communism in the world [Archive]

Connolly

6th January 2007, 23:42

Most of these countries were in the beginning an attempt at genuine Socialism;

That means nothing - "an attempt".

I could "attempt" to turn lead into gold - I could learn something of an historical lesson from doing it in the process, that is - its impossible to do so.

That "attempt" does not indicate that I am any closer to achieveing my desired outcome.

An attempt at socialism, when socialism is impossible under such objective conditions - means nothing but with the historical lessons learned.

with the instation of a planned economy, democratically-controlled workplaces, an end to sexual/racial/religious discrimination

And so what? - what relevence is this to achieving socialism if the long term theory doesn not work out - ie. the progression/regression to a state "socialist" elite and capitalism and the problem of destroying POWER.

It means nothing of the sort that Socialism was "close".

I mean, democratically controlled work places are nothing new, they could be thousands of years old in various forms.

Again - they have nothing of relevence when considering whether Cuba, the USSR or any other authoritarian state regime are socialist or not.

They implemented these reforms for a couple of years - under the greater political and economic ends - they gradually revert to a more efficient form of social organisation - they fail to achieve socialism.

Lesson learned: It didnt work.

Unfortunately many of these countries today are flawed Socialist societies

Many? what exceptions are you making?

They are ALL flawed systems of government - nothing of the sorts like socialism

That said, Cuba is an excellent example that we can point to today when asked what the benefits of Socialism are

No, I disagree.

How can you point to the benifits of socialism by using Cuba, a non-socialist country?

Does that also mean we can point to, say, Ireland, a heavily capitalised society, as the benifits of socialism are Free Speech and Greater freedom as a whole?

In that case, I dont see why socialists should fixate themselves on Cuba, when other very impressive ongoings are happening here under capitalism in Ireland - if not more so in Ireland than in Cuba as a comparison to socialism.

A single party, single man, authoritarian state couldnt be further from socialism. Ireland is much closer, yet we dont fixate and use it as an example, why Cuba is an exception is beyond me.

Worker's control is one of the defining elements of Socialism yet when this cannot be achieved due to material conditions or though a bureaucratic counter-revolution we should not entirely dismiss these examples as 'not socialist'

Why not? - they were not socialist (fact).

If the objective conditions dont exist - socialism is not possible. If the material conditions dont exist, we shouldnt settle for something undesirable such as Cuba or the USSR, but rather, and most preferably, a system of capitalism for which we have today - where greater freedom is achieved for the workers - and less isolation on an international scale.

I would rather live where im living now - under capitalism - than in Cuba or any other dictatorship.

Yet they also contained (or in Cuba's case, continue to contain) certain positive elements of Socialism, as listed above.

As does the USA, Ireland, France, japan etc have certain positive elements that we would attribute to socialism.

We dont aim for such systems of society that is capitalism - so we oppose them.

We dont aim for systems such as that in Cuba - so we oppose them.

We do not attribute them as "the best examples, or closest examples to socialism".

They are not - and should be opposed, not in awe.

Who, just like the revolutionaries in "USSR, Cuba, C China, Vietnam, Angola, Laos, etc", made mistakes.

Im not talking about mistakes, im talking about comparison. The example I gave would be similar to our aims for a society.

Cuba, USSR couldnt be further from substantive democratic control of the economy.

Who are they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibutz

BobKKKindle$

7th January 2007, 13:45

Most of these countries were in the beginning an attempt at genuine Socialism; with the instation of a planned economy, democratically-controlled workplaces, an end to sexual/racial/religious discrimination, nationalised industry, worker's councils, and other socialist activities lead by the working class and poor.

In these countries all economic decisions were undertaken by a class of Party Administrators and economic planners, meaning that the means of production were not subject to the control of the workers. This reflects the fact that these countries were state-capitalist. The means of production were concentrated in the hands of the state, and the class division that is a characteristic of capitalist society existed, although under State-Capitalism it arose from political centralisation and exploitation and not a private property system.

These countries did not represent, or undertake Socialism.

Worker's control is one of the defining elements of Socialism yet when this cannot be achieved due to material conditions or though a bureaucratic counter-revolution we should not entirely dismiss these examples as 'not socialist', this would be ultra-leftist of us and lead to the repitition of these same mistakes you decry.

These 'revolutions' (if they can be described as such, as the Bolshevik uprising was a coup d'etat as shown by the results of the Constituent assembly) did not degenerate through counter revolution or material circumstances; they failed because Leninism is an ideology that advocates that a centralised and dedicated group of intellectuals should create and guide the transition to Socialism. This is inherently and implicitly oppossed to working-class power and leads to centralised state structures based on heirachy. Indeed, it should be noted that Lenin ordered a ban on factions in 1921, consequently silencing the Workers opposition who advocated the restoration of independent Trade Unions.

manic expression

7th January 2007, 17:10

That means nothing - "an attempt".

I could "attempt" to turn lead into gold - I could learn something of an historical lesson from doing it in the process, that is - its impossible to do so.

That "attempt" does not indicate that I am any closer to achieveing my desired outcome.

An attempt at socialism, when socialism is impossible under such objective conditions - means nothing but with the historical lessons learned.

No, an attempt means many things. First, it shows that workers are willing to come together to create a better society. Second, both the successes and the mistakes lend themselves to more effective attempts later on ("If at first you don't succeed...").

So no, attempts are not as meaningless as you assert, for everything worth doing must first be attempted.

And so what? - what relevence is this to achieving socialism if the long term theory doesn not work out - ie. the progression/regression to a state "socialist" elite and capitalism and the problem of destroying POWER.

It means nothing of the sort that Socialism was "close".

I mean, democratically controlled work places are nothing new, they could be thousands of years old in various forms.

Again - they have nothing of relevence when considering whether Cuba, the USSR or any other authoritarian state regime are socialist or not.

They implemented these reforms for a couple of years - under the greater political and economic ends - they gradually revert to a more efficient form of social organisation - they fail to achieve socialism.

Lesson learned: It didnt work.

Socialism was achieved in those states. Communism, on the other hand, was not.

Democratically controlled workplaces was and is a revolutionary idea in capitalism. The point you are missing is that the proletariat (and peasantry) control the workplaces; the bourgeoisie (and petty bourgeoisie, to a lesser extent) control their workplaces in capitalism, but that is a wholly different thing.

Perhaps you could cite examples of "democratically controlled workplaces" not associated with socialism that have existed for "thousands of years".

USSR was socialist, Cuba is socialist. Why are you suggesting that this isn't the case?

Cuba has had their socialist "reforms" in place for almost half a century to great success, and anyone who knows a shred about Cuba can tell you this. The USSR became capitalist for many reasons, reasons that we can learn from.

You would do well to learn these lessons.

Many? what exceptions are you making?

They are ALL flawed systems of government - nothing of the sorts like socialism

It's hard to reach perfection, so obviously there will be some flaws. That's almost a given.

Cuba is socialist, that is a fact.

Let me reiterate: Cuba is a socialist country.

Ireland is not socialist. The "benefits" you cite ("Greater freedom"? Are you drunk?) inevitably benefit the rich first and foremost. Hopefully I don't have to explain why this is the case.

Socialists should use Cuba as an example of a successful implementation of socialism. Again, review the statistics of Cuba's medical system, education system, levels of housing and more. I have no idea as to why you're trying to tell us Ireland is more socialistic than Cuba.

No, I disagree.

How can you point to the benifits of socialism by using Cuba, a non-socialist country?

Does that also mean we can point to, say, Ireland, a heavily capitalised society, as the benifits of socialism are Free Speech and Greater freedom as a whole?

In that case, I dont see why socialists should fixate themselves on Cuba, when other very impressive ongoings are happening here under capitalism in Ireland - if not more so in Ireland than in Cuba as a comparison to socialism.

A single party, single man, authoritarian state couldnt be further from socialism. Ireland is much closer, yet we dont fixate and use it as an example, why Cuba is an exception is beyond me.

I wish people wouldn't believe the BS my government spreads. NO POLITICAL PARTY IN CUBA IS ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS. People are not nominated by parties, and do not affiliate with them in elections. Castro didn't have authoritarian power, and he excercised less of it; the National Assembly has by far the most power in the Cuban government.

We don't use Ireland as an example because it isn't socialist, whereas Cuba is.

Why not? - they were not socialist (fact).

If the objective conditions dont exist - socialism is not possible. If the material conditions dont exist, we shouldnt settle for something undesirable such as Cuba or the USSR, but rather, and most preferably, a system of capitalism for which we have today - where greater freedom is achieved for the workers - and less isolation on an international scale.

I would rather live where im living now - under capitalism - than in Cuba or any other dictatorship.

They were socialist, you're 100% wrong to assert that they were not. A cursory look at the definition of a socialist country will verify this.

Cuba is "undesirable"? You're telling me that a world-class health system, a literacy rate approaching 100%, universal housing, equity, virtual guaranteed employment, countless improvements for workers and farmers and more is "undesirable"? Get a clue: Cuba has done more for its people than anyone ever thought possible; even the WORLD BANK was forced to admit these spectacular results that socialist Cuba has achieved.

In spite of these undeniable successes, you're suggesting that capitalism is better? Explain yourself.

And in case you forgot, Cuba's isolation *might* be due to a little siege that Uncle Sam has been maintaining for the past half a century against the island.

If you took into account standards of living, Ireland is more "desirable" than Cuba, but to completely ignore the huge economic burden on Cuba is patently ridiculous and misses the root cause. However, taking into account the siege, Cuba is far more desirable than Ireland.

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

As does the USA, Ireland, France, japan etc have certain positive elements that we would attribute to socialism.

We dont aim for such systems of society that is capitalism - so we oppose them.

We dont aim for systems such as that in Cuba - so we oppose them.

We do not attribute them as "the best examples, or closest examples to socialism".

They are not - and should be opposed, not in awe.

What "positive elements of Socialism" does the US contain? Japan? Are you kidding me?

If you claim to oppose the Cuban system, you oppose socialism, period. That's as clear as day, and I hope you can recognize this.

The only thing I'm in awe of is that I have to respond to these sorts of claims on a leftist website.

Im not talking about mistakes, im talking about comparison. The example I gave would be similar to our aims for a society.

Cuba, USSR couldnt be further from substantive democratic control of the economy.

Again, you are incorrect on Cuba (refer to my link above). Perhaps the Soviet Union did not have "substantive democratic control of the economy", but it was still socialist and that was far better than what has replaced it.

Forward Union

7th January 2007, 18:13

You could argue that Ukraine was Communist from the years 1917-1921. The peoples assemblies ruled themselves and the state certainly did not exist in any form. Though the Makhnovist army that defended it was hierachical. It was certainly a lot better sustained and longer lasting that the attempts of the CNT. And the paris commune.

Connolly

7th January 2007, 18:31

[for electrical reasons beyond my control, I have lost my reply which answered each of your points individually - I coulnt be arsed writing it all again. So I will respond with something lesser]

Firstly, your definition of socialism is simply incorrect.

On Dictionary.com, there are several definitions.

The one we are interested in, is this one.

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

This is not the case with Cuba. The "vest" of control is in the hands of an elite class, Castro being one.

Castro is NOT a member of the proletariat. Cubas "socialism" is not classless.

Perhaps you could cite examples of "democratically controlled workplaces" not associated with socialism that have existed for "thousands of years".

Substantive democratic control of the economy and society existed for the majority of human existence. Very recently in our human history have we seen the emergence of the state.

In spite of these undeniable successes, you're suggesting that capitalism is better? Explain yourself.

Yes, capitalism is better.

Would you consider Libya socialist?

What "positive elements of Socialism" does the US contain? Japan? Are you kidding me?

Greater freedom of movement.

If you claim to oppose the Cuban system, you oppose socialism, period. That's as clear as day, and I hope you can recognize this.

The only thing I'm in awe of is that I have to respond to these sorts of claims on a leftist website.

No, I havnt recognized Cuba as socialist - and never will. Unless we are to re-invent the word to suit your little fantasy.

Yes, this is a leftist website. Your position clearly demonstrates that you are either an authoritarian or stalinist.

but it was still socialist and that was far better than what has replaced it.

True, but that dosnt make it socialist.

manic expression

7th January 2007, 19:28

Socialism is the period between capitalism and communism, where there can be a state. Marx never really specified exactly what this phase should look like, probably because he wanted the idea to be flexible.

Let me accept the definition you put forth, for the sake of argument.

The fact is that the USSR, for all intensive purposes, used its resources and means of production for the whole. It was socialist in that the state controlled those aspects of society, and directed them in a way that benefitted the whole of society. I could go on, but you should get the picture. The USSR, for all its failings, had a socialist system.

This is not the case with Cuba. The "vest" of control is in the hands of an elite class, Castro being one.

Castro is NOT a member of the proletariat. Cubas "socialism" is not classless.

The fact that you insinuate that Castro is some big bad dictator controlling the entire island is extremely misled. If you checked my link you would see an outline of the Cuban political system, which is far more democratic than any capitalist country could ever portray themselves as. The fact is that the Cuban people have a great voice in government, and so the Cuban people control the means of production.

Castro was Cuba's head of state, and there is a very good reason for that: the Cuban people support the revolutionary government. Was he directly elected? No, he was elected by the Popular Assembly, which was elected by the people, effectively making his position one that the Cuban people supported.

Cuba's socialism is socialism, and while there are a few recent inequities (minimal ones at that), it is generally a society with a great amount of equity and equality (read: classless society).

By the way, that's what Dictionary.com says, not what necessarily what socialists say.

Substantive democratic control of the economy and society existed for the majority of human existence. Very recently in our human history have we seen the emergence of the state.

You mean after the Ice Age? The Vedic Janapadas? In my Civilization II game? Even accepting your argument, that was then, this is now, there are an unending amount of socioeconomic differences that need to be overcome. Yours is as null of a point as one can find.

Yes, capitalism is better.

Would you consider Libya socialist?

Yeah, I figured you thought as much. At least you're honest about being against socialism.

As much as I consider the DPRK socialist, meaning nominally, if at all. Surely you're not seriously comparing Cuba to Libya, for if you are, that is laughable.

No, I havnt recognized Cuba as socialist - and never will. Unless we are to re-invent the word to suit your little fantasy.

Yes, this is a leftist website. Your position clearly demonstrates that you are either an authoritarian or stalinist.

Then you haven't recognized reality. Cuba is socialist, and no amount of denying the obvious will change this. I even used your definition of socialist to validate my conclusions on both the USSR and Cuba, which means you have no real argument.

One would imagine that people on a leftist website would favor socialism over capitalism. Thankfully, you seem to be the exception to that rule.

You can call me those words all day long, but it changes nothing.

True, but that dosnt make it socialist.

Not necessarily, but other factors do. This includes, among other things, the direction of resources and the distribution of wealth.

What this comes down to is that contrary to what you believe, a society can be socialist while having a state.

manic expression

7th January 2007, 19:41

Here's a definition of socialism that's a bit more extensive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or it may be indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often associated with state, community or worker ownership of the means of production."

RGacky3

7th January 2007, 19:57

There are many instances of communities that can be considered Communist, (most of them are small scale and last a short period of time, usually because they are ended by force). The Zapatistas Territories are pretty close be being called Communist I think, during the Spanish revolution the Anarchists ran things communistically, during the Hungarian revolt against the USSR, many areas were run Communistically, the Paris commune of coarse, During the Argentine riots many factories were taken over and run communistically, Oaxaca is on the right path. I don't think its EVER been achieved doing it the Vanguardist way of State Socialism to Communism, any time its been achieved its been basically done the Anarchist way. Also many of the old tribal systems were run communistically. There are some communes in western countries that run themselves that way, the Kibutz are a good example as well. After the Russian revolution when the Soviets ran things it could be considered pretty much communism (untill the communist party took over, which ironically ended communism). I'm sure there are more examples, but if your looking for a country example, of a whole country that has achieved it you probably won't and never will find it, Communism is achieved not through a state, not through a Political Party, not through a rebel group,but through mass public Direct action, or an uprising. Many times its a General strike that starts a community on the road to communism, and I think that is the best way.

Connolly

7th January 2007, 21:00

Socialism is the period between capitalism and communism, where there can be a state.

Not necessarily. Socialism has been, and is used to the present day, as a word by anarchists to describe the necessary transitional period - without a state. Any communist society must be achieved through a transitional phase, anarchists believe this also.

Marx never really specified exactly what this phase should look like, probably because he wanted the idea to be flexible.

Wasnt that a great mistake then, It could have stopped Marxism being tarnished by the misuse of its word and ideology by Cuba and the USSR and other bourgeois dictatorships.

The fact is that the USSR, for all intensive purposes, used its resources and means of production for the whole. It was socialist in that the state controlled those aspects of society, and directed them in a way that benefitted the whole of society. I could go on, but you should get the picture. The USSR, for all its failings, had a socialist system.

I do get the picture - but its not socialism.

Socialism must have workers control. It cannot have an administrative and leading elite. It wouldnt be classless otherwise.

Both the USSR and Cuba had these elites controlling and managing the economy. Socialism means the workers manage the economy directly - by substantive democratic control.

If it aint worker controlled, it aint classless.

The fact that you insinuate that Castro is some big bad dictator controlling the entire island is extremely misled. If you checked my link you would see an outline of the Cuban political system, which is far more democratic than any capitalist country could ever portray themselves as. The fact is that the Cuban people have a great voice in government, and so the Cuban people control the means of production.

The simple fact that Castro exists in the position he has - Proves cuba is not classless, and therefore not socialist.

Socialism wouldnt simply give "great" voice in government, it would give complete and total voice in every sector of society - cuba dosnt - castro exists.

His fucking brother is set to take over for gods sake - its a bloody monarchy if anything.

Castro was Cuba's head of state, and there is a very good reason for that: the Cuban people support the revolutionary government. Was he directly elected? No, he was elected by the Popular Assembly, which was elected by the people, effectively making his position one that the Cuban people supported.

But thats not substantive democratic control, thats representitive democracy.

In that case, President Clinton was elected through such and such body by the people and therefore has just as much right to be in a position of power over the US.

Same here in Ireland, Ahern was elected to a position of power by the people, therefore, I could argue along the same lines as you, the people "want and support him".

The difference between Cuba and Ireland is that Bertie gets kicked out again after four years "by the people", Castro sits in his thrown for a lifetime - then gives control to his brother - for another reign by the family monarchy.

You cannot create socialism using bourgeois representative democracy - it must be direct working class control - substantive democracy - lacking in Cuba greatly.

Cuba's socialism is socialism, and while there are a few recent inequities (minimal ones at that), it is generally a society with a great amount of equity and equality

As in what?...money?

Money dosnt define a Marxian class. Marxian class is defined by relations to production.

Cuba is not classless - plain and simple.

You mean after the Ice Age? The Vedic Janapadas? In my Civilization II game? Even accepting your argument, that was then, this is now, there are an unending amount of socioeconomic differences that need to be overcome. Yours is as null of a point as one can find.

You asked me.

Yeah, I figured you thought as much. At least you're honest about being against socialism.

As much as I consider the DPRK socialist, meaning nominally, if at all. Surely you're not seriously comparing Cuba to Libya, for if you are, that is laughable.

Im afraid, comrade, you are the one who is against workers control with your support for authoritarian elitist Cuba.

Why? whats wrong with that comparison Libya, Cuba?

Libya - Cuba - centralised elite control over economic affairs

Libya - Cuba - both proport to be "socialist" (Libya is short for the countries actual name - check it out, Libya actually has socialist engrained in its official name)

Libya - Cuba - Both have heavily nationalised economies

Libya - Cuba - Freedom of movement, for the vast majority, is restricted to within national borders - Libya less so.

Libya - Cuba - Both maintain single party, single dictatorial systems

Libya - Cuba - Both are very restrictive about private ownership.

etc etc. The comparison is endless, both leak from the same strand of rotten false socialism.

Not necessarily, but other factors do. This includes, among other things, the direction of resources and the distribution of wealth.

Socialism is classless - they arnt (full stop).

Its reformed capitalism, abit like what Chavez is doing with his "bolivarian revolution" - no wonder the two get along.

What this comes down to is that contrary to what you believe, a society can be socialist while having a state.

Its not contrary to my position at all. Its quite possible socialism will have a state - just not in the way you portray and reference it.

Labor Shall Rule

7th January 2007, 21:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:45 pm
These 'revolutions' did not degenerate through counter revolution or material circumstances; they failed because Leninism is an ideology that advocates that a centralised and dedicated group of intellectuals should create and guide the transition to Socialism. This is inherently and implicitly oppossed to working-class power and leads to centralised state structures based on heirachy. Indeed, it should be noted that Lenin ordered a ban on factions in 1921, consequently silencing the Workers opposition who advocated the restoration of independent Trade Unions.
Here is just more evidence that people against the vanguard have absolutely no idea what it even is. It is the most politically advanced layer of the working class organized into a political party leading by example, struggle, education, and agitation. The necessity of a working class party carrying out the revolution and securing its dominance as the ruling class doesn't necessarily mean that a one-party state will emerge.

The Grey Blur

7th January 2007, 21:51

That means nothing - "an attempt".
When the workers and oppressed of a country overthrow the buergeois and attempt to create a Socialist society this is a monumental feat. In dismissing out of hand these movements and revolutionary societies you are blinding yourself to the lessons that can be learned from them.

I could "attempt" to turn lead into gold - I could learn something of an historical lesson from doing it in the process, that is - its impossible to do so.
Are you saying that it's impossible to create a Socialist society?

An attempt at socialism, when socialism is impossible under such objective conditions - means nothing but with the historical lessons learned.
An attempt at Socialism, even a flawed one, can serve as an example to the oppressed of the world that there is a Socialist alternative - this is shown in how the German, Spanish and even Irish proleteriat attemoted to follow the Bolsheviks revolutionary seizure of power.

I have also already listed the material gains that where made through these revolutions as well - improved living conditions, proper housing, full and free healthcare, and end to sexual discrimination, etc

And so what? - what relevence is this to achieving socialism if the long term theory doesn not work out - ie. the progression/regression to a state "socialist" elite and capitalism and the problem of destroying POWER.
The failure of former Socialist states was not pre-ordained, it is only with hindsight that it is easy to decry these revolutionary attempts at seizing power. In my opinion the reasons for these failures should be examined - whether it be beuraucratic counter-revolution or political inexperience or whatever - and thus lessons can be learned from them.

Originally posted by redbanner+--> (redbanner)Socialism is where the workers control the means of production in a democratic way.[/b]

redbanner
I mean, democratically controlled work places are nothing new, they could be thousands of years old in various forms - they have nothing of relevence when considering whether Cuba, the USSR or any other authoritarian state regime are socialist or not.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Unfortunately many of these countries today are flawed Socialist societiesMany? what exceptions are you making?
Cuba's Socialist system still existing and the USSR, Cambodia, Angola, having returned to Capitalist forms.

How can you point to the benifits of socialism by using Cuba, a non-socialist country?
Cuba is a Socialist country - the planned economy, limited worker's democracy, the revolution and nationalisation would all point to this being true.

Not to mention the fact that the most aggressively Capitalist nation on earth, the USA, have opposed Cuba since the revolution and today still carry out an economic blockade against it as well as millions of dollars worth of anti-Castro propaganda. Would they carry out all these measures if Cuba was not a Socialist example for the oppressed of the world to follow?

A single party, single man, authoritarian state couldnt be further from socialism
1)Define "authoritarian".

2)I agree, the political system in Cuba is flawed - that is why I and other Socialists advocate a "political revolution" in Cuba which would see the planned economy and other benefits of the revolution kept while full democratic control returning to the workers and under classes.

Worker's control is one of the defining elements of Socialism yet when this cannot be achieved due to material conditions or though a bureaucratic counter-revolution we should not entirely dismiss these examples as 'not socialist'Why not? - they were not socialist (fact).
Yet they were attempts to create Socialism and contained many elements of our desired Socialist society. Also, they are generally taken to be 'examples of Socialism' by the layman and thus we must engage with this.

I would rather live where im living now - under capitalism - than in Cuba or any other dictatorship.
Capitalism is a dictatorship of the beurgeois. If you are working-class then the Cuban system would directly benefit you, whatever luxuries you have now under Capitalism are only afforded to you by a temporary postive fluctuation of the market - when a recession hits watch all your material and abstract luxuries being stripped away one after another.

As does the USA, Ireland, France, japan etc have certain positive elements that we would attribute to socialism.
Like what exactly?

If you meant a welfare state then this can be seen as a direct result of the pressure exterted by strong Communist movements on the buergeois policy-makers.

We dont aim for such systems of society that is capitalism - so we oppose them.

We dont aim for systems such as that in Cuba - so we oppose them.
We oppose Capitalism, we defend Cuba. Yet, more importantly - we defend the true ideal of Socialism - a democratic society where the products of our labour are used for the benefit of society as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibutz
Thanks, interesting group there.

Connolly

7th January 2007, 22:59

It is the most politically advanced layer of the working class organized into a political party leading by example, struggle, education, and agitation.

Why are they more "politically advanced" than the ordinary worker?
Why should the worker follow their lead and example over their own general action and thoughts?

When the workers and oppressed of a country overthrow the buergeois and attempt to create a Socialist society this is a monumental feat. In dismissing out of hand these movements and revolutionary societies you are blinding yourself to the lessons that can be learned from them.

Im sorry comrade, in relation to this discussion, an attempt means nothing. I am not discussing attempts, I am discussing social comparison.

You are probably right, attempts have historical lessons with which we should learn.

Are you saying that it's impossible to create a Socialist society?

Under certain objective conditions, yes - such as Cuba and the Soviet Union - it was impossible.

An attempt at Socialism, even a flawed one, can serve as an example to the oppressed of the world that there is a Socialist alternative - this is shown in how the German, Spanish and even Irish proleteriat attemoted to follow the Bolsheviks revolutionary seizure of power.

No, I dont think relating socialism to Cuba or the USSR serves as an example of socialism at all. How could it - when they were not socialist?

We can propose a theoretical socialist model as of now, we dont need these comparisons.

It must be remembered, socialism has not existed. We do not know with any great confidence that Socialism is possible at all.

I have also already listed the material gains that where made through these revolutions as well - improved living conditions, proper housing, full and free healthcare, and end to sexual discrimination, etc

Id agree with you. But these have also been made under western capitalism. They could, historically, be attributed to the rise of modern industrial society (that is, economic and technological advances).

They are not due to "socialism".

The failure of former Socialist states was not pre-ordained, it is only with hindsight that it is easy to decry these revolutionary attempts at seizing power. In my opinion the reasons for these failures should be examined - whether it be beuraucratic counter-revolution or political inexperience or whatever - and thus lessons can be learned from them.

Id agree. Though with a slightly different take on things than you might have - not for discussing here.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

No, I am not. Democratic control alone dosnt constitute socialism. If I say democratic control has existed, that dosnt mean socialism has existed. Socialism is a combination of things.

Cuba's Socialist system still existing and the USSR, Cambodia, Angola, having returned to Capitalist forms.

But the cuban system isnt socialism. So there are no exceptions.

Cuba is a Socialist country - the planned economy, limited worker's democracy, the revolution and nationalisation would all point to this being true.

But its not socialist! Classes exist - Castro - clearly being a member of the ruling.

Not to mention the fact that the most aggressively Capitalist nation on earth, the USA, have opposed Cuba since the revolution and today still carry out an economic blockade against it as well as millions of dollars worth of anti-Castro propaganda.

Thats very unfortunate for Cuba, and I oppose US imperialist sanctions. I support what Chavez does. I support the revolution in Nepal. I support all progressive movements and those opposed to existing oppression (Cuba being just one).

But that, again, shouldnt obscure an objective analysis of things, that is, that Cuba, by definition, and historically speaking, is not socialist.

Just because they arnt socialist dosnt mean we shouldnt give support to them.

Socialism and support cannot be confused.

1)Define "authoritarian".

In relation to this socialist comparison, an authoritarian reigime gives power to a class other than the proletariat - this is the case with Cuba, in which the proletariat, through collective action, do not "govern themselves" - but are governed by a separate class.

2)I agree, the political system in Cuba is flawed - that is why I and other Socialists advocate a "political revolution" in Cuba which would see the planned economy and other benefits of the revolution kept while full democratic control returning to the workers and under classes.

I couldnt much disagree. It would be preferable to see "political revolution" in most of the worlds under-developed nations, such as Cuba. Whether it would achieve socialism is another matter, and would require deep analysis of social and economic conditions. I doubt socialism could be achieved in Cuba at this time, infact, I assert it as a near impossibility.

Yet they were attempts to create Socialism and contained many elements of our desired Socialist society. .

Yes, they may well have contained elements of what we believe to be socialism - but so does western capitalism - infact, more so.

Also, they are generally taken to be 'examples of Socialism' by the layman and thus we must engage with this

Well, if the layman believes this to be socialism, we should either change our goals name, or educate him as to his incorrectness. Though I do understand what you mean.

Capitalism is a dictatorship of the beurgeois. If you are working-class then the Cuban system would directly benefit you, whatever luxuries you have now under Capitalism are only afforded to you by a temporary postive fluctuation of the market - when a recession hits watch all your material and abstract luxuries being stripped away one after another.

Yes, very true. However, capitalism, as a naturally emerging system around any given level of production and economic technology - is most efficient. "free competition" does serve an historical and economic function.

I have argued this before in other threads, we cannot mould production around society, but that society is moulded around production. The means of production being the root of all other social structures and classes.

We are living in a society which favours our present means to produce.

NO social contradictions exist between the means of production and their social relations - something completely necessary for social change.

Like what exactly?

If you meant a welfare state then this can be seen as a direct result of the pressure exterted by strong Communist movements on the buergeois policy-makers.

Greater freedom of movement, speech and democracy.

Remember the Berlin Wall? or was that a conspiracy?

Under so-called "socialist" regimes, freedom of individual movement is heavily restricted. DPRK for example, Cuba, another, USSR another - all of them.

Another closer element: more advanced social relations to production and generally, greater technology of production - again - closer to socialism than the USSR was - forget Cuba.

We oppose Capitalism, we defend Cuba.

Cuba is state-capitalist. We oppose such systems. Though we defend it against any forms of sanctions and oppression.

we defend the true ideal of Socialism - a democratic society where the products of our labour are used for the benefit of society as a whole.

I completely agree with you here. That is why I oppose using Cuba, and various others, as icons of our ideal.

Theay are far from it. Better examples existed - such as that achieved by CNT anarchists.

manic expression

8th January 2007, 00:44

Not necessarily. Socialism has been, and is used to the present day, as a word by anarchists to describe the necessary transitional period - without a state. Any communist society must be achieved through a transitional phase, anarchists believe this also.

The point is that there CAN be a state. What anarchists would prefer has no bearing on Cuba or the USSR. Sure, anarchists don't agree with the Cuban system, we all know that, but that doesn't make Cuba not socialist.

Wasnt that a great mistake then, It could have stopped Marxism being tarnished by the misuse of its word and ideology by Cuba and the USSR and other bourgeois dictatorships.

No, it wasn't a mistake, Marx didn't want to try to formulate an exact model for people to follow, and he was right. And to say that Cuba and/or the USSR "tarnished" Marxism is both pompous and ludicrous. The USSR had many shortcomings, but that only "tarnished" Marxism in the minds of capitalists, anyone who looks at history knows otherwise.

I do get the picture - but its not socialism.

Socialism must have workers control. It cannot have an administrative and leading elite. It wouldnt be classless otherwise.

Both the USSR and Cuba had these elites controlling and managing the economy. Socialism means the workers manage the economy directly - by substantive democratic control.

If it aint worker controlled, it aint classless.

Yes, it is socialism. Your petty objections mean nothing in this regard.

Cuba DOES have workers' control. Secondly, it is not 100% necessary, as you can see from the wikipedia entry I posted. The state can make decisions on behalf of the people in socialism. Of course, you may not think it's best this way, but that hardly matters, it's still socialism.

So are you saying that there are no managers in socialism? That's just foolish; there's nothing against people taking managerial roles in socialism.

The USSR had elites, namely the nomenklatura, but these faults do not negate the status of socialism. Cuba doesn't really have an elite group (PCC? Not really).

You've never established this: who says you have to have "substantive democratic control"? It is a pathetic attempt of self-pleasuring delusion to think that there is only one way to go about socialism. You have not proven that socialism must have "substantive democratic control" or any of the other "requirements" you insist upon. Therefore, you have no argument.

Let me say this again: your objections are simply disagreements, and these disagreements have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE STATUS OF SOCIALISM. It smacks of self-centered, sectarian rhetoric to say that something isn't socialism just because TheRedBanner doesn't approve. :rolleyes:

The simple fact that Castro exists in the position he has - Proves cuba is not classless, and therefore not socialist.

Socialism wouldnt simply give "great" voice in government, it would give complete and total voice in every sector of society - cuba dosnt - castro exists.

His fucking brother is set to take over for gods sake - its a bloody monarchy if anything.

Socialist societies CAN HAVE STATES. Therefore, they can have governments with positions. Again, your petty objections are nothing but disagreements.

Castro has a monarchy? You have no f*cking clue what you're talking about, do you? Review the actual system of government, then get back to me. You're just further proving your ignorance.

But thats not substantive democratic control, thats representitive democracy.

In that case, President Clinton was elected through such and such body by the people and therefore has just as much right to be in a position of power over the US.

Same here in Ireland, Ahern was elected to a position of power by the people, therefore, I could argue along the same lines as you, the people "want and support him".

The difference between Cuba and Ireland is that Bertie gets kicked out again after four years "by the people", Castro sits in his thrown for a lifetime - then gives control to his brother - for another reign by the family monarchy.

You cannot create socialism using bourgeois representative democracy - it must be direct working class control - substantive democracy - lacking in Cuba greatly.

And again, who says you need TheRedBanner Approved ™ Substantive Democratic Control? No one does, except you.

American voters vote in capitalists. I don't like it, and I'll try to change it, but I know as well as anyone else that the American people support capitalism. Same goes for Cuba and their government.

There are numerous differences between Cuban and Ireland in their political systems. Since you're too ignorant to bother understanding the Cuban system, you ignorantly call it a "monarchy", which is possibly the dumbest thing I've heard this month.

It's not bourgeois representative democracy, it's socialist democracy.

And again, your repetitive drivel over "substantive democracy" a.) ignores the fact that there is substantive democracy and b.) ignores the fact that there is no one way to establish and maintain socialism.

As in what?...money?

Money dosnt define a Marxian class. Marxian class is defined by relations to production.

Cuba is not classless - plain and simple.

Yes, in money, which is a pretty important factor.

Again, socialism can have mangers and directors, as well as people in government positions. Disagree all you like, it's still socialism.

You have no argument - plain and simple.

Also, I like how you try to lecture me about Marxian philosophy, while you say Marx made a "mistake" by not writing exactly what you wanted him to write on socialism.

You asked me.

I asked you for an actual answer. You gave me some BS response that specified nothing. Answer the question.

Im afraid, comrade, you are the one who is against workers control with your support for authoritarian elitist Cuba.

Why? whats wrong with that comparison Libya, Cuba?

Libya - Cuba - centralised elite control over economic affairs

Libya - Cuba - both proport to be "socialist" (Libya is short for the countries actual name - check it out, Libya actually has socialist engrained in its official name)

Libya - Cuba - Both have heavily nationalised economies

Libya - Cuba - Freedom of movement, for the vast majority, is restricted to within national borders - Libya less so.

Libya - Cuba - Both maintain single party, single dictatorial systems

Libya - Cuba - Both are very restrictive about private ownership.

etc etc. The comparison is endless, both leak from the same strand of rotten false socialism.

You're the one opposing socialist states, and you're the one singing the praises of capitalist states. That is quite the paradox you've gotten yourself into.

I'd like to say, once again, that you have no clue as to what you're talking about. None. Do I have to point out the unending number of differences between Cuba and Libya? Do some research, then come back and talk, because right now you're either completely misinformed or refusing to look at what I try to show you.

Socialism is classless - they arnt (full stop).

Its reformed capitalism, abit like what Chavez is doing with his "bolivarian revolution" - no wonder the two get along.

Socialism can have a state, socialism can have managers. Your insistence on what is so obviously untrue changes nothing. You can disagree with their systems, but to suggest that they are not socialist is nothing short of wrong.

Its not contrary to my position at all. Its quite possible socialism will have a state - just not in the way you portray and reference it.

Yes, it is in fact contrary to your position, since you object to Cuba having governmental positions.

Cuba is socialist, the USSR was socialist. No amount of your objections or disagreements will change this, because they are only objections and disagreements and nothing more.

Right now you're arguing with an accepted and established fact. You're going to lose.

manic expression

8th January 2007, 00:46

The RedBanner, please respond to the quote from wikipedia that I posted.

manic expression

8th January 2007, 01:06

Let me make this simple for The RedBanner.

When I say "authority", I want either a well-known Marxist writing that would support your claim, or a general authority (a historian) that would do the same.

The RedBanner, please do the following:

1.) Cite an authority that holds "substantive democratic control" and/or a "(full stop) classless society" as a REQUIREMENT for socialism.

2.) Cite an authority that claims that a state, with governmental positions, is INCOMPATIBLE with socialism.

3.) Cite an authority that states that managerial roles are INCOMPATIBLE with socialism.

4.) Cite an authority that would undeniably disqualify Cuba (and/or the USSR) from socialist status.

5.) Effectively specify how one is to distinguish what you would call "socialist society" (in other words, what is "substantive" and what is not; you need to fully clarify your "requirements" for socialism).

6.) Respond to the citation I made from wikipedia above (if you haven't done so already).

The Grey Blur

8th January 2007, 01:42

Why are they more "politically advanced" than the ordinary worker?
Because they have come into contact with Socialist ideas and have adopted them.

Why should the worker follow their lead and example over their own general action and thoughts?
Here is an excellent and concise explanation of the need for a vanguard of the working class:

"Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam."

Im sorry comrade, in relation to this discussion, an attempt means nothing
The topic-starter asked if there has ever been a society which has progressed to Communism - we both agree that there hasn't been one. But, you then said that "Socialism" has never been achieved either - dismissing the genuine revolutionary attempts and successes in the following countries; "(Russia), Cuba, China, Vietnam, Angola, Laos etc." I disagree with you on this and have provided examples and evidence to back up my disagreements and to defend these revolutionary movements.

Under certain objective conditions, yes - such as Cuba and the Soviet Union - it was impossible.
Russia was a semi-feudal country yet it's beurgeois were not strong enough to carry out the revolution that was required and thus this responsibility to advance society fell to the proleteriat and it's representatives, the Bolsheviks. Lenin believed that "Capitalism would break at it's weakest link" and that following their example the rest of Europe would ignite in revolution. He was correct but these revolutions failed through objective factors of their own and the isolated Bolshevik state soon degenerated.

Simply put, the Menshevik argument that the conditions weren't right for Socialism and that the the Russian revolution should not have taken place simply means the First World War bloodbath would have continued, democratic elections would have endlessly been postponed and land reform would never have taken place. When the proleteriat is in such a position of power as in October 1917 they must seize power or the counter-revolution will roll back all gains.

We do not know with any great confidence that Socialism is possible at all.
Then what will be the outcome of the inevitable proleterian victory in the class struggle?

We can propose a theoretical socialist model as of now, we dont need these comparisons.
We need these concrete examples or people will simply dismiss Socialism as utopian.

Cuba is a Socialist country - the planned economy, limited worker's democracy, the revolution and nationalisation would all point to this being true.

But its not socialist! Classes exist Castro - clearly being a member of the ruling class
Classes do exist in Socialism. Also, Castro is not a member of a new ruling class but a rather a figurehead of the bureacratic caste.

Thats very unfortunate for Cuba....Socialism and support cannot be confused
My point was this; why would the most aggressive epitome of Capitalism today - the US - be so violently opposed to Cuba if it was not a revolutionary Socialist example to the oppressed of the world?

In relation to this socialist comparison, an authoritarian reigime gives power to a class other than the proletariat
Kinda like capitalism then.

but are governed by a separate class.
The bureacucrats that pollute the Cuban regime are not a seperate class but rather a parasitic caste - the market conditions do not exist in Cuba to support a seperate ruling class.

Yes, they may well have contained elements of what we believe to be socialism - but so does western capitalism - infact, more so.
What elements of Socialism does western capitalism contain?

NO social contradictions exist between the means of production and their social relations - something completely necessary for social change.
Under Capitalism a small elite control the means of production and exploit the labour power of the majority to become wealthy. This is a clear social contradiction.

Greater freedom of movement, speech and democracy.
Freedom of movement for the rich capitalists and their jet-setting lifestyles.
Freedom of speech for the capitalists who control the media conglomerates.
Democracy for the rich elite who control the political, social, economic and cultural power in the Capitalist system.

Another closer element: more advanced social relations to production and generally, greater technology of production
To use the example of the USSR - When central planning was introduced under Stalin it exceeded all productive expectations - growth targets were repeatedly smashed. This transformation from mainly agrarian society to industrialised super-power was unprecedented - capitalist countries had taken centuries of development to get to this point. Huge leaps were also made in the realm of technology.

The downside to this economic miracle was the huge wastage, up to 30% of production, due to the bungling, corruption and bad planning inherent in the undemocratic command system of economic management. This can be countered through democratic planning as opposed to bureaucratic planning - this is what I and other Socialists are in favour of.

Cuba is state-capitalist.
If you'll allow me to quote Trotsky:

"We often seek salvation from unfamiliar phenomena in familiar terms. An attempt has been made to conceal the enigma of the Soviet regime by calling it "state capitalism." This term has the advantage that nobody knows exactly what it means"

Substitue 'Soviet' for 'Cuban and you'll get what I'm at. State Capitalism, as a way of describing flawed Socialist states, is inherently incorrect. Find out why! (http://www.marksist.com/kitaplik/onlineKitap/ILM/ch8.htm)

Better examples existed - such as that achieved by CNT anarchists
Yet they made mistakes just like the Bolsheviks, the Cuban revolutionaries and all those other revolutionaries movements you dismissed. They are one of those 'failed attempts' you feel are so worthless.

To conclude, an example of Socialism functioning successfully today, no matter how flawed, has impossibly more weight than a failed attempt a long time ago. This is why we should point to the Cuban regime as an indicator of the immense advantages of Socialism - While still independently critiscising the regime as well as defending true Socialism.

Connolly

8th January 2007, 01:44

The point is that there CAN be a state. What anarchists would prefer has no bearing on Cuba or the USSR. Sure, anarchists don't agree with the Cuban system, we all know that, but that doesn't make Cuba not socialist.

As I said - Cuba has a class system - it is not socialist.

And to say that Cuba and/or the USSR "tarnished" Marxism is both pompous and ludicrous. The USSR had many shortcomings, but that only "tarnished" Marxism in the minds of capitalists, anyone who looks at history knows otherwise.

No, generally when you ask a worker - "what do you think of communism?" - he dosnt say, oh, Marxism you mean (or even - whats that - communism?) - he responds negativly and with misconceptions - all grounded on the failures of the Soviet union and other failed systems and its propagation by capitalist media.

The USSR fucked Marxism up - and the continued support by Marxists for socialism as a Cuban example continues to fuck things up.

They have fuck all to do with Marxism - other than they call themselves socialist.

Of course, you may not think it's best this way, but that hardly matters, it's still socialism.

Cuba is not classless - and therfore not socialist.

Cuba doesn't really have an elite group (PCC? Not really).

So its just by fluke then is it, that Raul is given power during Castro's crisis or death?

Or maybe it suggests that the ordinary person cannot dream of being in such a position.

You are fooling yourself if you think elites arnt present in Cuba.

You've never established this: who says you have to have "substantive democratic control"? It is a pathetic attempt of self-pleasuring delusion to think that there is only one way to go about socialism. You have not proven that socialism must have "substantive democratic control" or any of the other "requirements" you insist upon. Therefore, you have no argument.

Quite simply - a person cannot be a worker and be a represnative at the same time. If there is no substantve democracy, there must be those doing the work, and those making decisions as to what is to be done - being represntatives that is.

From a materialist point of view - being determines consciousness. That is - if one is not a worker, he does not think or make decisions like a worker. And since socialism is a society based on workers control, having a represntative system does not allow the workers to control anything when you have representatives.

Let me say this again: your objections are simply disagreements, and these disagreements have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE STATUS OF SOCIALISM. It smacks of self-centered, sectarian rhetoric to say that something isn't socialism just because TheRedBanner doesn't approve.

No, im stating as a matter of fact, that socialism is classless.

Cuba is not - and therefore is not socialist.

There can be no disagreement.

Socialist societies CAN HAVE STATES. Therefore, they can have governments with positions. Again, your petty objections are nothing but disagreements.

Yes, they might have states - not the sort you propose and support though.

Castro has a monarchy? You have no f*cking clue what you're talking about, do you? Review the actual system of government, then get back to me. You're just further proving your ignorance.

:lol:

Simply, Castro exists as long-term dictator - therefore classes exist, therefore socialism does not exist.

It really is common sense - no exhaustive analysis is required :lol:

And again, who says you need TheRedBanner Approved ™ Substantive Democratic Control? No one does, except you.

Iv explained above. Without substantive democracy - classes exist.

And again, who says you need TheRedBanner Approved ™ Substantive Democratic Control? No one does, except you.

American voters vote in capitalists. I don't like it, and I'll try to change it, but I know as well as anyone else that the American people support capitalism. Same goes for Cuba and their government.

There are numerous differences between Cuban and Ireland in their political systems. Since you're too ignorant to bother understanding the Cuban system, you ignorantly call it a "monarchy", which is possibly the dumbest thing I've heard this month.

It's not bourgeois representative democracy, it's socialist democracy.

And again, your repetitive drivel over "substantive democracy" a.) ignores the fact that there is substantive democracy and b.)

Yawn!

ignores the fact that there is no one way to establish and maintain socialism.

How the fuck do you know?

1) Socialism has never existed
2) You dont know what socialism is - if you did - you would know Cuba isnt.
3) You dont have a crystal ball

There is Socialism and "socialism", there is communism and "Communism".

Go ahead - support your falsehoods.

Yes, in money, which is a pretty important factor.

Erm...no.

The plan is to abolish money. It has no importance to marxian class analysis.

Again, socialism can have mangers and directors, as well as people in government positions. Disagree all you like, it's still socialism.

What do government officials produce? - fuck all nothing.

What do they do - order people about, manage from a distance.

They are bourgeois ****s.

while you say Marx made a "mistake" by not writing exactly what you wanted him to write on socialism.

No, Marx is grand!

Its when people twist things around and add bits here and there to create a justification for state capitalism - thats where it all goes pear shaped.

You're the one opposing socialist states, and you're the one singing the praises of capitalist states. That is quite the paradox you've gotten yourself into.

Its not really when you consider that "socialist states" never existed.

Do I have to point out the unending number of differences between Cuba and Libya?

Yeah, go ahead.

You're going to lose.

:(

The RedBanner, please respond to the quote from wikipedia that I posted.

This is where I depart:

"or it may be indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state."

If its exercised on behalf of the people (workers) by government officials, it isnt workers control then is it?

The workers do not control the means of production in this case - government officials do.

The government officials are therefore a seperate class - and therefore, under this social organisation, it aint socialism.

This definition may refer to what capitalist bourgeois parasites call socialism - ie. Cuba, USSR etc.

It isnt what we aim for.

Connolly

8th January 2007, 02:11

1.) Cite an authority that holds "substantive democratic control" and/or a "(full stop) classless society" as a REQUIREMENT for socialism.

2.) Cite an authority that claims that a state, with governmental positions, is INCOMPATIBLE with socialism.

3.) Cite an authority that states that managerial roles are INCOMPATIBLE with socialism.

4.) Cite an authority that would undeniably disqualify Cuba (and/or the USSR) from socialist status.

Me

Me

Me

Me

Do you want me to kiss the arse of respected Marxists? - who the fuck are they - Lenin was wrong, Mao was wrong - Marx was wrong.

Just because they say so - dosnt make it true ore valid.

Im ready to argue my case without having to look for guidance from these. My authority is my logical understanding. It might be wrong - lets debate it.

5.) Effectively specify how one is to distinguish what you would call "socialist society" (in other words, what is "substantive" and what is not; you need to fully clarify your "requirements" for socialism).

Socialist society is distinguished by the existence of continued bourgeois opposition, and the necessity of the working class to organise into an effective fighting force to push forth their own production relations.

Organisation is undertaken at a very local level, organised into workers councils in which all representatives are continuously rotated and must be members of the working class (ie, they are not "full time" representatives).

Substantive democracy is achieved not only with the above, but with the workers controlling the product of their labour. With the workers making major decisions of economic, political and social importance. Major to them, in that they are organised into local communities.

None of which exists in Cuba, where production lines are present and where permanent government officials make major decisons on behalf of the working class.

6.) Respond to the citation I made from wikipedia above (if you haven't done so already).

This you mean?:

"Here is just more evidence that people against the vanguard have absolutely no idea what it even is. It is the most politically advanced layer of the working class organized into a political party leading by example, struggle, education, and agitation. The necessity of a working class party carrying out the revolution and securing its dominance as the ruling class doesn't necessarily mean that a one-party state will emerge. "

Well, simply, how do you define "most advanced". If it means reading a book, then you arnt more advanced than a Priest who gets spiritual elightenment from the bible - you become engrossed in ideas - possibly without any objective material basis or reality.

Class consciousness, rightfully (and I have the support of Marx), comes through economic conditions - not books.

Workers conclude socialsim as the best method based on objective experience.

On this basis - who has more validity - a worker (who's class is to take over) or a "proffessional revolutionary" or "vanguard" who no longer are working class but in a position of permanent leadership. The vanguard becomes a new and seperate class - just like in soviet Russia and elsewhere.

manic expression

8th January 2007, 02:58

As I said - Cuba has a class system - it is not socialist.

Please specify what this "class system" actually is. Next, show how there is no place for managers in socialism. You haven't, you've only spewed meaningless rhetoric.

Let me help you out: Cuba has a state, it has governmental positions. However, guess who owns the means of production: the people. If you knew anything about Cuba and its system of government and economy, you'd know that.

No, generally when you ask a worker - "what do you think of communism?" - he dosnt say, oh, Marxism you mean (or even - whats that - communism?) - he responds negativly and with misconceptions - all grounded on the failures of the Soviet union and other failed systems and its propagation by capitalist media.

The USSR fucked Marxism up - and the continued support by Marxists for socialism as a Cuban example continues to fuck things up.

They have fuck all to do with Marxism - other than they call themselves socialist.

You are so wrong on this I don't know where to begin.

The workers hate Marxism, socialism, leftism because they've bought capitalist lies. Is that Cuba's fault? OF COURSE NOT. Leftist beliefs have ALWAYS been slandered by the bourgeoisie ever since 1848 (arguably before that). Why are you taking bourgeois lies and propaganda into account?

The USSR had many faults, everyone knows this, but it was socialist by definition and it was beneficial to the people of the Soviet Union. Cuba is a great example of the benefits of socialism. You, however, know absolutely nothing about the societies you slander.

Instead of denying the FACT that a.) both states were socialist and b.) Cuba has done amazing things in many fields, why don't you come to grips with reality?

Cuba is not classless - and therfore not socialist.

Cuba doesn't really have classes. They have administrators, but so did the fucking Paris Commune. Your insistence that managers=class elitism is incorrect.

Furthermore, WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT SOCIALIST SOCIETIES *MUST* BE FULLY CLASSLESS AND DEVOID OF ADMINISTRATORS?

So its just by fluke then is it, that Raul is given power during Castro's crisis or death?

Or maybe it suggests that the ordinary person cannot dream of being in such a position.

You are fooling yourself if you think elites arnt present in Cuba.

Castro appointed a successor to his position when he couldn't carry out his duties. That is not undemocratic at all.

Or maybe your points suggest that you're beyond clueless. The link I gave you points out how IT COSTS NO MONEY TO RUN FOR OFFICE IN CUBA. Anyone can run and win office in the Cuban electoral system. Of course, you didn't know that, since you're clueless.

You're fooling yourself by not researching the very society you insult.

Quite simply - a person cannot be a worker and be a represnative at the same time. If there is no substantve democracy, there must be those doing the work, and those making decisions as to what is to be done - being represntatives that is.

From a materialist point of view - being determines consciousness. That is - if one is not a worker, he does not think or make decisions like a worker. And since socialism is a society based on workers control, having a represntative system does not allow the workers to control anything when you have representatives.

So I guess, according to you, the Paris Commune was an elitist, non-socialist system since they had representatives? :lol:

Get. Over. Yourself.

Socialism can have representatives, and the best implementations of socialism did use some sort of representative system (although it isn't a requirement).

Again, that IS substantive democracy, despite your ramblings. You can have managers and administrators in socialism, as that itself is a role that needs to be filled.

The nature of an administrator's work is such that their consciousness pertains to what they need to do. Saying that since they aren't in the factory, they can't make any decisions is an insignificant point: their work is to help direct society.

The workers in Cuba do control the system; the process allows anyone to run, and the process allows the people to have a great voice in government, as they should. Welcome to socialism.

No, im stating as a matter of fact, that socialism is classless.

Cuba is not - and therefore is not socialist.

There can be no disagreement.

You're stating BS that has no basis. According to you, since there are governmental positions, there is no socialism? That is simply untrue. CITE A VALID SOURCE, and then maybe, just maybe, you'll have a starting point for an argument.

Yes, they might have states - not the sort you propose and support though.

The states that I support are socialist in nature. You deny this fact and choose to applaud capitalist states.

Simply, Castro exists as long-term dictator - therefore classes exist, therefore socialism does not exist.

It really is common sense - no exhaustive analysis is required

Oh, he's a dictator? NAME ONE "DICTATORIAL" POWER HE POSSESSES. I'll give you a hint: you won't because you can't.

Castro is supported by the Cuban people. He has no dictatorial powers. The Cuban government has established and maintained socialism.

Therefore, your points have no validity, therefore your argument does not exist.

Iv explained above. Without substantive democracy - classes exist.

You've never specified what constitutes "substantive democracy". Do so, or else you have no argument.

Yawn!

Stunning argument. :lol:

How the fuck do you know?

1) Socialism has never existed
2) You dont know what socialism is - if you did - you would know Cuba isnt.
3) You dont have a crystal ball

There is Socialism and "socialism", there is communism and "Communism".

Go ahead - support your falsehoods.

1.) Socialism has existed. Karl Marx said as much (and, unfortunately for you, the very system he lauded USED REPRESENTATIVES).

2.) Yes, I do know what socialism is, as does seemingly everyone here but you.

In case you missed it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Soc...olitical_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Socialism_and_social_and_political_theor y)

3.) You don't have a single clue as to the situation in Cuba.

Now you're just dancing around this issue. Cuba is socialist, as was the USSR. Read the wikipedia entry and see for yourself.

Erm...no.

The plan is to abolish money. It has no importance to marxian class analysis.

Wow, you really are oblivious. Although the abolition of money is a characteristic of COMMUNISM, it is not necessarily so for SOCIALISM.

What do government officials produce? - fuck all nothing.

What do they do - order people about, manage from a distance.

They are bourgeois ****s.

Government officials direct the economy, among other things. That is something that may very well be needed in a socialist society. Like it or not, the role needs to be filled.

Right, the Paris Commune, the system Marx approved of, was just a bunch of "bourgeois ****s". This coming from a person who claims Ireland is more socialist than Cuba! :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, Marx is grand!

Its when people twist things around and add bits here and there to create a justification for state capitalism - thats where it all goes pear shaped.

I'm not twisting anything around. I'm sticking to the actual defintion of socialism, while you are sticking to some fallacy you keep dragging around. In addition, you're insulting the very system Marx encouraged and supported.

Its not really when you consider that "socialist states" never existed.

And again, you're 100% wrong, socialist states have existed.

Yeah, go ahead.

I expected that, since you seem to be incapable of researching anything.

Read this (I asked you to do this before, and yet you seem to have blatantly ignored it, not surprisingly):

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

That should get you started.

This is where I depart:

So, in essence, you're departing from an actual accepted description. Thanks for admitting your views have nothing to do with what socialism ACTUALLY IS.

If its exercised on behalf of the people (workers) by government officials, it isnt workers control then is it?

The workers do not control the means of production in this case - government officials do.

The government officials are therefore a seperate class - and therefore, under this social organisation, it aint socialism.

This definition may refer to what capitalist bourgeois parasites call socialism - ie. Cuba, USSR etc.

It isnt what we aim for.

There can be a role for managers in socialism, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise. The work they do allows such a society to function.

Please find a Marxist work which suggests that there is no such role. If you don't, you, again, have no argument.

It seems that truth and reality is not what you aim for.

manic expression

8th January 2007, 03:15

Me

Me

Me

Me

Do you want me to kiss the arse of respected Marxists? - who the fuck are they - Lenin was wrong, Mao was wrong - Marx was wrong.

Just because they say so - dosnt make it true ore valid.

Im ready to argue my case without having to look for guidance from these. My authority is my logical understanding. It might be wrong - lets debate it.

You didn't answer my first 4 questions. We're talking about what socialism is. You can make up some unfounded definition of socialism, as it seems you have, but that doesn't change the accepted and real meaning of socialism.

Therefore, to see if your personal definition is, in any way related to what socialism actually is (in real life, not in your head), I asked you to find some sources that would support what you say.

You cannot.

Since you cannot, your imagined socialism is, in fact, NOT what socialism actually is.

We can argue about what's in your imagination, but I like to stick with the real world.

Socialist society is distinguished by the existence of continued bourgeois opposition, and the necessity of the working class to organise into an effective fighting force to push forth their own production relations.

Organisation is undertaken at a very local level, organised into workers councils in which all representatives are continuously rotated and must be members of the working class (ie, they are not "full time" representatives).

Substantive democracy is achieved not only with the above, but with the workers controlling the product of their labour. With the workers making major decisions of economic, political and social importance. Major to them, in that they are organised into local communities.

None of which exists in Cuba, where production lines are present and where permanent government officials make major decisons on behalf of the working class.

Socialist society is a stage after capitalism, where communism is not yet established.

Why must organization be done along these lines? There is nothing to suggest that socialism cannot have governmental positions. Furthermore, once you appoint a representative, their work now becomes that of being a representative. Until they are rotated, they must carry out the duties that their fellow workers need them to carry out.

Your model is little different from Cuba (I do wish you would read that link). Workers, in public meetings, nominate candidates, who are then subjected to a yes-no vote by the general populace. That is local organization, but due to the realities of administrative duties, they must concentrate first and foremost on those duties. Without this, the socialist society would not function effectively.

Do not the workers control the products of their labor in that they direct where those resources go? THAT is control over products, and that is what Cuba has.

So yes, those things do exist in Cuba, perhaps not exactly as you would like them to, but the important factors that I addressed are undeniably there.

This you mean?:

No. I was referring to the passage that you addressed in your last post. The one where it includes "indirect control" and the existence of a state (and naturally governmental positions) in socialism.

However (just as food for thought, I'm not really promoting this persay), others have pointed out that the vanguard are simply workers who can lead by example. I am no Marxist-Leninist (left communist, roughly), but I can agree with such a system, as it does establish socialism and it does create a better world for the workers.

Connolly

8th January 2007, 03:16

Because they have come into contact with Socialist ideas and have adopted them.

You see, this is where it becomes more of a religion than a science based on reality.

According to many religions, if you are to be "saved", you must follow their ideas. Of course, those ideas are void of objective reality.

Its not a matter of the workers coming in contact with socialist ideas - since, to be honest - thats just complete idealism.

Workers must conclude, through economic circumstances and objective material conditions, that socialism is the way forward - not from reading a book.

Class consciousness, according to marx, develops out of economic circumstances. Id agree with him - since anything else is just ridiculous and is mere religion.

"Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam."

Im not against organisation. Im against "full-time" governers - that is - a seperate class.

Cuba has full time governers (not workers), Castro just one, a lifelong one.

Its illogical and anti-marxist.

Russia was a semi-feudal country yet it's beurgeois were not strong enough to carry out the revolution that was required and thus this responsibility to advance society fell to the proleteriat and it's representatives, the Bolsheviks. Lenin believed that "Capitalism would break at it's weakest link" and that following their example the rest of Europe would ignite in revolution. He was correct but these revolutions failed through objective factors of their own and the isolated Bolshevik state soon degenerated.

Simply put, the Menshevik argument that the conditions weren't right for Socialism and that the the Russian revolution should not have taken place simply means the First World War bloodbath would have continued, democratic elections would have endlessly been postponed and land reform would never have taken place. When the proleteriat is in such a position of power as in October 1917 they must seize power or the counter-revolution will roll back all gains.

Im not against the 1917 revolution, I simply know it wasnt socialist. It was progressive, sure, but not socialist.

Then what will be the outcome of the inevitable proleterian victory in the class struggle?

Its not inevitable. Barbarism is a possibility. The emergence of a new class system maybe.

Who knows. We are not Gods, we dont know. We can fight for what is right, further understand how society works and theorize possible alternatives and directions - that is it.

We need these concrete examples or people will simply dismiss Socialism as utopian.

Then why not use more desirable examples, ones that didnt end up as authoritarian regimes, ones that havnt been proven to disintigrate into a class system such as the USSR did.

CNT attempts for example - they failed do to some unfortunate circumstances - not due to inherent failures in their social organisation such as Leninism.

At least with them we can say - well, it might have workesd out if they didnt get smashed by francoists. With soviet style systems, we have seen them fail time and time again with their own accord.

Classes do exist in Socialism. Also, Castro is not a member of a new ruling class but a rather a figurehead of the bureacratic caste.

Im sorry, but they dont. When the working class sieze power, they have no need to replace the bourgeois with a new ruling class (socialism 101)

My point was this; why would the most aggressive epitome of Capitalism today - the US - be so violently opposed to Cuba if it was not a revolutionary Socialist example to the oppressed of the world?

For one, the US is an elitist operation. Cuba siezed bourgeois property in the form of sugar plantations belonging to US elites - and they dont like that. The US want their brand of capitalism exported to the whole world and run in their image. Cuba proposes an alternative - though not socialist.

I mean, the US do this to a lot of countries. Iraq, Libya, DPRK, Iran.

Non of which are "revolutionary becons".

The bureacucrats that pollute the Cuban regime are not a seperate class but rather a parasitic caste - the market conditions do not exist in Cuba to support a seperate ruling class.

So what is Castro?

Is he a worker?

If so, what does he produce?

Or does he have a different relation to the means of production?

What elements of Socialism does western capitalism contain?

Greater Freedom of movement, speech and democracy. More advanced methods of production.

Under Capitalism a small elite control the means of production and exploit the labour power of the majority to become wealthy. This is a clear social contradiction.

Thats a class contradiction, which, has always existed since the very first bourgeois emerged. The existence of this contradiction means nothing as to whether a social transformation is necessary or not.

The sort of contradiction I mean, is one between a persons relation to production (its technology most important), and where this social class relation holds back further advancement to this production.

For example, and speaking as a whole, its a contradiction for feudalist to own a system of bourgeois production (that is, mass socialised production). He wouldnt be a feudalist otherwise. Feudalists are feudalist because they have a relation to and support feudal production methods, small scale and dispersed production. Feudalism is incompatible with mass production and the developments of these methods in society render them obsolete. They become reactionary, and the proponents of bourgeois production need a revolution against feudal society and its state to advance the means of production.

Under present conditions, no such contradiction exists. I can think of one, which is automated production, in which the capitalist system and its class system are rendered incompatible and obsolete - it hasnt reached that stage yet.

Freedom of movement for the rich capitalists and their jet-setting lifestyles.
Freedom of speech for the capitalists who control the media conglomerates.
Democracy for the rich elite who control the political, social, economic and cultural power in the Capitalist system.

Well, put it this way - my mother is a single working class parent with less than average pay, and I have visited over ten countries, with numerous visits to each. Travel, as those in reality would understand, is not limited to rich capitalists, but is available to all. Most working class families go on holiday abroad with freedom to move from one nation to the next each year, maybe more than once. so your first point is factually incorrect.

Freedom of speech in that we can openly speak about politics, protest, and call for our leaders resignation without reprocusion. Im sure, as any sane person would, and anyone who has experience with those who have lived under a dictatrship (such as my father and step father), they do not enjoy such luxuries. This logically is a necessary prequisite for a dictatorship to survive and maintain control over its population.

As for democracy, well, our leaders are more accountable. thats not the case under dictatorial regimes such as that in Cuba, former Iraq and Libya. This again, is a logical outcome. Those in power wish to maintain that power. thats what the armed forces are for.

To use the example of the USSR - When central planning was introduced under Stalin it exceeded all productive expectations - growth targets were repeatedly smashed. This transformation from mainly agrarian society to industrialised super-power was unprecedented - capitalist countries had taken centuries of development to get to this point. Huge leaps were also made in the realm of technology.

The downside to this economic miracle was the huge wastage, up to 30% of production, due to the bungling, corruption and bad planning inherent in the undemocratic command system of economic management. This can be countered through democratic planning as opposed to bureaucratic planning - this is what I and other Socialists are in favour of.

We are more technologically advanced than the SU in 1991 now - socialism hasnt happened here. That must say something - that is, the SU was not socialist, since socialism is based around the MoP (technology being fundamental).

If you'll allow me to quote Trotsky:

"We often seek salvation from unfamiliar phenomena in familiar terms. An attempt has been made to conceal the enigma of the Soviet regime by calling it "state capitalism." This term has the advantage that nobody knows exactly what it means"

Substitue 'Soviet' for 'Cuban and you'll get what I'm at. State Capitalism, as a way of describing flawed Socialist states, is inherently incorrect.

Possibly true (didnt read the link - too tired now :( ).

However, logically, socialism is classless. cuba has a class system = not socialsim.

Yet they made mistakes just like the Bolsheviks, the Cuban revolutionaries and all those other revolutionaries movements you dismissed. They are one of those 'failed attempts' you feel are so worthless.

To conclude, an example of Socialism functioning successfully today, no matter how flawed, has impossibly more weight than a failed attempt a long time ago. This is why we should point to the Cuban regime as an indicator of the immense advantages of Socialism - While still independently critiscising the regime as well as defending true Socialism.

Look, Listen PR. I can see this will go around in circles, as it has done (for me anyway it feels that way since im responding to that other guy aswell with similar questions), so, Ill agree to disagree.

I have my view, you have yours. It appears you also believe Cuba to be not entirely socialsit, thats grand.

We seem only to disagree about whether we should use Cuba for inspiration or not - thats fine - its only a minor issue to me. I wouldnt like to continue with you, although I do hope you have taken my points into consideration.

(honestly - its fucking3:00 in the morning and im jacked)(I cant continue - maybe tomorrow :P )

Connolly

8th January 2007, 03:22

Ill respond to your stalinist bourgeois bollox tomorrow, for now, im tired, goodnight.

manic expression

8th January 2007, 03:45

Originally posted by The [email protected] 08, 2007 03:22 am
Ill respond to your stalinist bourgeois bollox tomorrow, for now, im tired, goodnight.
I expect such insipid comments from someone who praises capitalist countries while disparaging socialist societies.

You can respond to this comment tomorrow as well: we're talking about what socialism IS, NOT about what YOU WOULD LIKE socialism to be.

Instead of logically looking at socialism itself, you are narrow-mindedly trying to present your views as the only true form of socialism.

As I said before, we're dealing with socialism in reality, not the socialism in your imagination.

manic expression

8th January 2007, 04:46

You see, this is where it becomes more of a religion than a science based on reality.

According to many religions, if you are to be "saved", you must follow their ideas. Of course, those ideas are void of objective reality.

Its not a matter of the workers coming in contact with socialist ideas - since, to be honest - thats just complete idealism.

Workers must conclude, through economic circumstances and objective material conditions, that socialism is the way forward - not from reading a book.

Class consciousness, according to marx, develops out of economic circumstances. Id agree with him - since anything else is just ridiculous and is mere religion.

No, it is necessary for the working class to learn from writings. Marx addressed this in the Manifesto (but of course you ignored that).

The workers are to learn from experience? Experience is a teacher that gives the lesson after the exam, and that means it is unforgiving. Therefore, the workers must learn from the past and past thinkers.

Class consciousness does come from material circumstances, but history is not a given, the point is to change the world. Also, Gramsci and others have shown that other factors can limit and minimalize class consciousness, which means even more action and active involvement is needed.

Im not against organisation. Im against "full-time" governers - that is - a seperate class.

Cuba has full time governers (not workers), Castro just one, a lifelong one.

Its illogical and anti-marxist.

It is not anti-Marxist to have government positions. To have administrators is practically a necessity, and so this role must be filled in socialism. Therefore, having administrators, ones who are chosen by the people in public meetings and elections, is key and acceptable and beneficial. It is illogical to reject administration merely because they are too "full-time", and in addition to being illogical, it is detrimental.

Adminstrators who are supported by the workers are a part of socialism.

Im not against the 1917 revolution, I simply know it wasnt socialist. It was progressive, sure, but not socialist.

Again, your self-centered attitude betrays you. It was socialist, you just want to pretend that it wasn't because it didn't bring about exactly what you wanted. It was socialist, regardless of what your imagination would prefer.

Its not inevitable. Barbarism is a possibility. The emergence of a new class system maybe.

Who knows. We are not Gods, we dont know. We can fight for what is right, further understand how society works and theorize possible alternatives and directions - that is it.

First you said the workers develop class consciousness without any active involvement, and now you say we have to fight for what is right. Clarify your position.

Then why not use more desirable examples, ones that didnt end up as authoritarian regimes, ones that havnt been proven to disintigrate into a class system such as the USSR did.

CNT attempts for example - they failed do to some unfortunate circumstances - not due to inherent failures in their social organisation such as Leninism.

At least with them we can say - well, it might have workesd out if they didnt get smashed by francoists. With soviet style systems, we have seen them fail time and time again with their own accord.

Don't believe US propaganda, Cuba is not an authoritarian regime. The people's voice is loud and clear, and the socialist government responds to it.

The USSR was riddled with problems, but it was still socialist.

The "Soviet style systems" have succeeded in Cuba. This is clear to anyone who knows anything about the country.

Im sorry, but they dont. When the working class sieze power, they have no need to replace the bourgeois with a new ruling class (socialism 101)

Administrators can and do exist in socialism. The Paris Commune had administrators, and Marx himself lauded that very system.

For one, the US is an elitist operation. Cuba siezed bourgeois property in the form of sugar plantations belonging to US elites - and they dont like that. The US want their brand of capitalism exported to the whole world and run in their image. Cuba proposes an alternative - though not socialist.

I mean, the US do this to a lot of countries. Iraq, Libya, DPRK, Iran.

Non of which are "revolutionary becons".

Cuba's system is socialist.

So what is Castro?

Is he a worker?

If so, what does he produce?

Or does he have a different relation to the means of production?

Castro is (was) an administrator. They are needed in socialism.

What about poets, writers and artists? What do they produce? What about a delegation to another state? What do they produce? What is their relation to the means of production? Like it or not, these roles are needed, and production is not uniform.

Greater Freedom of movement, speech and democracy. More advanced methods of production.

This is where it becomes obvious that you have bought imperialist bourgeois lies. As I have been saying throughout this entire thread, you have not a single clue as to the situation in Cuba.

Cubans are allowed to travel freely. You can find Cubans in Mexico, Europe (especially Scandanavia), Africa and other places.

Cuba tolerates dissidents. There have recently been anti-government meetings in Havana, as well as marches by anti-government groups (the "Ladies in White" are one example). So Cuba tolerates dissent and has free speech. FYI, "Free speech" is something championed by bourgeois states because it doesn't matter as long as the bourgeoisie are in control.

The Cuban people have a great voice in government. The government responds to them. They have democracy far more than any of the bourgeois states YOU cheer.

By the way, those are not all socialistic qualities, and they smack of the bourgeois values you seem to be so proud of.

Well, put it this way - my mother is a single working class parent with less than average pay, and I have visited over ten countries, with numerous visits to each. Travel, as those in reality would understand, is not limited to rich capitalists, but is available to all. Most working class families go on holiday abroad with freedom to move from one nation to the next each year, maybe more than once. so your first point is factually incorrect.

Freedom of speech in that we can openly speak about politics, protest, and call for our leaders resignation without reprocusion. Im sure, as any sane person would, and anyone who has experience with those who have lived under a dictatrship (such as my father and step father), they do not enjoy such luxuries. This logically is a necessary prequisite for a dictatorship to survive and maintain control over its population.

As for democracy, well, our leaders are more accountable. thats not the case under dictatorial regimes such as that in Cuba, former Iraq and Libya. This again, is a logical outcome. Those in power wish to maintain that power. thats what the armed forces are for.

Refer to my above comments.

Oh, golly gee! You can call for a leader's resignation! Wow! You must LOVE capitalism! :rolleyes:

As I said before, they don't care what you say, as long as they are in control; it doesn't surprise me that you didn't figure out how you're being tricked by the bourgeoisie.

And again, you're just ignorant when it comes to Cuba. Read about the fucking system before you insult it, because you're refusing to see reality.

We are more technologically advanced than the SU in 1991 now - socialism hasnt happened here. That must say something - that is, the SU was not socialist, since socialism is based around the MoP (technology being fundamental).

Clarify this point.

Possibly true (didnt read the link - too tired now :( ).

However, logically, socialism is classless. cuba has a class system = not socialsim.

No, socialism can have administrators, and what you deem a "class system" is, in REALITY, an element of socialism which is needed: the workers' government.

So, logically, you're wrong, again.

Connolly

9th January 2007, 00:46

No, it is necessary for the working class to learn from writings. Marx addressed this in the Manifesto (but of course you ignored that).

So an illiterate worker, or a worker who has no interest in politics, philosophy, socialism, who follows christianity, who has more interest in cornation street - is fucked right? - since he never got to read the "devine knowledge of Marx"?

What you say is laughable - and totally wrong.

Assume, for one moment, all Marxist literature is destroyed in a society, and all revolutionary politics is drilled out of the masses (as is almost the case in western societies), that no knowledge of socialist ideals exists.

Human society, the mode of production and the subsequent relations to production formed by the technology involved, does not progress right?.....there is no revolution without Marxist or anarchist literature?

This is complete shit you know.

Ideas for social organisation come through our relations to the mode of production. This is why the bourgeois are reactionary (not because they cannot see the "science" behind Marxism and its writings), but because their ideas are formed through relations to production.

The ideas of the proletariat are not formed through reading Marx - since such writings are available to all classes - but through their relations to production. The ideas of a worker, through his economic and social experience, are different to that of the bourgeois.

Your illogical conception that workers are "enlightened" through reading a book makes not a shred of sense.

Since a worker, who may never have heard of Marx, or revolutionary politics, is equally as capable of coming to a socialist conclusion as any "advanced reader of Marx".

Like your friend Castro - your an elitist - you think a worker who knows no Marx is incapable of creating socialism - "leave it up to those most educated in Marxist theory".

Your idea is philosphically, historically and practically useless.

Its religious, and you believe "enlightenment" comes through reading books by your spiritual master - even though it may have no objective basis in reality.

It is not anti-Marxist to have government positions. To have administrators is practically a necessity, and so this role must be filled in socialism. Therefore, having administrators, ones who are chosen by the people in public meetings and elections, is key and acceptable and beneficial. It is illogical to reject administration merely because they are too "full-time", and in addition to being illogical, it is detrimental.

So you say socialism is not classless? - since government officials, by their very relation to the means of production, are a seperate class - and therefore think differently and take actions contrary to the working class.

I though the workers were supposed to smash the ruling class - not replace them with another :rolleyes:

Again, your self-centered attitude betrays you. It was socialist, you just want to pretend that it wasn't because it didn't bring about exactly what you wanted. It was socialist, regardless of what your imagination would prefer.

But socialism is classless - classes existed in the USSR.

How can another class act on behalf of the working class.

Why dont the bourgeois act on behalf of the workers?

Answer - because class conflict exists. The interests of the bourgeoisie is diametrically opposed to the workers.

The interest of that class you wish to install is diametrically opposed to the workers, ie, that class of governernment officials want to maintain control of the systems of production against workers wanting to control it themselves.

Not to mention the fact that the state exists to maintain the position of a particular class.

If this state of government officials (ie, a seperate class) exists , who protects the position of the workers - since the state and its armed forces are used to protect the control over the systems of production for the government officials, who control production.

That leaves the workers without a state. Infact, they dont even need a state according to you - because the "socialist" state exists to protect and maintain Government Official control over production - rather than workers control.

And since "being determines consciousness" - the workers dont control production nor the state - because these permanent government officials are not workers - they are a seperate class in relation to the means of production.

So, in reality, you want the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeois state, give control of production over to a government official class, along with a state monopoly control and armed forces.

It amounts to the replacement of the bourgeois by a new ruling bourgeois class - as happened with the USSR, Cuba and all other state socialist failures. The workers lose control of production and economic affairs to a new ruling class.

First you said the workers develop class consciousness without any active involvement, and now you say we have to fight for what is right. Clarify your position

Workers fight the class war each and every day without ever hearing of Marx - or any revolutionary politics.

So you are saying a worker, as described above in the last sentence, is not activly involved in the class war for socialism is that it?

"He must first read Marx"?

We fight the class struggle because we live in a class system - thats impossible for any worker, or any human being for that matter, to avoid.

Don't believe US propaganda, Cuba is not an authoritarian regime.

Im afraid it is. One class has authority over another - its authoritarian.

Administrators can and do exist in socialism. The Paris Commune had administrators, and Marx himself lauded that very system.

Administration is necessary. Whats not necessary is that these administrators are either permanent or constitute a separate class. That is, they serve a logistical and advisory position - not one of control - for which the workers directly must have in a substantive democratic way.

What about poets, writers and artists? What do they produce? What about a delegation to another state? What do they produce? What is their relation to the means of production? Like it or not, these roles are needed, and production is not uniform.

Poets, writers and artists have full control over the end product. They choose what they do. They have full control over their means to produce, they have the means to produce. They are socialist workers.

A delegation to another state - thats vague. explain.

Cubans are allowed to travel freely. You can find Cubans in Mexico, Europe (especially Scandanavia), Africa and other places.

Did they choose to leave freely, not for governemental purposes? - where did they get the money to leave - why dont they emmigrate considering they live in a third world nation?

Or did they escape on a raft?...Or maybe go away on a gvernmental mission and not turn up for the flight home?

You have clearly no idea as to what life is like under authoritarian, totalitarian rule.

The Cuban people have a great voice in government. The government responds to them. They have democracy far more than any of the bourgeois states YOU cheer.

Yes - keep dreaming.

Did the cuban people get to choose Raul as successor - or was it Fidel, as you mentioned he did earlier?

Where was the democratic system there? where did the workers get a choice?

alternativly

Did they just happen to choose, from population of a couple of million, Fidels brother as successor?

Wow, wouldnt that be a coincidence - or a statistical miracle.

Oh, golly gee! You can call for a leader's resignation! Wow! You must LOVE capitalism!

As I said before, they don't care what you say, as long as they are in control; it doesn't surprise me that you didn't figure out how you're being tricked by the bourgeoisie.

Im a communist opposed to class systems - as any other is - that includes Cuba and bourgeois society.

I havnt been tricked - but you have - by Leninist magic.

Im not the one who wants to replace one ruling class with another - based on a flawed and contradictory theory.

Clarify this point.

Society and its social relations are based around the means of production and, importantly, to this, the technology involved in production.

The world, its communication systems, its manufacturing technology, its scientific discoveries, have significantly improved since the collapase of the soviet system. It has infinitly improved since the bolshevik revolution.

So if society is based around the means of production, as understood by marx, and our means of production are far greater than that in the soviet system 16 years ago, never mind boshevik russia, and socialism, as we understand it, is a higher mode of production, yet we with more advanced methods to produce have not had any socialist revolution - then surely - and most logically - the SU was not socialist

Since we possess far greater methods of production now than the SU ever had - yet we are not socialist - its concluded that the SU was never socialist to begin with.

Understand? <_<

No, socialism can have administrators, and what you deem a "class system" is, in REALITY, an element of socialism which is needed: the workers' government.

So, logically, you're wrong, again.

As I explained above, socialism with class is contradictory.

Since socialsim means working class control over production, the existence of another class controlling production requires a state dedicated to their control. It is their state - not the workers. And so socialism is non-existent.

manic expression

9th January 2007, 02:32

So an illiterate worker, or a worker who has no interest in politics, philosophy, socialism, who follows christianity, who has more interest in cornation street - is fucked right? - since he never got to read the "devine knowledge of Marx"?

What you say is laughable - and totally wrong.

Assume, for one moment, all Marxist literature is destroyed in a society, and all revolutionary politics is drilled out of the masses (as is almost the case in western societies), that no knowledge of socialist ideals exists.

Human society, the mode of production and the subsequent relations to production formed by the technology involved, does not progress right?.....there is no revolution without Marxist or anarchist literature?

This is complete shit you know.

Ideas for social organisation come through our relations to the mode of production. This is why the bourgeois are reactionary (not because they cannot see the "science" behind Marxism and its writings), but because their ideas are formed through relations to production.

The ideas of the proletariat are not formed through reading Marx - since such writings are available to all classes - but through their relations to production. The ideas of a worker, through his economic and social experience, are different to that of the bourgeois.

Your illogical conception that workers are "enlightened" through reading a book makes not a shred of sense.

Since a worker, who may never have heard of Marx, or revolutionary politics, is equally as capable of coming to a socialist conclusion as any "advanced reader of Marx".

Like your friend Castro - your an elitist - you think a worker who knows no Marx is incapable of creating socialism - "leave it up to those most educated in Marxist theory".

Your idea is philosphically, historically and practically useless.

Its religious, and you believe "enlightenment" comes through reading books by your spiritual master - even though it may have no objective basis in reality.

The cause of the working class is greatly helped by the writings of Marxist thinkers. To think that the working class should just try to learn everything from scratch is pure stupidity.

IF all Marxist literature were destroyed and people were to be unquestioning toward capitalism, it would set back the working class movement years (possibly even centuries). Why? Because as much as one must learn from history, the people who made that history must be analyzed and understood.

To claim that those writings are "unneeded" is like putting a blindfold over your own eyes.

Sure, people react to their relations to production, their consciousness is determined in this way. However, it is OBVIOUS that the existence of leftist writings greatly enhances this and strengthens that very consciousness. Revolutions don't grow on trees, they must be made.

It is your insistence that the writings of the past will not help the workers is insipid and ignorant.

Castro, unlike you, has contributed greatly to the creation of socialism and a better world for the people of Cuba. Only the most clueless of fools would assert that revolutions appear out of thin air: the FACT is that other factors are of utmost importance.

Are writings necessary? Are they a requirement? No. Do they help? Undoubtedly.

If anyone is guilty of treating theory as religion, it is you, as you are making countless offerings to the altar of ignorance.

So you say socialism is not classless? - since government officials, by their very relation to the means of production, are a seperate class - and therefore think differently and take actions contrary to the working class.

I though the workers were supposed to smash the ruling class - not replace them with another :rolleyes:

Socialism is not a period of classlessness. YOUR IMAGINATION may tell you that it must be classless, but this is not the case. Classes continue to exist throughout the dictatorship of the proletariat, this much is fact.

Furthermore, government positions are necessary in socialism. The officials' relationship to the means of production are neither contrary to the working class nor incompatible with socialism. Government officials do not own the means of production, they simply oversee its administration. If you cannot understand and respect that difference, you are lost. The nature of the socialist government, the nature you have failed to recognize, is extremely important.

But socialism is classless - classes existed in the USSR.

How can another class act on behalf of the working class.

Why dont the bourgeois act on behalf of the workers?

Answer - because class conflict exists. The interests of the bourgeoisie is diametrically opposed to the workers.

The interest of that class you wish to install is diametrically opposed to the workers, ie, that class of governernment officials want to maintain control of the systems of production against workers wanting to control it themselves.

Not to mention the fact that the state exists to maintain the position of a particular class.

If this state of government officials (ie, a seperate class) exists , who protects the position of the workers - since the state and its armed forces are used to protect the control over the systems of production for the government officials, who control production.

That leaves the workers without a state. Infact, they dont even need a state according to you - because the "socialist" state exists to protect and maintain Government Official control over production - rather than workers control.

And since "being determines consciousness" - the workers dont control production nor the state - because these permanent government officials are not workers - they are a seperate class in relation to the means of production.

So, in reality, you want the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeois state, give control of production over to a government official class, along with a state monopoly control and armed forces.

It amounts to the replacement of the bourgeois by a new ruling bourgeois class - as happened with the USSR, Cuba and all other state socialist failures. The workers lose control of production and economic affairs to a new ruling class.

First, socialism isn't classless, no matter what your imagination may tell you. However, this is largely besides the point.

The bourgeoisie act against the workers because they exploit them and use them for profit. Government officials in Cuba do not exploit workers, they do not use them for profit, they merely take an administrative role in society.

Since the government has a radically different relationship than the bourgeoisie, your argument holds no water whatsoever.

The state of the bourgeoisie existed to maintain the position of the bourgeoisie. The state of Cuba exists to maintain socialism. Do you see a police state? No. Do you see exploitation? No. Do you see private property? No. Do you see a government isolated and removed from the workers? NO. Anyone who knows anything about Cuba can verify that.

In essence, the state is of the workers. The workers in Cuba support the state, and the state responds to them. Do you actually think that a government consisting entirely of a "seperate class", who have interests that are against the working class, would ensure such a world-class system of medicare, education, universal housing, equity and more? No, they wouldn't, further showing how your delusions have NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

You patently ignore the actual reality of Cuba and other socialist states. You are completely incorrect over the relationship to the means of production, and have unabashedly remained blind to the reality of the socialist country.

Workers fight the class war each and every day without ever hearing of Marx - or any revolutionary politics.

So you are saying a worker, as described above in the last sentence, is not activly involved in the class war for socialism is that it?

"He must first read Marx"?

We fight the class struggle because we live in a class system - thats impossible for any worker, or any human being for that matter, to avoid.

Did I say it was a requirement to hear about Marx to participate in class warfare? No. So, already, your argument is wrong.

Had Marx not written what he wrote, history would be different. That is a fact. You are welcome to imagine that revolutions are a matter of destiny, but that is just your imagination, NOT REALITY.

Im afraid it is. One class has authority over another - its authoritarian.

I'm afraid you're wrong. What class are the government officials? The bourgeoisie? They don't own sh*t. Sorry, but your imagination (or your belief in bourgeois lies) has failed you yet again.

Administration is necessary. Whats not necessary is that these administrators are either permanent or constitute a separate class. That is, they serve a logistical and advisory position - not one of control - for which the workers directly must have in a substantive democratic way.

The administrators in Cuba are not a separate class, regardless of your delusional drivel. The workers control the government through democratic means.

Again, your points reek of utter ignorance of the Cuban system. You continue to refuse to read the truth about Cuba.

Poets, writers and artists have full control over the end product. They choose what they do. They have full control over their means to produce, they have the means to produce. They are socialist workers.

A delegation to another state - thats vague. explain.

Are you saying that a poet should have copyright on his or her work? That is bourgeois. A poet's work should be distributed to the public regardless of what he or she wants. The other parts of what you said is in no contradiction to what Cuban workers see.

One factor you miss is that the poet does not have the same role as other workers. He or she has a completely different type of labor. According to you, this would constitute a separate class. Is that so?

A delegation, as in a group of people who negotiate with other countries.

Did they choose to leave freely, not for governemental purposes? - where did they get the money to leave - why dont they emmigrate considering they live in a third world nation?

Or did they escape on a raft?...Or maybe go away on a gvernmental mission and not turn up for the flight home?

You have clearly no idea as to what life is like under authoritarian, totalitarian rule.

They can travel for many reasons, and they do. They don't use money to travel, that is something that happens in the bourgeois countries you support. They don't emigrate for many reasons, even though the US bends over backwards trying to get them to do so.

Relatively few Cubans try to flee to the US (although I understand why someone who has bought into imperialist lies like yourself would be willing to believe such fallacy).

You clearly have no idea what Cuba is. I've talked to many people who have been there, and they would laugh at the stupid, slanderous comments you continue to make.

You. Are. Clueless.

Did you read the link I sent you?

Yes - keep dreaming.

Did the cuban people get to choose Raul as successor - or was it Fidel, as you mentioned he did earlier?

Where was the democratic system there? where did the workers get a choice?

alternativly

Did they just happen to choose, from population of a couple of million, Fidels brother as successor?

Wow, wouldnt that be a coincidence - or a statistical miracle.

Keep dreaming? My "dreams" are backed up by facts. Your delusions are contradicted by them.

No, Castro designated a successor once he was unable to continue his duties, something that is not anti-democratic. A head of state choosing a successor is completely reasonable.

The workers elect the Popular Assembly, and the Popular Assembly chooses the Head of State (Castro's former position). You demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the Cuban political system.

Even though you'll undoubtedly ignore it, I ask you once again to read this:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

Im a communist opposed to class systems - as any other is - that includes Cuba and bourgeois society.

I havnt been tricked - but you have - by Leninist magic.

Im not the one who wants to replace one ruling class with another - based on a flawed and contradictory theory.

You may call yourself a communist, but your undying support of capitalist bourgeois societies would seem to contradict this. Furthermore, you remain completely oblivious to the actual situation in Cuba.

It's not magic, it's reality, get used to it.

Society and its social relations are based around the means of production and, importantly, to this, the technology involved in production.

The world, its communication systems, its manufacturing technology, its scientific discoveries, have significantly improved since the collapase of the soviet system. It has infinitly improved since the bolshevik revolution.

So if society is based around the means of production, as understood by marx, and our means of production are far greater than that in the soviet system 16 years ago, never mind boshevik russia, and socialism, as we understand it, is a higher mode of production, yet we with more advanced methods to produce have not had any socialist revolution - then surely - and most logically - the SU was not socialist

Since we possess far greater methods of production now than the SU ever had - yet we are not socialist - its concluded that the SU was never socialist to begin with.

Understand? <_<

That makes absolutely no sense. I can't understand something that is impossible to comprehend.

As I explained above, socialism with class is contradictory.

Since socialsim means working class control over production, the existence of another class controlling production requires a state dedicated to their control. It is their state - not the workers. And so socialism is non-existent.

No, it is a given that there IS class is socialism, although administrators are not necessarily a separate class.

Administrators do not own the means of production, they oversee the logistical issues that must be overseen. This relationship does not make them a separate class, it gives them another role (much like the poet). The state is dedicated to maintaining socialism.

READ THE LINK I SENT YOU

Here it is again:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

Rawthentic

9th January 2007, 04:55

Manic Expression, explain to me how it is that the workers in Cuba own the means of production, operate in their sole interests, and produce only for human need.

As far as I'm concerned, Cuba has a large tourist center, the result of the liberalization of the economy, a capitalist method. Cuba's planners, that includes Castro, decide for the people what it is the people need.

Also, socialism, is the socialization of the means of production, not the nationalization of the means of production.

Basically, Cuba's government is led by the petty-bourgeois. "Running" implies a more direct control, while "dominating" is more indirect. In Cuba, it's a combination of both, with different layers of the state and government being run by different layers (e.g., the state ministries at the national level are run by petty-bourgeois elements, while the local and regional levels are usually run by people from the working class). However, it is the key areas of the state and government that are run by the petty bourgeoisie, including economic planning, military administration, state budget formulation, etc.

The main problem is that the petty bourgeoisie dominates the life of the country -- politically, economically, culturally and socially. Much of this is due to retrograde trends in Cuban culture, held over from capitalism, that convince working people to defer to "experts" and "superiors". In the case of Cuba, the "experts" and "superiors" are the Communist Party leaders and ministry officials.

manic expression

9th January 2007, 06:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:55 am
Manic Expression, explain to me how it is that the workers in Cuba own the means of production, operate in their sole interests, and produce only for human need.

As far as I'm concerned, Cuba has a large tourist center, the result of the liberalization of the economy, a capitalist method. Cuba's planners, that includes Castro, decide for the people what it is the people need.

Also, socialism, is the socialization of the means of production, not the nationalization of the means of production.

Basically, Cuba's government is led by the petty-bourgeois. "Running" implies a more direct control, while "dominating" is more indirect. In Cuba, it's a combination of both, with different layers of the state and government being run by different layers (e.g., the state ministries at the national level are run by petty-bourgeois elements, while the local and regional levels are usually run by people from the working class). However, it is the key areas of the state and government that are run by the petty bourgeoisie, including economic planning, military administration, state budget formulation, etc.

The main problem is that the petty bourgeoisie dominates the life of the country -- politically, economically, culturally and socially. Much of this is due to retrograde trends in Cuban culture, held over from capitalism, that convince working people to defer to "experts" and "superiors". In the case of Cuba, the "experts" and "superiors" are the Communist Party leaders and ministry officials.
The industries of Cuba are "owned" by the state. The state is extremely responsive to the workers, and the workers play a very central role in government.

Here is but one example:

"The exercise of democracy in Cuba is not restricted only to election time. Between elections, every elected delegate is continually held accountable for his or her actions. He or she may be recalled at any time by his or her constituents. As well, each delegate to the Provincial and National Assemblies is accountable to the Municipal Assembly where he or she was elected. And each delegate to the Municipal Assemblies, in turn, meets twice yearly with his or her constituents in small public meetings known as accountability meetings....

Delegates to the Municipal Assemblies must also establish a day in the week and a place where he or she can meet constituents on an individual basis to hear their concerns or opinions."
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

Due to the workers' strong intimate relationship with the government, the state, and subsequently the means of production, is controlled by the workers.

The fact that Cuba has world class medical care, education and more shows that the society is working for the interests of the workers. Everyone gets food, clothes, shelter, education, health care and more. It is hard to imagine that a society which provides this for all workers is NOT working for the working class' interests. People's needs (like the ones I specified) are addressed and addressed well by the Cuban system. In addition, Cuba sends countless doctors (thousands, IIRC) overseas to help workers of other countries as well.

Some things that might be of interest:

"Castro's 'miracle' cures the poor of blindness"
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle333837.ece (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article333837.ece)

"Exporting healthcare: Cuba and the real meaning of internationalism"
http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/cubasi_arti...sp?ArticleID=63 (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/cubasi_article.asp?ArticleID=63)

The tourist industry is growing, but I don't think the Cuban people truly object to this. There ARE developments which demand attention, including growing prostitution (although it is infinitely better than the brothel Cuba used to be before the revolution) and increased inequity (it isn't much, but it needs to be addressed). However, I do think Cuba can and will deal with these problems.

Cuba's planners are not separate from the workers. They have a very real relationship with the people, and there is little isolation IMO.

The first step of socialization is nationalization. Rosa Luxembourg summed it up well:

"The first duty of a real workers' government is to declare by means of a series of decrees the most important means of production to be national property and place them under the control of society."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/20.htm

Moreover, I think Cuba has taken it further than mere nationalization. You have to take into account the many unions and workers' federations which have a big role in Cuban society.

I would disagree on such a classification. While there are different layers of government, it seems to me that the workers' voice permeates throughout. For instance, the National Assembly is determined by the local delegates.

"The Municipal Assemblies nominate candidates for delegates to the Provincial and National Assemblies. The various mass organizations – unions, students', farmers' and women's federations, etc. – play an active role in the nomination of candidates. In each municipality, they will conduct a candidate search and present their recommendations to the Municipal Assembly who may accept or reject any or all of them by a secret vote. Nominees will usually live, work or have some other relationship with the district in which her or she is nominated. By law, up to half of the nominees may already be delegates to the local Municipal Assembly. As a result of the 1998 elections, for example, 46% of delegates elected to the National Assembly were already delegates to their local Municipal Assemblies."
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

I would also disagree that there is any significant undue "domination". For example, the government has recently organized many hip-hop festivals and concerts, music which speaks to and from the Afro-Cuban (if that's the right term) population. It's not the mainstream of Cuban culture, but the government promotes it anyway.

"In Cuba, every citizen, regardless of their economic circumstances, has the equal right and opportunity to win public office. Candidates are nominated not by any political party or elite political action committees, but by the people themselves in open public meetings in each neighbourhood, or by their democratically elected representatives who themselves were nominated in this way. And it costs nothing to win public office, even at the highest level."
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

Here is another source, if anyone is interested:

"Is Cuba Democratic?"
http://www.poptel.org.uk/cuba-solidarity/democracy.htm

Connolly

9th January 2007, 23:13

The cause of the working class is greatly helped by the writings of Marxist thinkers. To think that the working class should just try to learn everything from scratch is pure stupidity.

Whats pure stupidity, is that you expect workers come revolution time to have a pocket 'Kapital' in their trousers pocket for "reference" and "guidance" - as if they need guidance any further than what their relation to production gives.

Its in total comparison to christian nuts claiming - come the return of christ - anyone who has not "converted" will be sent to hell.

Marxism, under your ideological dominance, becomes nothing more than a religious cult - convert - or go to fuck.

Not to mention how such screwed up views lead to a cult of personality - where we refer to such and such thinker for "spiritual guidance" - as in the case of Lenin.

Examples of this is that guy asking me to "cite" such and such - as if me citing quotes gives any validity to anything.

IF all Marxist literature were destroyed and people were to be unquestioning toward capitalism, it would set back the working class movement years (possibly even centuries). Why? Because as much as one must learn from history, the people who made that history must be analyzed and understood

Where did I say "unquestioning" towards capitalism?

They would question capitalism - not through reading a book - but through their own experience.

We dont need books to question injustice.

We dont need books for class struggle to exist - it exists without books.

Thats not to say that education and social understanding does not help - we socialists are proof that it does.

To claim that those writings are "unneeded" is like putting a blindfold over your own eyes.

Well why are they?

Is the class struggle not conducted each and every day by the workers without ever reading a sentence of socialist literature?

It is.

So - as a necessity - they are not.

Sure, people react to their relations to production, their consciousness is determined in this way. However, it is OBVIOUS that the existence of leftist writings greatly enhances this and strengthens that very consciousness.

Id agree with you here. But they are not a necessity!

Revolutions don't grow on trees, they must be made.

Well they certainly dont grow from humanities "abundance of intelligence".

Revolutions exist as a means for humanity to re-organize social relations around the means of production.

They are made from the illiterate slave to the well educated.

They make decisions based on objective conditions - with which they interact.

Castro, unlike you, has contributed greatly to the creation of socialism and a better world for the people of Cuba. Only the most clueless of fools would assert that revolutions appear out of thin air: the FACT is that other factors are of utmost importance.

How?

I thought the working class make socialism. Castro - is not - working class.

The simple fact that you mention him over any other Cuban shows you have 1) Fallen for Castro's cult of personality and 2) Not recognised that the working class did not make the Cuban revolution - rather - a vanguard of guerrilla fighters who never amounted to more than 800 men siezed the bourgeois/semi-feudal state instead of smashing it.

The replaced themselves as a new ruling class.

Socialism is not a period of classlessness. YOUR IMAGINATION may tell you that it must be classless, but this is not the case. Classes continue to exist throughout the dictatorship of the proletariat, this much is fact.

No, its not, since the existence of bourgeois opposition characterises the socialist phase.

But, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" ie. the socialist state, must be just that.

Not the dictatorship of a new class representing the proletariat.

Its a dictatorship of the proletariat because the proletariat have full control over the means of production.

If you add a government official class - its no longer the DoP, but the Do the government class - since the government class now hold control over the MoP.

Furthermore, government positions are necessary in socialism. The officials' relationship to the means of production are neither contrary to the working class nor incompatible with socialism. Government officials do not own the means of production, they simply oversee its administration. If you cannot understand and respect that difference, you are lost. The nature of the socialist government, the nature you have failed to recognize, is extremely important.

"oversee"? - as in control?

As in control the work of another who does the work?

Thats the creation of another class.

Why should one person have authority over another?

Who enforces this authority?

In your case - the state enforces this "authority" - after all, thats what the state is for isnt it - authority? - with its armed forces, laws and property relations.

You have created another class by giving indirect control over anothers work to a government official who represents "state authority".

There is nothing socialist about creating another class of authority other than direct workers control and authority.

You support the smashing of the bourgeois with its replacement by another ruling class.

First, socialism isn't classless, no matter what your imagination may tell you. However, this is largely besides the point.

Socialism is not, but the socialist state is.

If you dont go along with my so called "imagination" - your on the wrong message forum - we are socialists and communists - not bourgeois reformers wanting to simply "reform" the state into another class system.

they merely take an administrative role in society.

Define. What sort of "administrative" role.

Since the government has a radically different relationship than the bourgeoisie, your argument holds no water whatsoever.

Sorry, that comment was so vague I dont have a clue what your talking about here.

The state of the bourgeoisie existed to maintain the position of the bourgeoisie. The state of Cuba exists to maintain socialism. Do you see a police state? No. Do you see exploitation? No. Do you see private property? No. Do you see a government isolated and removed from the workers? NO. Anyone who knows anything about Cuba can verify that.

Wrong.

Your Castroist state exists to maintain the position of the castroist elite class in power and in control.

If, say, the people of Cuba organized to attack this government official class - since, after all, they represent a seperate class to production - what is the response of this government class in Cuba?

Sit back and say - "Ah, we are one and the same" - or call in the army to crush the insurgency?

How many dissidents from the Cuban people, be it, supported by US weapons, or otherwise, have been crushed by the Cuban state?

And why?

Their war is not with the cuban working class - they never aim at destroying the cuban wc because thats just ridiculous since there can be no other class to replace them - they aim their attacks at the state - made up of a seperate governmental class.

So, the cuban state is not defending the wc, since the attaks are not on them - the state is defending the position and power of the governmental class. Hence the purpose of the state, to protect the class in power - the governmental class from opposition.

Do you see a government isolated and removed from the workers? NO. Anyone who knows anything about Cuba can verify that.

Well, clearly they are.

When was the last time Castro woke up to do a shift of repetitive labour in a cigar making plant?

What value does castro add to any product?

What wealth does he create for society?

If he adds none - how is he capable of smoking cigars, eating food etc while being working class at the same time?

He dosnt add any value to the creation of property - therefore - he is not wc but a parasitic rat living off the workers while producing nothing.

He has become a seperate class. Its in his interest to maintain control and be a parasite - while the workers take orders from above and produce the wealth.

I'm afraid you're wrong. What class are the government officials? The bourgeoisie? They don't own sh*t. Sorry, but your imagination (or your belief in bourgeois lies) has failed you yet again.

"Im afraid" you need to go and read more as to what constitutes a marxian class.

One factor you miss is that the poet does not have the same role as other workers. He or she has a completely different type of labor. According to you, this would constitute a separate class. Is that so?

Is that so?

What sort of "labor" would that be?

They don't use money to travel,

Wow, thats amazing!

Since cuban airlines dont go to every destination on earth - and US airways dont accept invisible money - what do they use? - a teleporter? - as in Star-Trek?

No, Castro designated a successor once he was unable to continue his duties, something that is not anti-democratic. A head of state choosing a successor is completely reasonable.

:lol: :lol:

Fucking hell - youd bend over backwards to kiss castro's arse wouldnt you :lol:

That makes absolutely no sense. I can't understand something that is impossible to comprehend.

Thought so.

Administrators do not own the means of production

The bourgeois dont "own" the systems of production either, no-one does. What they do have is authority over production - as with the "administrators" you want to install. Who also have state authority over anothers work enforced by armed forces and laws.

The industries of Cuba are "owned" by the state.

Who's purpose exists to maintain the power of that "administrative" class.

The workers have fuck all control over the products of their labour because someone else "administrates" (ie. enforces their control over others work by means of a state) it.

----------------------

Honestly - I couldnt be bothered wasting any more time with you ME. Im leaving it at that.

manic expression

13th January 2007, 19:07

Whats pure stupidity, is that you expect workers come revolution time to have a pocket 'Kapital' in their trousers pocket for "reference" and "guidance" - as if they need guidance any further than what their relation to production gives.

Its in total comparison to christian nuts claiming - come the return of christ - anyone who has not "converted" will be sent to hell.

Marxism, under your ideological dominance, becomes nothing more than a religious cult - convert - or go to fuck.

Not to mention how such screwed up views lead to a cult of personality - where we refer to such and such thinker for "spiritual guidance" - as in the case of Lenin.

Examples of this is that guy asking me to "cite" such and such - as if me citing quotes gives any validity to anything.

Good job ignoring what I wrote. Did I say reading Marxist works was a requirement? No. Did I say it is greatly helpful? Of course, because anyone with half a brain knows that this is true.

You're the one relying on faith and not logic. It is illogical to think that Marxist writings are wholly unhelpful to class struggle.

The reason people want you to use citations to back up your points is because we are arguing about the accepted definition of socialism. You cannot cite anything because your points are all in your imagination.

Where did I say "unquestioning" towards capitalism?

They would question capitalism - not through reading a book - but through their own experience.

We dont need books to question injustice.

We dont need books for class struggle to exist - it exists without books.

Thats not to say that education and social understanding does not help - we socialists are proof that it does.

Part of your hypothetical was that "Assume, for one moment, all Marxist literature is destroyed in a society, and all revolutionary politics is drilled out of the masses (as is almost the case in western societies), that no knowledge of socialist ideals exists."

That basically means people are not questioning of socialism ("and all revolutionary politics is drilled out of the masses"). Don't dance around what you wrote.

We need books for greater insight and increased understanding. They are not necessary, but a great aid.

Well why are they?

Is the class struggle not conducted each and every day by the workers without ever reading a sentence of socialist literature?

It is.

So - as a necessity - they are not.

Your argument is completely incorrect. It is NOT unneeded because it aids class struggle through the ways I outlined previously. If you cannot recognize these effects, you are drunk.

Id agree with you here. But they are not a necessity!

I'm not saying they are a necessity.

Well they certainly dont grow from humanities "abundance of intelligence".

Revolutions exist as a means for humanity to re-organize social relations around the means of production.

They are made from the illiterate slave to the well educated.

They make decisions based on objective conditions - with which they interact.

They grow from people's actions. Every revolution is made by people, and without that active creation of change, revolution could not come about.

How?

I thought the working class make socialism. Castro - is not - working class.

The simple fact that you mention him over any other Cuban shows you have 1) Fallen for Castro's cult of personality and 2) Not recognised that the working class did not make the Cuban revolution - rather - a vanguard of guerrilla fighters who never amounted to more than 800 men siezed the bourgeois/semi-feudal state instead of smashing it.

The replaced themselves as a new ruling class.

Castro is a government official. We've been over this, he's not of another class, he administrates.

I name him over other Cubans because you continue to slander him over other Cubans. If you start to insult other Cubans, I will respond.

The revolution gained the support of the Cuban people. Without that support, the Cuban Revolution's victory would have been impossible (as seen in Bolivia years later).

They destroyed the ruling class and established socialism. Do I have to outline the numerous changes that occured since the revolution? Get a grip.

No, its not, since the existence of bourgeois opposition characterises the socialist phase.

But, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" ie. the socialist state, must be just that.

Not the dictatorship of a new class representing the proletariat.

Its a dictatorship of the proletariat because the proletariat have full control over the means of production.

If you add a government official class - its no longer the DoP, but the Do the government class - since the government class now hold control over the MoP.

The bourgeoisie do not disappear into thin air after a revolution. During the dictatorship of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie will remain present. Therefore, class is not completely destroyed in this period. This contradicts what you've been claiming this entire time.

The workers of Cuba DO control the means of production, and I've outlined how above.

Governmental officials ARE NOT NECESSARILY A SEPARATE CLASS. You have not shown how their relationship to the means of production is in any way significantly different.

"oversee"? - as in control?

As in control the work of another who does the work?

Thats the creation of another class.

Why should one person have authority over another?

Who enforces this authority?

In your case - the state enforces this "authority" - after all, thats what the state is for isnt it - authority? - with its armed forces, laws and property relations.

You have created another class by giving indirect control over anothers work to a government official who represents "state authority".

There is nothing socialist about creating another class of authority other than direct workers control and authority.

You support the smashing of the bourgeois with its replacement by another ruling class.

"Oversee", as in administrate, direct, etc...

As in you're missing the point entirely and making crap up.

Socialism is not, but the socialist state is.

If you dont go along with my so called "imagination" - your on the wrong message forum - we are socialists and communists - not bourgeois reformers wanting to simply "reform" the state into another class system.

And the socialist state in Cuba does not see class conflict. There is no separate class in the Cuban state.

Your imagination is one which imagines Cuba and socialism for what it is obviously not (as well as regarding bourgeois countries as more desirable than socialist societies).

Define. What sort of "administrative" role.

What does "administrative" mean? Look it up.

Sorry, that comment was so vague I dont have a clue what your talking about here.

You said the socialist government of Cuba has simply taken the role of the bourgeoisie, which holds no water since the government has a completely different relationship to the means of production.

Wrong.

Your Castroist state exists to maintain the position of the castroist elite class in power and in control.

If, say, the people of Cuba organized to attack this government official class - since, after all, they represent a seperate class to production - what is the response of this government class in Cuba?

Sit back and say - "Ah, we are one and the same" - or call in the army to crush the insurgency?

How many dissidents from the Cuban people, be it, supported by US weapons, or otherwise, have been crushed by the Cuban state?

And why?

Their war is not with the cuban working class - they never aim at destroying the cuban wc because thats just ridiculous since there can be no other class to replace them - they aim their attacks at the state - made up of a seperate governmental class.

So, the cuban state is not defending the wc, since the attaks are not on them - the state is defending the position and power of the governmental class. Hence the purpose of the state, to protect the class in power - the governmental class from opposition.

The "castroist elite class"? :lol:

I guess I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink. Read my sources before spewing your BS that everyone knows is false.

The Cuban people control the means of production, that is a fact. There is a great amount of voice for the Cuban people in government, and the government responds fully to the workers.

Your hypothetical situation has no relevance because the people of Cuba don't want to attack the government (and no, it's not a class). They have no reason to attack a government that they are a part of.

If, say, you had an argument, you might have a point.

Why the f*ck would the Cuban people tolerate reactionaries who take support from the US? The US has tried to INVADE CUBA. Are the workers supposed to just let these counter-revolutionaries undo all they have done? Of course not, and anyone who's looked at the situation knows that Cuba was MORE THAN JUSTIFIED in what they did. Also, dissident groups like the Ladies in White are allowed to organize and demonstrate, and Oswaldo Paya is more or less left alone.

Why?

Because people are allowed to speak their minds, contrary to your delusions.

Well, clearly they are.

When was the last time Castro woke up to do a shift of repetitive labour in a cigar making plant?

What value does castro add to any product?

What wealth does he create for society?

If he adds none - how is he capable of smoking cigars, eating food etc while being working class at the same time?

He dosnt add any value to the creation of property - therefore - he is not wc but a parasitic rat living off the workers while producing nothing.

He has become a seperate class. Its in his interest to maintain control and be a parasite - while the workers take orders from above and produce the wealth.

Castro is over working age. You expect people over 65 to make cigars? Very pro-worker of you. :rolleyes:

At any rate, his work is in administration, not cigars. That is a valuable role to anyone who recognizes reality. Was Marx wrong to write and agitate as much as he did instead of working long shifts at factories? Were the delegates of the Paris Commune "parasitic rats"?

You contribute a wealth of ignorance and foolishness.

"Im afraid" you need to go and read more as to what constitutes a marxian class.

I thought you were against reading Marxist works. At any rate, I can't even begin to list the things you need to understand.

Is that so?

What sort of "labor" would that be?

That labor would be writing poems.

Wow, thats amazing!

Since cuban airlines dont go to every destination on earth - and US airways dont accept invisible money - what do they use? - a teleporter? - as in Star-Trek?

They don't use private funds to travel, that's something that capitalists do.

Fucking hell - youd bend over backwards to kiss castro's arse wouldnt you laugh.gif

You bend over backwards to ignore the facts.

Thought so.

No, you didn't think, you imagined, and imagined wrong.

The bourgeois dont "own" the systems of production either, no-one does. What they do have is authority over production - as with the "administrators" you want to install. Who also have state authority over anothers work enforced by armed forces and laws.

Yes, the bourgeoisie, in capitalism, own the means of production and exploit the workers. The officials of the socialist Cuban government do neither of these things.

Who's purpose exists to maintain the power of that "administrative" class.

The workers have fuck all control over the products of their labour because someone else "administrates" (ie. enforces their control over others work by means of a state) it.

----------------------

Honestly - I couldnt be bothered wasting any more time with you ME. Im leaving it at that.

It's not another class.

The workers have control over their products and the means of production. That much is a fact that you have continuously ignored.

You can't be bothered to recognize reality.