+December 19, 2006 12:27 pm--> (Shift @ December 19, 2006 12:27 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2006 11:22 am
I support the Cuban working class in their struggle to overthrow the state and create a real transitionary period to a communist society without leaders and centralised authority.
And how is that going to work comrade? The imperialists are everywhere, circling the Cuban coast with military ships, they even have one of the most controversial prisons in that very country! Do you really think NOW is the time for a transitory period towards communism? [/b]
First of all, stop calling me comrade. I hate being called comrade, this isn't 1950's Russia or a 1970's ANL rally!

Secondly, yes of course I think it's the right time to start a transitory period towards communism! What do you think Castro has been claiming he was doing for the past 50 years!

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2006 11:34 am
First of all, stop calling me comrade. I hate being called comrade, this isn't 1950's Russia or a 1970's ANL rally!

Secondly, yes of course I think it's the right time to start a transitory period towards communism! What do you think Castro has been claiming he was doing for the past 50 years!
I know this isn't the 50's in Russia. For your information; comrade means 'Ally' and being the fact that i consider everyone fighting against capitalism and for social equallity an ally I called you comrade. Now if you don't want to be part of that, it is fine by me. It is merely a show of affection even when one is in disagreement with another. Clearly you are not comfortable with this.

Of course they are in a transitory period towards communism but it is called socialism. The Cubans need a state to protect their revolution against the imperialist forces knocking at the door. To dismantle the Cuban state on this moment is political suicide. This is also the very reason why Fidel never spoke of communism when referring to the system in Cuba but always as socialism. Untill a world revolution has taken place there is no change of a succesfull transition to communism. Remember that in communism ALL classes have definitivley been banned towards the history books.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 12:47 pm
I know this isn't the 50's in Russia. For your information; comrade means 'Ally'
Thanks for that little lesson.


It is merely a show of affection even when one is in disagreement with another. Clearly you are not comfortable with this.

No I'm not comfortable with a complete stranger referring to me as comrade. I don't know what your politics are and you don't know what mine are. Being anti-capitalist isn't enough to warrant this "affection".


Of course they are in a transitory period towards communism but it is called socialism.

I'm confused. In your last post you said: "Do you really think NOW is the time for a transitory period towards communism?" - Are you now saying that you don't agree with that statement or that you think that it is too soon for a socialist transitory period?

Furthermore, this "socialism" will see a return to market economics. The material conditions for that have been laid and as history shows, it is an invariable reality.


The Cubans need a state to protect their revolution against the imperialist forces knocking at the door.

No they don't; they need organisation and weapons.


To dismantle the Cuban state on this moment is political suicide.

What are your reasons for this assertion?


This is also the very reason why Fidel never spoke of communism when referring to the system in Cuba but always as socialism.

Perhaps. Or perhaps he wasn't a communist in the first place. He certainly wasn't when he met Che Guevara.


Untill a world revolution has taken place there is no change of a succesfull transition to communism.

Perhaps, perhaps not? Spain successfully created the beginning of the material conditions for such a transitory period so as far we know it could well be posible.

Regardless of that, any ongoing transition can be done without the state, which is fundamentally antithetical to any chance of ever creating a stateless society. You cannot create a stateless society by maintaining a state.


Remember that in communism ALL classes have definitivley been banned towards the history books.

No, they haven't been banned they have disappeared because of the organisation of the means of production and that cannot happen while a state (a minority rule) maintains economic and political control.

[Springmeester]

Thanks for that little lesson.

My pleasure, really. ;)


No I'm not comfortable with a complete stranger referring to me as comrade. I don't know what your politics are and you don't know what mine are. Being anti-capitalist isn't enough to warrant this "affection".

Then why am I listening to your arguments? Why do I even take the effort of discussing the issue with you? Because we care right? We care about justice, freedom & equality and we blame capitalism for injustice, repression & inequality... are we then not 'ally's' in the struggle? I am really suprised to see you say this, it shows how little is left of the true revolutionary tradition.


I'm confused. In your last post you said: "Do you really think NOW is the time for a transitory period towards communism?" - Are you now saying that you don't agree with that statement or that you think that it is too soon for a socialist transitory period?

Socialism is a transitory phase towards communism, but you were referring to a transitory period in wich the state would be abolished. I explained that the objective elements for that to happen have not been realised yet.


Furthermore, this "socialism" will see a return to market economics. The material conditions for that have been laid and as history shows, it is an invariable reality.

Please explain what you mean.


No they don't; they need organisation and weapons.

So you mean like eeehm... a state? :rolleyes:


Perhaps. Or perhaps he wasn't a communist in the first place. He certainly wasn't when he met Che Guevara.

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me here. Are we discussing Fidels personal political convictions before '59 or are we discussing the situation in Cuba?


Perhaps, perhaps not? Spain successfully created the beginning of the material conditions for such a transitory period so as far we know it could well be posible.

If it was that succesfull, where is it now?


Regardless of that, any ongoing transition can be done without the state, which is fundamentally antithetical to any chance of ever creating a stateless society. You cannot create a stateless society by maintaining a state.

Yes that is a good point but you have to remember that this is an extraordinary period in history in wich there are very few succesfull revolutions, even on a world scale. The Cuban people have fought hard for their freedom and they should use every means neccesary to maintain it.


No, they haven't been banned they have disappeared because of the organisation of the means of production and that cannot happen while a state (a minority rule) maintains economic and political control.

We are not in disagreement over this. You merely use other words.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 19, 2006 04:08 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 19, 2006 04:08 am)
Originally posted by fashbash+December 18, 2006 08:03 pm--> (fashbash @ December 18, 2006 08:03 pm) And it raises the interesting question of what will happen to Cuba following Castro. Will his death herald the beginning of yet more Yankie Imperialism, or rather a truely democratic Communist nation? [/b]
It will see a return to market economics with a strong centralised government. [/b]
Yup, some elements of the ruling class share your hope. And yes, it's a hope, if only because you hope to be proven right.

(Also most of the ruling class shares your peculiar belief that the presence or absence of a single individual - Fidel Castro - is decisive. That the forces that have held off capitalism for 40 years will disappear with his death. You'd think the lack of political change from his incapacitation and retirement would disprove this, but I guess hope springs eternal. The Foreign Affairs article begining this thread (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070101faessay86104-p0/julia-e-sweig/fidel-s-final-victory.html) also points this out, ironically, and predicts pro-capitalist "reform" will be imperceptibly slow.)

This illusion is constantly dashed by reality, of course - the latest example just the other day.

Associated Press, about a visit by anti-embargo U.S. congresspeople (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/18/news/CB_GEN_Cuba_US.php) They oppose the embargo - partly 'cause they hope a different policy could do better at restoring capitalism.
But the U.S. representatives from Kansas, Texas, California, Tennessee, Arizona, New York and Massachusetts also said they were surprised at what they called the rigidity of some Cuban officials, who said they have no plans to make changes in the island's political or economic system in the future.

"Basically we're being told it's the same menu, different waiter," said Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.

Most of the ruling class have noticed that Cuba is different from China, etc - which is why the embargo remains. Colin Powell once pointed this out, among others.

While the embargo policy has certainly failed - nobody in the ruling class can propose a policy more likely to result in the restoration of capitalism.


[email protected]
The problem that the US policy makers have goes well beyond Cuba. They have consistently mistaken nationalist revolts for communist revolts, and have aligned many nationalists with socialism merely because the two are pushed into the same flock by US pressure. The US is now paying the consequences of the cold war.

There's an element of truth here - as Marx said, every revolution needs the whip of the counter-revolution to drive it forward. Certainly U.S. pressure helped keep the Cuban revolution moving forward to the abolition of capitalism. Contrast, for example, French policy towards Algeria - where the revolution, under less pressure, stagnated, the promising beginnings of "self-mangement" of production by workers did not move forward, and the capitalists regained full control with Bouteflika's coup.

But U.S. policy towards Cuba was never about the Cold War. The considered Latin America their backyard before there was a Soviet Union, and still do now that it's gone.

And it's not that they've "mistaken nationalist revolts for communist revolts". It's just that they don't intend to tolerate either.


ZX3
Karl marx strong support of Bismark, Oh what BS. Marx always opposed Bismark. Your other examples are all phony socialists.

Of course there is a link between anti-imperialist struggle and socialism - only the working class can successfully and consistently lead the fight for real, economic independence of the Third World from the advance finance-capitalist countries.

That's why the Cuban revolution, beginning as an agrarian, democratic, anti-imperialist revolution, developed into a socialist revolution.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 01:30 pm
Then why am I listening to your arguments? Why do I even take the effort of discussing the issue with you? Because we care right? We care about justice, freedom & equality and we blame capitalism for injustice, repression & inequality... are we then not 'ally's' in the struggle? I am really suprised to see you say this, it shows how little is left of the true revolutionary tradition.
The revolutionary tradition has been as divided as it is now. This whole idea of broad based political alliances has been tried, tested and has failed. I do not buy into the notion that I do or should have a political alliance with everyojne who claims to be an anti-capitalist.

There are specific reasons to why I call my self an anarchist and they are non-negotiable. I am not prepared to compromise fundamental tenets of my beliefs simply because of some idealistic dream of non-partisan politics.

I am an anarchist communist and you are either on the same side of the coin in one way or the other or you aren't.



I'm confused. In your last post you said: "Do you really think NOW is the time for a transitory period towards communism?" - Are you now saying that you don't agree with that statement or that you think that it is too soon for a socialist transitory period?

Socialism is a transitory phase towards communism, but you were referring to a transitory period in wich the state would be abolished. I explained that the objective elements for that to happen have not been realised yet.

Fine, and what I am telling you is that they never will be.

Also, please stop talking to me as if your imparting some wisdom onto me. None of this is new to me, I've had this discussion thousands of times and I'm perfectly aware of what "socialism" is!



Furthermore, this "socialism" will see a return to market economics. The material conditions for that have been laid and as history shows, it is an invariable reality.

Please explain what you mean.

If you look at what happened in Russia, what has happened in Vietnam and China you will see that Cuba is in exactly the same position and there is absolutely no tangible reason why Cuba will not go the same way.



No they don't; they need organisation and weapons.

So you mean like eeehm... a state? :rolleyes:


No, that's not what I mean at all



Perhaps, perhaps not? Spain successfully created the beginning of the material conditions for such a transitory period so as far we know it could well be posible.

If it was that succesfull, where is it now?

Read the paragraph again.


The Cuban people have fought hard for their freedom and they should use every means neccesary to maintain it.

But there's no point in them using something that isn't going to create what they want to create.


We are not in disagreement over this. You merely use other words.

Your lack of understand of the nature of a state is the issue here.

[Severian]

BTW, the Foreign Affairs article also says:

In these ways, the Cuban state truly has served the poor underclass rather than catering to the domestic elite and its American allies.

That's by a U.S. capitalist political writer, who's visited Cuba 30 times, writing in the publication of the super-establishment Council on Foreign Affairs!

If she can admit "the Cuban state truly has served the poor underclass" - why can't you, TAT?

Maybe because she actually knows something about Cuba?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Severian+December 19, 2006 01:47 pm--> (Severian @ December 19, 2006 01:47 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2006 04:08 am

[email protected] 18, 2006 08:03 pm
And it raises the interesting question of what will happen to Cuba following Castro. Will his death herald the beginning of yet more Yankie Imperialism, or rather a truely democratic Communist nation?
It will see a return to market economics with a strong centralised government.
Yup, some elements of the ruling class share your hope. And yes, it's a hope, if only because you hope to be proven right. [/b]
It's not a question of hoping to be proven right. There is absolutely no reason to suspect it won't happen. History has terminally proven that to be the case.

[Springmeester]

The revolutionary tradition has been as divided as it is now. This whole idea of broad based political alliances has been tried, tested and has failed. I do not buy into the notion that I do or should have a political alliance with everyojne who claims to be an anti-capitalist.

There are specific reasons to why I call my self an anarchist and they are non-negotiable. I am not prepared to compromise fundamental tenets of my beliefs simply because of some idealistic dream of non-partisan politics.

I am an anarchist communist and you are either on the same side of the coin in one way or the other or you aren't.

This is why Spain didn't work... because of sectarianism that you display here. Do you want a just and equal soceity or do you just want to be an anarchist frowning at everyone who isn't in complete agreement with your ideology? Don't be an anarchist, be a good comrade in the struggle, that's of much greater value.


Fine, and what I am telling you is that they never will be.

Also, please stop talking to me as if your imparting some wisdom onto me. None of this is new to me, I've had this discussion thousands of times and I'm perfectly aware of what "socialism" is!

I am not imparting wisdom on you, I am merely elaborating my definition of the word.


If you look at what happened in Russia, what has happened in Vietnam and China you will see that Cuba is in exactly the same position and there is absolutely no tangible reason why Cuba will not go the same way.

I would suggest that we should limit the discussion to Cuba but being the fact that Severian had a beautiful post on this let me just quote him:


But the U.S. representatives from Kansas, Texas, California, Tennessee, Arizona, New York and Massachusetts also said they were surprised at what they called the rigidity of some Cuban officials, who said they have no plans to make changes in the island's political or economic system in the future.

"Basically we're being told it's the same menu, different waiter," said Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.

Most of the ruling class have noticed that Cuba is different from China, etc - which is why the embargo remains. Colin Powell once pointed this out, among others.


No, that's not what I mean at all

Then what DO you mean?


Read the paragraph again.

No. Explain it to me. You say it's possible to create the beginning material conditions for a transitory period... elaborate please.


But there's no point in them using something that isn't going to create what they want to create.

It is not about creating it is about maintaining. Maintaining the right to have healthcare, housing and an education. Cuba is one of the few middle-american country with these kinds of of rigths for its people.


Your lack of understand of the nature of a state is the issue here.

Who is imparting wisdom now?

[blueeyedboy]

Here I see arguments between two leftists. Why don't you think a revolution has happened. Its because millions of leftys across the globe are arguing between each other just like on this very forum. If its ever going to happen then people need to unite. Unfortunately this wont happen because its human nature to argue with one another as people dont like to be seen as being wrong. Thats a fact and thats why socialism and communism will never happen.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2006 07:08 am
It's not a question of hoping to be proven right. There is absolutely no reason to suspect it won't happen. History has terminally proven that to be the case.
Yeah, every sectarian claims that history has definitively proven all their preconceived ideas. Of course, the different sectarians all have mutually contradictory ideas which have been proven definitely right by history.

And of course you haven't given a single fact about Cuba to indicate that your schema applies to it. You simply assume it's the same as the Stalinist-ruled countries, therefore the same thing will automatically happen. Again, the author of the Foreign Affairs article has the tremendous advantage of...knowing something about Cuba. Read it.


Here I see arguments between two leftists. Why don't you think a revolution has happened. Its because millions of leftys across the globe are arguing between each other just like on this very forum.

"Leftys" have to agree, or pretend to, in order for a revolution to happen? But of course that's never happened, including during revolutions. On the contrary, in order to lead the Cuban Revolution, for example, the July 26th Movement had to oppose the reformist course of the Popular Socialist Party - that is, the "official" Communists. This didn't stop them from arranging united action with the PSP, or anyone who opposed the Batista regime - but they didn't hesitate to publicly denounce halfhearted opponents, either.

As in the July 26th Movement's public denunciation of the "Miami Pact" (http://www.themilitant.com/2004/6810/681055.html) which in the name of "unity" tried to assure that when Batista fell - nothing much else would change.

Revolutions aren't made by "leftys", necessarily. They're made by millions of working people. We need unity of the working class and of the oppressed and exploited - not unity of the "left". Especially a false unity achieved by papering over real, important divisions.

I'm all for united action - but that doesn't require anyone to give up their differences, or even keep silent about them.

Also, this is a discussion board. If we're not going to discuss politics, what exactly is anyone going to post here? Just endless "I agree"? That'd be pretty damn boring. Nobody would read or post on it after a while.

[Springmeester]

I agree.

[groundinghubris]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 19, 2006 10:08 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 19, 2006 10:08 am)
[email protected] 18, 2006 08:03 pm
And it raises the interesting question of what will happen to Cuba following Castro. Will his death herald the beginning of yet more Yankie Imperialism, or rather a truely democratic Communist nation?
It will see a return to market economics with a strong centralised government. Just like all the other Leninist fuck ups throughout history. [/b]
Why are you ragging on the one real success story? The US has done this before and it won't last. Esp now that US is making direct moves toward fascism, the people here are finally waking up and talking revolution.
Captialism is failing here despite what a few may say.
I think Cuba will triumph again and remain the shining example of what a peoples revolution can truly accomplish.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 02:11 pm

The revolutionary tradition has been as divided as it is now. This whole idea of broad based political alliances has been tried, tested and has failed. I do not buy into the notion that I do or should have a political alliance with everyojne who claims to be an anti-capitalist.

There are specific reasons to why I call my self an anarchist and they are non-negotiable. I am not prepared to compromise fundamental tenets of my beliefs simply because of some idealistic dream of non-partisan politics.

I am an anarchist communist and you are either on the same side of the coin in one way or the other or you aren't.

This is why Spain didn't work... because of sectarianism that you display here.
That's absolutely not why Spain failed. You should read about the history of the Spanish revolution before you start making these assertions about it.

Spain failed because the anarchist militias and POUM were forcibly disarmed by the Spanish government. Instead of the PCE fighting the fascists, they turned on the anarchists.

This is not a reflection on anti-state praxis, but on, actually, a lack of political cohesion between the varying different factions on the left and ultimately a Leninist betrayel.


Do you want a just and equal soceity or do you just want to be an anarchist frowning at everyone who isn't in complete agreement with your ideology?

I want to be apart of a movement, led by the workers in smashing the state, destroying capitalism and religion and creating a communist society.

Anything less, will not do!



But the U.S. representatives from Kansas, Texas, California, Tennessee, Arizona, New York and Massachusetts also said they were surprised at what they called the rigidity of some Cuban officials, who said they have no plans to make changes in the island's political or economic system in the future.

"Basically we're being told it's the same menu, different waiter," said Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.

Most of the ruling class have noticed that Cuba is different from China, etc - which is why the embargo remains. Colin Powell once pointed this out, among others.

All I have here is as an assumption that the Cuban government aren't a bunch of liars and some unsubstantiated assertion about Colin Powell making a comment on how Cuba and China are not the same.



No, that's not what I mean at all

Then what DO you mean?

Do you know what a state is?



Read the paragraph again.

No. Explain it to me. You say it's possible to create the beginning material conditions for a transitory period... elaborate please.

What is there to elaberate on? I made an [semi] assertion, its proven by history...Now what?



But there's no point in them using something that isn't going to create what they want to create.

It is not about creating it is about maintaining.

Well yes actually, it's about creating communism


Maintaining the right to have healthcare, housing and an education. Cuba is one of the few middle-american country with these kinds of of rigths for its people.

It is true that the state will maintain good healthcare, housing and education but it will not create a communist society and surely that's what communists want?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Severian+December 19, 2006 02:39 pm--> (Severian @ December 19, 2006 02:39 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2006 07:08 am
It's not a question of hoping to be proven right. There is absolutely no reason to suspect it won't happen. History has terminally proven that to be the case.
Yeah, every sectarian claims that history has definitively proven all their preconceived ideas. Of course, the different sectarians all have mutually contradictory ideas which have been proven definitely right by history [/b]
It isn't "preconceived" - All Leninist states have failed in getting anywhere remotely close to communism and have reverted back to some form of capitalism

I don't say these things because I find it fun repeating myself a thousand times. It is simply and unequivocally fact.

Leninists need to revisit the concept of the state and change it accordingly instead of hanging on to a bit of failed theory that has countless times been proven flawed.

Leninism is singularly the worst thing ever to have happened to the idea of communism.

Marx was wrong - Lenin was wrong - Move on

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 03:15 pm
Why are you ragging on the one real success story?
It isn't a success story - Thats the point.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2006 12:53 pm
I am an anarchist communist and you are either on the same side of the coin in one way or the other or you aren't.


How very George W. Bush of you.

There isn't going to be an overthrow of the state anytime soon. The people are quite happy with their free health care and education combined with the routine opportunity to spend their meager incomes on black-market items from overseas. Not being able to speak freely is a drag, but hell if I lived in Cuba and didn't have to worry about the basics, I might not mind that either.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 19, 2006 02:47 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 19, 2006 02:47 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2006 03:15 pm
Why are you ragging on the one real success story?
It isn't a success story - Thats the point. [/b]
The problem is that any such "stateless" revolution would fail almost immediately, because you communists agree on very little and during the interim chaos, an opportunistic neighbor would move in for the kill.

It's called Realpolitik.

[Springmeester]

That's absolutely not why Spain failed. You should read about the history of the Spanish revolution before you start making these assertions about it.

Spain failed because the anarchist militias and POUM were forcibly disarmed by the Spanish government. Instead of the PCE fighting the fascists, they turned on the anarchists.

This is not a reflection on anti-state praxis, but on, actually, a lack of political cohesion between the varying different factions on the left and ultimately a Leninist betrayel.

Actually you are proving my point that it was in fact sectarianism that made Spain fail. I am a supporter of the CNT and POUM but it takes two to fight... not one. And I think it's a bit of a cliché to bombard it as a 'Leninist betrayel'.


I want to be apart of a movement, led by the workers in smashing the state, destroying capitalism and religion and creating a communist society.

Anything less, will not do!

I don't doubt your devotion to the cause... but then again that IS why I called you comrade.


All I have here is as an assumption that the Cuban government aren't a bunch of liars and some unsubstantiated assertion about Colin Powell making a comment on how Cuba and China are not the same.

That's not it at all. It is the analyses of the capitalists that bringing down socialism in Cuba was not going to be as easy as they thought.


Do you know what a state is?

Yes, I know what a state is. The state is the repression apparatus used by one class to supress another. In socialism that apparatus consists of armed workers, in capitalism it consists policemen, secret services and military. And although there is a Cuban police, it is hardly necessary, crime-rates in middle-America are nowhere as low as in Cuba. On the army: It's a peoples army neccesary to fight of the imperialsts when neccesary.


What is there to elaberate on? I made an [semi] assertion, its proven by history...Now what?

If you can't explain it, don't.


Well yes actually, it's about creating communism

Indeed so. But we shouldn't get that enthuisiastic that we lose it in the process.


It is true that the state will maintain good healthcare, housing and education but it will not create a communist society and surely that's what communists want?

These are indeed important things and they are the crownjuwel of any revolution because they benefit the working class. You have to remember that we are talking about a 3rd world country here.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 19, 2006 03:57 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 19, 2006 03:57 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2006 12:53 pm
I am an anarchist communist and you are either on the same side of the coin in one way or the other or you aren't.
How very George W. Bush of you. [/b]
Yes, I'm just like him :rolleyes:


There isn't going to be an overthrow of the state anytime soon.

Yes, I think you're probably right.


The people are quite happy with their free health care and education combined with the routine opportunity to spend their meager incomes on black-market items from overseas.

There's a false premise right there.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 19, 2006 04:01 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 19, 2006 04:01 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2006 02:47 pm

[email protected] 19, 2006 03:15 pm
Why are you ragging on the one real success story?
It isn't a success story - Thats the point.
The problem is that any such "stateless" revolution would fail almost immediately, because you communists agree on very little and during the interim chaos, an opportunistic neighbor would move in for the kill.

It's called Realpolitik. [/b]
I've warned you about pissing me off. This is strike three.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2006 03:02 pm

The people are quite happy with their free health care and education combined with the routine opportunity to spend their meager incomes on black-market items from overseas.

There's a false premise right there.
How so?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 19, 2006 04:08 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 19, 2006 04:08 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2006 03:02 pm

The people are quite happy with their free health care and education combined with the routine opportunity to spend their meager incomes on black-market items from overseas.

There's a false premise right there.
How so? [/b]
That people are happy.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 19, 2006 03:16 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 19, 2006 03:16 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 04:08 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2006 03:02 pm

The people are quite happy with their free health care and education combined with the routine opportunity to spend their meager incomes on black-market items from overseas.

There's a false premise right there.
How so?
That people are happy. [/b]
What are they unhappy with?

[groundinghubris]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 19, 2006 02:47 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 19, 2006 02:47 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2006 03:15 pm
Why are you ragging on the one real success story?
It isn't a success story - Thats the point. [/b]
Could you explain how you came to the conclusion it is not a success story?
Have you visited? Have you joined in any of their work in third world countries? or do you base your opinion on propaganda?
Ever wonder why US is so afraid of Cuba? Why they have been so unsuccessful in removing Castro? They have tried many times and failed, they have been very successful at overthrowing governments much larger and militarially stronger.

use some critical thinking skills and do you own investigation into wheither cuba is successful or not. stop relying on others with agendas to do your thinking for you.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2006 09:08 am
The problem is that any such "stateless" revolution would fail almost immediately, because you communists agree on very little and during the interim chaos, an opportunistic neighbor would move in for the kill.

It's called Realpolitik.
I've warned you about pissing me off. This is strike three. [/quote]
What - you're warning him for making a valid, reasonable point you can't validly, reasonably refute?

Clean up OI by banning the more trollish cappies, not by threatening the less trollish ones like t_wolves_fan.

Oh, and none of your long posts contain a single specific fact or figure about Cuba. Have you read the Foreign Affairs article yet?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 12:59 pm
If she can admit "the Cuban state truly has served the poor underclass" - why can't you, TAT?

Isn't this the kind of deliberate deception you usually accuse others of?

Sweig "admits" that the Cuban Government has been able to consolidate its position by increasing public support for it. That is, it has granted certain concessions to the populace in order to protect itself from internal and external threats.

"To give Cubans a stake in this tradeoff between an open society and sovereign nationhood, the revolution built social, educational, and health programs that remain the envy of the developing world. [....] In these ways, the Cuban state truly has served the poor underclass rather than catering to the domestic elite and its American allies." (Sweig; page 2.)

I really don't see how you gain by misusing sources in this manner.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 04:01 pm
I am a supporter of the CNT and POUM but it takes two to fight...
What are you claiming here?


And I think it's a bit of a cliché to bombard it as a 'Leninist betrayel'.


Truth nevertheless.



All I have here is as an assumption that the Cuban government aren't a bunch of liars and some unsubstantiated assertion about Colin Powell making a comment on how Cuba and China are not the same.

That's not it at all. It is the analyses of the capitalists that bringing down socialism in Cuba was not going to be as easy as they thought.

Which is irrelevant to this discussion; which is about Cuba's future.



Do you know what a state is?

Yes, I know what a state is. The state is the repression apparatus used by one class to supress another. In socialism that apparatus consists of armed workers, in capitalism it consists policemen, secret services and military.

Those things existed in Russia and still do exist in Vietnam and China.

A state is not defined by its conceptualisation, it's defined by its material existence. A state is specifically a centralised hierarchical structure designed to maintain the rule of a government.

A state requires a police force, secret service and military in order for it to maintain its control; without them a government cannot exact its authority and dictate its will, which is precisely the objectives of a "workes state".

A state is a centralised structure of mechanisms. Marx's analysis of the state was extremely over simplified and only refers to the economic base in which a state exists.

Nicos Poulantzas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicos_Poulantzas) is probably the best Marxist theoretician to study in regards to Marx's over-simplification. His book 'State, Power, SSocialism' goes heavily in depth on the subject and is well worth the read if you want to get shake off this out dated Instrumentalist position.

He essentially argues that a state specifically works for the benefit of the capitalist class, politically, and thus essentially cannot be harnessed for the good of "working class" because of it's specific political structures. Structures which typify a state.


And although there is a Cuban police, it is hardly necessary, crime-rates in middle-America are nowhere as low as in Cuba. On the army: It's a peoples army neccesary to fight of the imperialsts when neccesary.

All of which are centralised into the hands of a hierarchical political structure: I.e. the state.



What is there to elaberate on? I made an [semi] assertion, its proven by history...Now what?

If you can't explain it, don't.

Although I've asked, I'm still no clearer on what it is I'm supposed to be explaining?



Well yes actually, it's about creating communism

Indeed so. But we shouldn't get that enthuisiastic that we lose it in the process.

I don't understand?



It is true that the state will maintain good healthcare, housing and education but it will not create a communist society and surely that's what communists want?

These are indeed important things and they are the crownjuwel of any revolution because they benefit the working class.

When you have the ability to "go the whole way", or at least have a very real chance of beginning that process, short sighted goals are irrelevant.

Cuba belongs to the Cuban working class. They don't need a state to provide them with healthcare or good education. They can provide it for themselves - Free from government regulations, standards and authority and that's precisely how it should be.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 02:59 am
Oh, and none of your long posts contain a single specific fact or figure about Cuba. Have you read the Foreign Affairs article yet?
I have read it, and it's a nonstarter.

I feel sorry for your faith and I hope for your sake I'm wrong; but posting an article in defence of post-Castro Cuba's ideological purity in which the 'strongest' assertion is that control has been passed onto his seventy-five year old brother and six "officials", who wish to “preserve the system” (outstanding sound bite) is nothing remarkable. It's pretty pathetic really.

Raul will be dead soon, and there is inevitably a much younger, less ideologically pure, functionalist set of ambitious little fucks who see the benefits of "state capitalism".

The article says: "Power has been successfully transferred to a new set of leaders, whose priority is to preserve the system while permitting only very gradual reform" - Gradual reform of what and how long will this reform remain gradual? I suspect for as long as the old guard are alive, and that isn't very long. The wheels are in motion. Just like in China, for every new leader there is a greater desire for reform. Raul has already begun a process.

"The Cuban regime responded with its own hard line.] Raúl, although a leading advocate of economic reform domestically, was an absolutist when it came to confronting the United States."

Highlight added.

Cuba has already allowed foreign investment and your idealistic latching belief that the "principle" will prevail is, well, naive. I have utter faith in the conviction of the Cuban working class and their desire to make the revolution succeed, and perhaps, when their leaders start to make the reforms into state capitalism or market economics, which apparently Raul is a "leading advocate" of (unless economic reform means something other than liberalisation) they will remember those principles and finally get rid of what is truly stopping them from realising their 'freedom' - The state.

If not, they will be sucked into a bourgeois consumerist society and will eventually end up right back where they started; only this time with more shiny objects and no hope.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sorry, I edited my last post, which made very little sense :(

[Springmeester]

What are you claiming here?

Both parties were shooting on each other and both parties are guilty of tearing up the unity front against fascism. I agree with you that the CNT and the POUM were on the historical correct side of the discussion but that doesn't matter. What really mattered was that while we were killing each other the fascists were taking over the country!


Those things existed in Russia and still do exist in Vietnam and China.

A state is not defined by its conceptualisation, it's defined by its material existence. A state is specifically a centralised hierarchical structure designed to maintain the rule of a government.

And this is preciesly what socialism is. It is the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of one class over another. The difference is that this particulair dictatorship is one of the many (workers) over the few (capitalists).


A state requires a police force, secret service and military in order for it to maintain its control; without them a government cannot exact its authority and dictate its will, which is precisely the objectives of a "workes state".

Indeed so. There are a lot of dangers to a socialist workers state and there has to be a form of organisation wich protects it. Of course the anarchists tell us vague stories about how wrong hierarchy is and say that the armed workers should organise, but this is exactly the same thing as a state! As long as you have to protect the revolution form it's class-enemy's there has to be a repression apparatus. Wether you call it an 'armed workers organisation' or a 'people's army' doesn't matter because it is the same thing with a different name. The only difference here is that communists are honest about it and openly declare it a dictatorship of the proletariat, whilst the anarchist say that there is no state at all while there are armed workers marching through the streets. Do you see what I'm getting at?


A state is a centralised structure of mechanisms. Marx's analysis of the state was extremely over simplified and only refers to the economic base in which a state exists.

Did you read anything by Marx on the state or are you just making it up? The explanation I gave above is the proof that he did not only wrote about the 'economic base' in wich the state exists, he wrote about it's class significance in hands of the bourgeoisie and in the hands of the proletariat. He also wrote about the true nature of the state (the repression of one class by another) wich is clearly a social analysis and not an economic analysis.


Nicos Poulantzas is probably the best Marxist theoretician to study in regards to Marx's over-simplification. His book 'State, Power, SSocialism' goes heavily in depth on the subject and is well worth the read if you want to get shake off this out dated Instrumentalist position.

I am not familiar with him but I will look him up on the internet.


He essentially argues that a state specifically works for the benefit of the capitalist class, politically, and thus essentially cannot be harnessed for the good of "working class" because of it's specific political structures. Structures which typify a state.

And what are these 'specific political structures' you talk about?

[KC]

A state is not defined by its conceptualisation, it's defined by its material existence.

On the contrary, the specific form a state takes is defined by its material existence, much like the forms that different classes take in society are defined by their material existence.


A state is specifically a centralised hierarchical structure designed to maintain the rule of a government.

This is a specific form of a state. Not a definition of state.


A state is a centralised structure of mechanisms. Marx's analysis of the state was extremely over simplified and only refers to the economic base in which a state exists.

That's because an indepth analysis of the state is completely unnecessary in order to discuss it from a Marxist perspective, aside from an economic analysis. Marx never went into detail about what "serf" meant either, because it was unnecessary to his theory of class struggle. While he recognized that the feudal peasant class (serfs) were different in form throughout Europe he also realized that these differences in form are irrelevant to his theory of the development of history because they all contain the same fundamental principles upon which his theory is based. These differences were irrelevant because they didn't have an effect on his theory. The same can be said about the state.


He essentially argues that a state specifically works for the benefit of the capitalist class, politically, and thus essentially cannot be harnessed for the good of "working class" because of it's specific political structures. Structures which typify a state.

And Marx agrees with you when he said his famous quote in The Civil War In France:

“the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. ... The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.”

Looking at this wikipedia article of Poulantzas that you've presented, it looks like he didn't understand Marx's theories on the subject very well.


Originally posted by wikipedia
Poulantzas's theory of the state was reacting against what he saw as more simplistic understandings within Marxism. Instrumentalist Marxist accounts held that the state was simply an instrument in the hands of a particular class. Poulantzas disagreed with this, because he saw the capitalist class as too focused on their individual short term profit, rather than on maintaining the class's power as a whole, to simply exercise the whole of state power in its own interest. Poulantzas argued that the state, though relatively autonomous from the capitalist class, nonetheless functions to ensure the smooth operation of capitalist society, and therefore benefits the capitalist class.

From this quote it seems that Poulantza fails to understand the complexities of Marx's theory of class struggle. Marx's theories didn't claim that the bourgeoisie was a homogenous class, nor did he claim that the bourgeoisie stood united on everything. He recognized that there wasn't only class struggle between bourgeois and proletariat, but also that there is class struggle within classes. From this it is plainly obvious that there is struggle for state control within various strata of the bourgeoisie. It is in this sense that we can say "governments change hands; the state doesn't."

In this Poulantza unknowingly agrees with Marx.


He essentially argues that a state specifically works for the benefit of the capitalist class, politically, and thus essentially cannot be harnessed for the good of "working class" because of it's specific political structures. Structures which typify a state.

I know this is the second time I've quoted this, but where does he argue this? It certainly doesn't say anything about it on his wikipedia page. Is there anywhere I can read this without having to buy a book or read a book?

[Springmeester]

Good post comrade Zampanó, but how do you see these theories on the state put into practice on Cuba?

[KC]

Good post comrade Zampanó, but how do you see these theories on the state put into practice on Cuba?


While the state apparatus for a proletarian dictatorship is there, I wouldn't call Cuba a socialist state. This apparatus is in the hands of the petty-bourgeoisie and not the working class and therefore isn't a proletarian dictatorship. All it would take in this instance would be for the working class to seize this apparatus.

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 20, 2006 03:13 pm

Good post comrade Zampanó, but how do you see these theories on the state put into practice on Cuba?


While the state apparatus for a proletarian dictatorship is there, I wouldn't call Cuba a socialist state. This apparatus is in the hands of the petty-bourgeoisie and not the working class and therefore isn't a proletarian dictatorship. All it would take in this instance would be for the working class to seize this apparatus.
Please explain to me why you consider the state-apparatus in the hands op the petty-bourgeosie.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Shift+December 20, 2006 01:52 pm--> (Shift @ December 20, 2006 01:52 pm)
What are you claiming here?

Both parties were shooting on each other and both parties are guilty of tearing up the unity front against fascism. [/b]
Fine, I'll accept that if you can explain to me what else other than the PCE attacking the Aragon and Catalonian collectives, smashing the co-operatives, executing anarchists and forcibly disarming them during the middle of an offensive (all of which is heavily documented) happened to "tear up the unity front" (whatever that means).

What was it, specifically, that the anti-fascist militias did against the government that had any affect on the destruction of the anti-fascists fronts?


I agree with you that the CNT and the POUM were on the historical correct side of the discussion but that doesn't matter. What really mattered was that while we were killing each other the fascists were taking over the country!

I'm sorry, but I don’t accept that we were "killing each other", which implies there was some kind of ideological battle being waged. The anti-fascist militias were smashed. Any violence from the anti-fascist militias towards the government "peoples army" was in self-defence when they were attacked and forcibly disarmed.

The Aragon and Catalonian collectives were a threat to the legitimacy of the Spanish Communist Parties authority over the workers movement and it was necessary, on the order of Stalin who had equipped the PCE, to smash them and centralise political control.

Regardless of the fact the anti-fascist militias were fighting on the Aragon front and regardless of the fact both collectives had begun a transition of economic, political and social power to the workers and the peasants - One that negated the need for a state.



Those things existed in Russia and still do exist in Vietnam and China.

A state is not defined by its conceptualisation, it's defined by its material existence. A state is specifically a centralised hierarchical structure designed to maintain the rule of a government.

And this is preciesly what socialism is.

Then we are agreed? And it is for this reason I oppose it.


It is the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of one class over another. The difference is that this particulair dictatorship is one of the many (workers) over the few (capitalists).

That theory has been applied and in the real world it doesn't work.

The whole theory is based on a false premise. The state isn't just a concept of economic domination. It is not defined by Karl Marx's theories, it's defined by its structure. It's material form. As a materialist, how can you argue that something is defined before it exists?

Marx said himself: "Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life". Obviously that's a vulgar assertion, but the fact is Karl Marx wrote very little on the nature of the State and his analysis was clearly wrong.

It has since been updated; just like any idea that is proposed; it is built upon, corrected, tried and tested and ultimately altered if wrong.



A state requires a police force, secret service and military in order for it to maintain its control; without them a government cannot exact its authority and dictate its will, which is precisely the objectives of a "workers state".

Indeed so. There are a lot of dangers to a socialist workers state and there has to be a form of organisation wich protects it.

This assumes that a state can achieve communism. It can't! Creating an organisation that is independent to the state in a revolutionary situation would amount to counter-revolutionaryism as far as the leadership of the dominant party is concerned and would be totally pointless anyway.

The very existence of the state is the fundamental issue here; having an organisation to keep it in check would be totally superfluous.


Of course the anarchists tells vague stories about how wrong hierarchy is and say that the armed workers should organise, but this is exactly the same thing as a state!

First of all no it isn't. Secondly anarchist opposition to hierarchy is not vague at all, it's perfectly clear.

Hierarchy requires a centralisation of authority and removes the ability of collective responsibility. The authority of this hierarchy thus has to be maintained somehow, often through violence. What if I don't want to do what I'm being told to do?

On the subject of the state; if you decentralise power and organise political administration federally from the bottom up, this no longer takes the form of a state but something totally different.

The state is one thing; what I have described is a different thing. It's that simple.


As long as you have to protect the revolution form it's classenemy's there has to be a repression apparatus. Wether you call it an armed workers organisation or a people's army doesn't matter because it is the same thing with a different name.

Your whole argument assumes that the analysis of a state I have given is wrong. That's fine, but you have not provided any reasoning for why I'm wrong except to say that I am wrong.


The only difference is that communists are honest about it and openly declare it a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whilst the anarchist say that there is no state at all while there are armed workers marching through the streets. Do you see what I'm getting at?

:lol:

Yeah, I see what you're getting at, but your analysis of the state is incorrect as I have already argued.



A state is a centralised structure of mechanisms. Marx's analysis of the state was extremely over simplified and only refers to the economic base in which a state exists.

Did you read anything from Marx on the state or are you just making it up?

Marx wrote very little on the state. However, from 'The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State' Engles says:


Originally posted by [email protected]
“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it [the state] is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state."

Then from the 'Communist Manifesto' Marx said:


Marx
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Highlight added.

Both of those quotes, taken from two separate works by both major proponents of Marxism make vague statements about the nature of the state except to say that it is specifically an economic tool.

Neither of those explanations nor in any other work I have come across, does either of them elaborate on the nature of a state. As far as Marx is concerned the state represents the economic suppression of one class upon another.

That is not, however, the full story. A state is not defined simply on that basis and either Marx meant something other than what he said and Lenin misinterpreted or they were both wrong. Either way, what we have seen created in the name of that definition has been antithetical to the creation of a communist society.


The explanation I gave above is the proof that he did not only wrote about the 'economic base' in wich the state exists, he wrote about it's class significance in hands the hands of the bourgeoisie and in the hands of the proletariat

I don't deny that, but it still fails to address the structural nature of a state, which is specific.


He also wrote about the true nature of the state (the repression of one class by another) wich is clearly a social analysis and not an economic analysis.

You're wrong. Unless of course you can provide me with some evidence.


And what are these 'specific political structures' you talk about?

Bureaucracy, hierarchy and centralisation.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 20, 2006 03:44 pm

A state is not defined by its conceptualisation, it's defined by its material existence.

On the contrary, the specific form a state takes is defined by its material existence, much like the forms that different classes take in society are defined by their material existence.
You say Tom-ato I say Toma-to.

In any case, if you accept this to be true, do you therefore accept that the Leninist paradigm is an incorrect interpretation or not?



A state is specifically a centralised hierarchical structure designed to maintain the rule of a government.

This is a specific form of a state. Not a definition of state.

On the contrary.



A state is a centralised structure of mechanisms. Marx's analysis of the state was extremely over simplified and only refers to the economic base in which a state exists.

That's because an indepth analysis of the state is completely unnecessary in order to discuss it from a Marxist perspective, aside from an economic analysis.

Therein lays the problem


“the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. ... The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.”

Then how is political control manfested, who enacts that control and by what structure is the control enacted? Bureaucracy, hierarchy and centralisation are the main tenets of political control used by the captialist class and in fact Leninists. How do you suspect the state will exist without those structures?

All these things are being ignored by Marx but when the reality of organsiation comes about, how do the workers organise themselves?

Simply asserting a "state is one class organised to suppress another" is not good enough. How the workers organise to suppress the ruling class is specific to whether or not we maintain a state structure or whether we create something else.


Is there anywhere I can read this without having to buy a book or read a book?

I don't think so.

[KC]

Please explain to me why you consider the state-apparatus in the hands op the petty-bourgeosie.

It's rather obvious. Look at all of the state leaders. Fidel himself is petty-bourgeois. Look at their reliance on "experts" for everything, as well as the position in society these "experts" hold (CP leaders, ministry officials, etc...).



You say Tom-ato I say Toma-to.


You're right; it's a semantics issue, in a sense.


In any case, if you accept this to be true, do you therefore accept that the Leninist paradigm is a correct interpretation or not?

There's no such thing as a "Leninist paradigm". If you want to talk about the pseudo-Leninist paradigm that many self-proclaimed "Leninists" believe in, then I would say that it's a completely incorrect interpretation. The entire theoretical base of these "Leninists" is unmarxist. They take Lenin's theories on the situation in Russia in 1917 and attempt to apply it everywhere, regardless of material conditions. This isn't what Lenin believed should happen, hence the term "Leninist" really is false, and this isn't what Marx believed should happen, as they both recognized the fact that material conditions have a profound impact on how revolution occurs and what its effects are.


On the contrary.

Again, semantics.


Therein lays the problem

I would like to see you address the rest of that paragraph.



Then how is political control manfested, who enacts that control and by what structure is the control enacted?

How are we to answer these questions without any basis in reality? First, we'd have to answer who? where? when? how? Again, this question is completely irrelevant unless we are taking material conditions into consideration.


Bureaucracy, hierarchy and centralisation are the main tenets of political control used by the captialist class and in fact Leninists. How do you suspect the state will exist without those structures?

The Paris Commune was a state.


All these things are being ignored by Marx

No they're not.


but when the reality of organsiation comes about, how do the workers organise themselves?

Do you want a formula? Or an instruction book? Do you think there's even an answer to this question?



Simply asserting a "state is one class organised to suppress another" is not good enough. How the workers organise to suppress the ruling class is specific to whether or not we maintain a state structure or whether we create something else.

And how the workers organize to suppress the ruling class is completely determined by material conditions. You can't answer this question when defining the state because the material conditions changes the answer to this question, which would change the definition of the state. Rather, Marx defined the state according to the fundamental principles on which all states are founded, and recognized that states can come into existence in different forms depending on the material conditions in which it comes into existence and maintains its existence.


I don't think so.

Hmm. There isn't anything else online? I'll google it.

[Springmeester]

The Aragon and Catalonian collectives were a threat to the legitimacy of the Spanish Communist Parties authority over the workers movement and it was necessary, on the order of Stalin who had equipped the PCE, to smash them and centralise political control.

Regardless of the fact the anti-fascist militias were fighting on the Aragon front and regardless of the fact both collectives had begun a transition of economic, political and social power to the workers and the peasants - One that negated the need for a state.

I already told you that I support the CNT and the POUM in this conflict.


Then we are agreed? And it is for this reason I oppose it.

You oppose the state because it is the tool used by one class to rule another, but you do think there should be an organisation of armed workers who rule over other classes?


That theory has been applied and in the real world it doesn't work.

The whole theory is based on a false premise. The state isn't just a concept of economic domination. It is not defined by Karl Marx's theories, it's defined by its structure. It's material form. As a materialist, how can you argue that something is defined before it exists?

Marx said himself: "Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life". Obviously that's a vulgar assertion, but the fact is Karl Marx wrote very little on the nature of the State and his analysis was clearly wrong.

It has since been updated; just like any idea that is proposed; it is built upon, corrected, tried and tested and ultimately altered if wrong.

Ally, just because you have read very little of what Marx wrote about the state doesn't mean that the theory doesn't work.


This assumes that a state can achieve communism. It can't! Creating an organisation that is independent to the state in a revolutionary situation would amount to counter-revolutionaryism as far as the leadership of the dominant party is concerned and would be totally pointless anyway.

The very existence of the state is the fundamental issue here; having an organisation to keep it in check would be totally superfluous.

You are correct, ally. A state cannot achieve communism, a soceity however can. Allow me to quote Marx:


Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

In socialism the state is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.


In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished, after labor has become not only a livelihood but life's prime want, after the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly--only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be left behind in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

According to Marx the state of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is only accomplishable when the above described conditions have become reality. In the discussion on Cuba this is clearly not the case. Cuba is a small island surrounded by big imperialist country´s that would love to see it´s system destroyed. According to you they should dismantle the army, the police and the government at this very moment because it would be in the advantage of the revolution. I disagree on that, I think that in this way you are giving the CIA and the American imperialists everything they ever dreamed of and capitalism would be restored in Cuba within a matter of weeks.


First of all no it isn't. Secondly anarchist opposition to hierarchy is not vague at all, it's perfectly clear.

Hierarchy requires a centralisation of authority and removes the ability of collective responsibility. The authority of this hierarchy thus has to be maintained somehow, often through violence. What if I don't want to do what I'm being told to do?

On the subject of the state; if you decentralise power and organise political administration federally from the bottom up, this no longer takes the form of a state but something totally different.

The state is one thing; what I have described is a different thing. It's that simple.

Yes it is. Anarchists always look at hierarchy like a teenager looks at his parents. It's childish and it doesn't serve anything except their own chaotic illusions of society.

Especially the Cuban society in this case, because you prove ones again to know absolutely nothing of the country's democracy. In Cuba there are thousands of councils. Councils of workers, councils of womans rights, councils of students the list goes on and on. These councils are the very basis of the Cuban democracy and they are the beating heart of the party.

You claim you want to decentralize the power but all you want is to dismantle the peoples army to satisfy the particulair forms of socialism that remind you of capitalist opression. Let me just quote Marx on this subject:


What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes.


Both of those quotes, taken from two separate works by both major proponents of Marxism make vague statements about the nature of the state except to say that it is specifically an economic tool.

Neither of those explanations nor in any other work I have come across, does either of them elaborate on the nature of a state. As far as Marx is concerned the state represents the economic suppression of one class upon another.

That is not, however, the full story. A state is not defined simply on that basis and either Marx meant something other than what he said and Lenin misinterpreted or they were both wrong. Either way, what we have seen created in the name of that definition has been antithetical to the creation of a communist society.

The state isn't an economic tool. It is a political tool used by one class to opress another. How many times do I have to tell you this? You want to talk about the marxist definition of the state but every time I explain it to you you start making your analysis. Wich way do you want it, ally?

Marxist theory is always based on the economic fundaments of society wich is the basis of all social and cultural phemomena, but just because we use this scientific method in our analysis doesn't mean that we do not consider an institute such as the state on a political level. All politics are class politics, class politics are based on the economic intressts of a class. So the state in capitalist soceity isn't a economic tool, it is a political tool that allows the capitalist class to keep economic control.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 05:28 pm
Yes it is. Anarchists always look at hierarchy like a teenager looks at his parents. It's childish and it doesn't serve anything except their own chaotic illusions of society.
You've got to be kidding me!

I didn't realise I was debating with one of your type. Unfortunately for you, I have to go and enjoy the rest of my day, but in the meantime perhaps you should educate yourself on the meaning of anarchism, because I'm just going to end up getting really fucking pissed off with yet another prick who comes here mouthing off as if they're the pinnacle of political thought and yet get it so so very wrong!

[t_wolves_fan]

Hierarchy requires a centralisation of authority and removes the ability of collective responsibility.

Collective responsibility is not a good thing. "I didn't make the mistake, so I'm not going to change what I was doing..."


The authority of this hierarchy thus has to be maintained somehow, often through violence. What if I don't want to do what I'm being told to do?

What if you don't want to do what the collective or the council tells you to do?

Or are you one of those who believes once the fairy has sprinkled his magical dust, everyone will simply agree on everything?


Especially the Cuban society in this case, because you prove ones again to know absolutely nothing of the country's democracy. In Cuba there are thousands of councils. Councils of workers, councils of womans rights, councils of students the list goes on and on. These councils are the very basis of the Cuban democracy and they are the beating heart of the party.

You forgot the Council on Jailing Those who Disrespect Castro.

You: "I cannot read certain things or say certain things or I'll be jailed, but at least I get to vote on how much sugar we'll produce this year! Yiiippeee!"

I'd rather be able to speak my mind, thank you.

[KC]

I'd rather be able to speak my mind, thank you.

You can speak your mind anywhere, provided it doesn't contain a threat to the government of the country you're in.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 20, 2006 06:57 pm


I'd rather be able to speak my mind, thank you.

You can speak your mind anywhere, provided it doesn't contain a threat to the government of the country you're in.
:lol:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/22/cuba8480.htm

I assure you, we do not beat or jail people here for insulting any officeholder.

What's kind of funny is that so many people on this board would be hopping mad if this happened in the United States, but since it happens in Cuba, it is to be justified.

:lol:

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 20, 2006 05:23 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 20, 2006 05:23 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2006 05:28 pm
Yes it is. Anarchists always look at hierarchy like a teenager looks at his parents. It's childish and it doesn't serve anything except their own chaotic illusions of society.
You've got to be kidding me!

I didn't realise I was debating with one of your type. Unfortunately for you, I have to go and enjoy the rest of my day, but in the meantime perhaps you should educate yourself on the meaning of anarchism, because I'm just going to end up getting really fucking pissed off with yet another prick who comes here mouthing off as if they're the pinnacle of political thought and yet get it so so very wrong! [/b]
TAT, you are right. It was wrong of me to talk down on your ideas like I did. I do respect your ideologie, I merely referred to the anarchist concept of hierarchy. Please except my apoligy.

In my own defense I do have to say that you also talked about Leninism in a disrespectful manner so I suggest we accept each others differences and continue our difficult but very interesting discussion. I think we can both learn from each other.

[KC]

I assure you, we do not beat or jail people here for insulting any officeholder.


I'm not talking about threatening the government, I'm talking about whether or not what you say or do constitutes a threat to them.



What's kind of funny is that so many people on this board would be hopping mad if this happened in the United States

Uh, it does. A lot.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/40/FredHamptonDead.jpg

[t_wolves_fan]

And the justification begins.

:lol:

Does what happened to Fred Hampton have anything to do with the policy in Cuba that puts people in jail for "disrespecting" the government? Fred Hampton was wanted on a warrant. He chose to fight the police when they came to arrest him. His shooting was probably illegal under our law.

What are your thoughts on the fact that in Cuba, you can be jailed for doing something that is legal in the U.S. and takes place in front of the White House on a daily basis?


I've opened the door for your deflection by addressing Hampton. Let's see if you try to slip out of it.

[KC]

Does what happened to Fred Hampton have anything to do with the policy in Cuba that puts people in jail for "disrespecting" the government? Fred Hampton was wanted on a warrant. He chose to fight the police when they came to arrest him. His shooting was probably illegal under our law.

Actually, he was assassinated by police.


Originally posted by wikipedia
On November 13, 1969, 2 Chicago Police Officers, (Gilooley, 21 and Rappaport, 36) were set up and ambushed the black panthers. In mid-November 1969 O'Neal provided the FBI with detailed information of Hampton's apartment, including the location of furniture and the bed in which Hampton and his girlfriend slept. An augmented, fourteen-man team of the SAO -- Special Prosecutions Unit -- was organized for a pre-dawn raid armed with an illegal weapons warrant. On the evening of December 3, Hampton taught a political education course at a local church, which was attended by most members. Afterwards, as was typical, several Panthers retired to the Monroe Street apartment to spend the night, including Hampton and Deborah Johnson, Blair Anderson, Doc Satchell, Harold Bell, Verlina Brewer, Louis Truelock, Brenda Harris, and Mark Clark. Upon arrival, they were met by O'Neal, who had prepared a late dinner which was consumed by the group around midnight. O'Neal left at this point, and, at about 1:30 a.m., Hampton fell asleep in mid-sentence talking to his mother on the telephone. (The Kool Aid was subsequently found to have been laced with the powerful barbiturate, secobarbitol.)

At 4:00 a.m., the heavily armed police team arrived at the site, dividing into two teams, eight for the front of the building and six for the rear. At 4:45, they stormed in the apartment. Mark Clark, asleep in a front room with a shotgun in his lap, was killed instantly, despite firing off a single round — the only shot the Panthers fired. The automatic gunfire converged at the head of the bedroom where Hampton slept. Two officers found him wounded in the shoulder, and Harold Bell reported hearing the following exchange:

"That's Fred Hampton."
"Is he dead?... Bring him out."
"He's barely alive; he'll make it."

Two shots were heard, which it was later discovered were fired point blank in Hampton's head. According to Deborah Johnson, one officer then said:

"He's good and dead now."[1]

Hampton's body was dragged into the doorway of the bedroom and left in a pool of blood. The raiders then directed their gunfire towards the remaining Panthers, who were hiding in another bedroom. They were wounded, then beaten and dragged into the street, where they were arrested on charges of aggravated assault and the attempted murder of their assailants. They were held on US$100,000 bail apiece.

Of course, this is just one instance. We could pick most of any of the Panthers, the Cuba Five, any of the terror "suspects" held at Guantanamo Bay or any of the other US sponsored prisons throughout the world, etc.. etc..

My entire point was that if you're a threat to the government, or if the government believes you are, then you will be neutralized. This is true for every government in the world, including Cuba.


What are your thoughts on the fact that in Cuba, you can be jailed for doing something that is legal in the U.S. and takes place in front of the White House on a daily basis?

My thought is that there are different conditions in Cuba which makes the Cuban government perceive this action as a threat whereas the US government does not. However, both governments act the same in regards to actions which are deemed as a threat to the government.

[t_wolves_fan]

I'm going to ignore your continued attempt at deflection.


My thought is that there are different conditions in Cuba which makes the Cuban government perceive this action as a threat whereas the US government does not. However, both governments act the same in regards to actions which are deemed as a threat to the government.

Does this justify the limits that Cuba places on its citizens?

[KC]

Does this justify the limits that Cuba places on its citizens?

In a sense, yes.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 20, 2006 07:54 pm

Does this justify the limits that Cuba places on its citizens?

In a sense, yes.
By "justify", I mean do you support them?

Yes/No.

Another follow-up question: which would you like/desire/rather have: A> a country where it is illegal to "offend" the leadership, or B> one where you can march in front of the Executive's mansion with a sign calling him a murderer to your heart's content?

A/B

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 20, 2006 08:02 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 20, 2006 08:02 pm)
Zampanò@December 20, 2006 07:54 pm

Does this justify the limits that Cuba places on its citizens?

In a sense, yes.
By "justify", I mean do you support them?

Yes/No.

Another follow-up question: which would you like/desire/rather have: A> a country where it is illegal to "offend" the leadership, or B> one where you can march in front of the Executive's mansion with a sign calling him a murderer to your heart's content?

A/B [/b]
Just thought I'd jump in and point out an observation I've made on reading a lot of your posts.

You like to ignore any depth in arguments in favour of this "Black & White" (i.e. yes/no A/B) worldview. You appear to have no understanding of *depth* in an argument or situation.

Also, it's lovley the way you dismiss any refutations or rebuttals of your points as 'deflections' or 'dodging the issue'.

[jasmine]

eliminated duplicated post

[jasmine]

My entire point was that if you're a threat to the government, or if the government believes you are, then you will be neutralized. This is true for every government in the world, including Cuba.

Of course this is true. But it depends on what is considered to be a threat and this is defined by the government in question.

Western capitalism is sufficiently stable and confident not to consider criticism of the government or the economic system a threat. This is not the case in Cuba and was not the case in previously existing 'socialist' systems. The problem is that to make a new form of society appealing it has to at least offer the same mix of living standards, opportunity and freedom as the old one.

Capitalism is for sure not the ideal way to organise the economy, we do have enough wealth to eliminate poverty and starvation, but so far we (as a species) have not come up with a way to function other than via selfish acquisition (at every level).

It's simply not possible to justify, rationally, that a soccer player earns $5 million (basic wage) a year and a nurse earns $20,000 a year but the market creates this. If you have the skills to look after old people, and some very special people do this, you earn almost nothing, but if you can put a basketball through an American hoop you will become very rich.

If the Hollywood budget for one year was not spent on making mostly pointless movies and was put into providing food for starving Africans a lot of lives would be saved.

Why are we too stupid as a species to find a way to do this?

[George W. Bush]

If the Hollywood budget for one year was not spent on making mostly pointless movies and was put into providing food for starving Africans a lot of lives would be saved.

i believe i speak for a lot of people when i say that i'd rather watch a movie than keep an african alive for another 2-3 days

[t_wolves_fan]

Just thought I'd jump in and point out an observation I've made on reading a lot of your posts.

Great, I always look forward to your educated, lucid and rational constructive criticism.


You like to ignore any depth in arguments in favour of this "Black & White" (i.e. yes/no A/B) worldview. You appear to have no understanding of *depth* in an argument or situation.

I see. So what you are telling me is that when one side does something, like repress freedom of expression, I need to "understand the depth of the situation" so that I figure out why it's ok for that side to do it but not ok for another side to do it.

Is this basically what you are telling me? Is this why you are glad to see threads with factual information locked up?


Also, it's lovley the way you dismiss any refutations or rebuttals of your points as 'deflections' or 'dodging the issue'.

The story of a Black Panther in the United States does nothing to refute or rebutt the policies of the Castro regime. In order for it to do so, you would have to argue that Cuba's policy would only be wrong if the United States didn't do anything wrong.

Which is an argument that (maybe) even you understand is nonsensical.

Is the United States perfect at protecting the rights of political dissidents? No, it isn't. It has a lot of black marks in its history. It has failed several times.

What does that fact have to do with Cuba's decision to lock up people who say the wrong thing?

[jasmine]

i believe i speak for a lot of people when i say that i'd rather watch a movie than keep an african alive for another 2-3 days

Thanks for being so honest about how disgusting you are. I think this goes a long way towards explaining the problem because you are not unrepresentative.

[George W. Bush]

Thanks for being so honest about how disgusting you are.

it's my pleasure.


because you are not unrepresentative.

what can i say.. about a quarter of a whole country voted me into office

[Springmeester]

And the justification begins.

What justification? Why don't you start justifying the biggest holocaust in history: 210 milion africans killed by slavetrade and slavery, 55 milion people killed in the second world war wich was an imperialist war, I'm not even going to loop up how many people this system has killed by starvation or how many victims is has made in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, hell even milions in your own country!

CUBA DOES NOT HAVE POLITICAL PRISONERS!

The U$ of A however does: Mumia Abu Jamal, Leonard Peltier, the Cuba five and the list goes on. Don't even get me started on Guantanamo Bay.

Al that capitalist bullshit is one big chunk of propaganda but you swallow it like jelly. Maybe one day you will finally choke in it.

[jasmine]

What justification? Why don't you start justifying the biggest holocaust in history: 210 milion africans killed by slavetrade and slavery, 55 milion people killed in the second world war wich was an imperialist war, I'm not even going to loop up how many people this system has killed by starvation or how many victims is has made in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, hell even milions in your own country!

This is basically true (I don't know the figures exactly). But throughout history we have slaughtered each other, on one pretext or another (nation, race, religion, politics) regardless of the economic system.

Compassion is a scarce commodity.

[KC]

This is basically true (I don't know the figures exactly). But throughout history we have slaughtered each other, on one pretext or another (nation, race, religion, politics) regardless of the economic system.


Actually, it's usually because of the economic system. Slavery is free labour, which gives you a higher profit margin.

[George W. Bush]

Actually, it's usually because of the economic system. Slavery is free labour, which gives you a higher profit margin.

slavery has been around a lot longer than modern day capitalism..

[KC]

slavery has been around a lot longer than modern day capitalism..

And it was integral in maintaining the economic system in place then, as well.

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 20, 2006 09:45 pm

slavery has been around a lot longer than modern day capitalism..

And it was integral in maintaining the economic system in place then, as well.
hardly. it just meant you didnt have to do work on your own

the economic systems generally wouldve survived without it, although they might not have prospered as much

[KC]

hardly. it just meant you didnt have to do work on your own

the economic systems generally wouldve survived without it, although they might not have prospered as much


Yeah, that's it. Even though entire societies were based around slavery, removing it would cause absolutely no change to the socio-politico-economic system in place at all. :rolleyes:

:lol:

Go choke on a pretzel.

[George W. Bush]

i cant think of any societies that were really based on slavery..

i can think of many that it was a part of, but it only served to make the labor more manageable. in no cases that i can think of was an entire society reliant on slave labor. (reliant meaning that without it, they wouldve never been able to survive)

[jasmine]

Actually, it's usually because of the economic system. Slavery is free labour, which gives you a higher profit margin.

My point is that war, cruelty, mass slaughter is common to all forms of production. For sure the justification shifts and changes but genocide is the constant of human history. Depressing but true.

Also, the revolting racist GWB thing, I have to take a shower now, but I'm sure many people have to after having contact with you, even on the internet.

[KC]

i cant think of any societies that were really based on slavery..

i can think of many that it was a part of, but it only served to make the labor more manageable. in no cases that i can think of was an entire society reliant on slave labor. (reliant meaning that without it, they wouldve never been able to survive)

I never said that any society was "reliant" on it (although there were many that pretty much were).


i cant think of any societies that were really based on slavery..

Then go look it up.



My point is that war, cruelty, mass slaughter is common to all forms of production. For sure the justification shifts and changes but genocide is the constant of human history. Depressing but true.

Not really. Many societies have gone without war, cruelty or mass slaughter, and genocide certainly didn't exist until class society was well established.

[jasmine]

Not really. Many societies have gone without war, cruelty or mass slaughter, and genocide certainly didn't exist until class society was well established.

Which societies are you talking about?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+December 20, 2006 02:03 am--> (Amusing Scrotum @ December 20, 2006 02:03 am)
[email protected] 19, 2006 12:59 pm
If she can admit "the Cuban state truly has served the poor underclass" - why can't you, TAT?

Isn't this the kind of deliberate deception you usually accuse others of?

Sweig "admits" that the Cuban Government has been able to consolidate its position by increasing public support for it. That is, it has granted certain concessions to the populace in order to protect itself from internal and external threats. [/b]
Wow! Somebody who actually read the article, or part of it anyway. Watch out - keep that up and you might know something about Cuba.

You've got a point - she doesn't claim the Cuban state serves the interests of the poor out of a pure heart or whatever. Still and all, it'd be seriously out of character for TAT, or for you even, to use that phrase in any context.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 02:47 pm

You like to ignore any depth in arguments in favour of this "Black & White" (i.e. yes/no A/B) worldview. You appear to have no understanding of *depth* in an argument or situation.

I see. So what you are telling me is that when one side does something, like repress freedom of expression, I need to "understand the depth of the situation" so that I figure out why it's ok for that side to do it but not ok for another side to do it.
Well, you and TAT could both stand to realize that nothing in the real world is perfect. You could stand to see Cuba in the social context of Latin America, and ask whether it's more or less repressive than various parliamentary republics in Latin America.

You linked Amnesty or HRW, I forget, on Cuba - take a look at their reports on the elected, multipary government of Colombia.

You could also stand to question your own unstated political assumptions, too. Why is free speech such an absolute overriding good that it overwhelms every other factor in assessing the Cuban Revolution?

I might point out that capitalist democracy also had its way cleared by revolutionary dictatorship. The revolutionaries who created the U.S. didn't exactly respect free speech for supporters of King George. The Tories fled en masse to British army lines, with real stories of atrocities. Read any non-mythologized, non-cherry tree history of the time, even something like 1776 by David McCullough. Then after the revolution, many fled to Canada, just like the old Cuban elite fleeing to Miami.

Now the revolutionary dictatorship in the U.S. was short-lived and relatively mild, compared say to the French Revolution which also cleared the way for capitalist democracy. That's because the young U.S. had it easy - separated by an ocean from its powerful monarchical adversaries. And in those days that ocean took a long time to cross.

In contrast, Cuba's only 90 miles from Miami. So really, it's surprising it's not more repressive.

[jasmine]

i believe i speak for a lot of people when i say that i'd rather watch a movie than keep an african alive for another 2-3 days

Can anyone tell me what ideology might lie behind this comment? I ask because I was given a very hard time on this board earlier and wonder why this person is causing almost no response at all.

Also, to return to the original topic, the USA is a very ideologically driven superpower. Of course, in 1959 Castro had no intention of creating a 'communist' Cuba. He only turned towards the Soviet Union and the left wing of the July 26 Movement because of ideologically-driven US intransigence. Castro wanted land reform, an end to bureacratic corruption, a trade deal with the USA and a regulated market economy. The USA made this impossible thus creating their own monster.

The USA also helped topple the democratically elected Salvador Allende government in Chile and of course has sought to undermine the Sandanistas in Nicarargua.

There is no doubt that the leftist governments of Cuba, Chile and Nicaragua would have negotiated with the USA but the USA sees only 'communism' and doesn't see shades of leftism.

It's as though the spectre really is haunting them. Strange, because the needless and murderous Vietnam war should have taught the world's only superpower something.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 12:50 pm
I ask because I was given a very hard time on this board earlier and wonder why this person is causing almost no response at all.
It's better to just ignore trolls.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian
Wow! Somebody who actually read the article, or part of it anyway.

Yeah, I read it ... and I also pointed out how you misused Sweig's comments.

You've not addressed that, Severian. In fact, your response was something of a dodge. So, why don't you just admit that you were counting on no one reading the article carefully and noticing your sophistry?

As for me "[using] that phrase in any context", I suppose I could give it a try.

You see folks, Severian supports the Cuban Administration because "the [Cuban] revolution built social, educational, and health programs that remain the envy of the developing world. [....] In these ways, the Cuban state truly has served the poor underclass rather than catering to the domestic elite and its American allies."

However folks, squeezing a fresh lime into your rum and coke doesn't fundamentally alter the nature of the beverage. And, likewise, a few social programs doesn't fundamentally alter the nature of the Cuban State.

And that Severian is unable to recognise that, only emphasises his own failings. His own inability to see through a bit of "razzle-dazzle". Indeed, one imagines that he would be completely amazed by a barman who knew how to serve sambuca properly...

See petal, I was able to use that phrase without breaking character. That is, I was able to use the phrase whilst remaining a right ****.

http://www.websitegoodies.com/smilies/gfx/fighting0072.gif

[Comrade Hector]

Today, the US has relied on their "human rights" stooges to target specifically Cuba. Poland's Lech Walesa, Czech Republic's Vaclav Havel, and Hungary's Arpad Goencz, all of them pro-imperialist dissidents during the Socialist period and self-proclaimed "human rights activists" are today determined to bring about counter-revolution in Cuba. They're directly linked to the Varela Project in Cuba, led by the anti-Communist "human rights activist" Oswaldo Paya. This is the same tactic Jimmy Carter resorted to during his presidency when he established connection with the Moscow Helsinki Group and other "human rights" groups like it in Eastern Europe. A hypocritical move by the USA, arm and train exile terrorists and then paint a rosey picture of reactionaries with their "human rights" stooges.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 10, 2007 10:08 pm
Today, the US has relied on their "human rights" stooges to target specifically Cuba.
You're saying that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are U.S. stooges?

Which government do you honestly believe allows more open dissent by its citizens: The United States or Cuba?


Yes/No questions.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 15, 2007 09:51 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 15, 2007 09:51 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 10, 2007 10:08 pm
Today, the US has relied on their "human rights" stooges to target specifically Cuba.
You're saying that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are U.S. stooges?

Which government do you honestly believe allows more open dissent by its citizens: The United States or Cuba?


Yes/No questions. [/b]
Probably the United States right now. Cuba regularly has anti-Communists planning violence or some sort of terrorist attack and it is, unsurprisingly, paranoid about the US interfering. How many attempts on Castro's life has their been? As a result dissent looks scarier. If an Islamic Fundamentalist in the USA is receiving money off Iran, preaching violent action and had organised with similar minded Islamic Fundamentalists do you think that

A/ The US State will be tolerant until they actually do violence

or

B/ The US State will treat them in a similar way to how Cuba treats dissidents in contact with and receiving money from the USA

I don't support repression of dissidents but it is understandable.

Why do I defend Cuba while I would attack the USA for the same things? Because I support the Cuban State (against the USA anyway) and oppose the American State. Simple enough for you?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:26 pm

Why do I defend Cuba while I would attack the USA for the same things? Because I support the Cuban State (against the USA anyway) and oppose the American State. Simple enough for you?
Yes, so long as you understand that it makes you an unbridled hypocrite.