The Case Of Cuba [Archive]

manic expression

22nd February 2007, 03:57

This anti-Cuban tripe is ridiculous.

What do you care about what's "Marxist" or not? Your name is peacefulANARCHIST. I am, in fact, cutting the irony of your points at this very moment.

1.) The guerrillas had a great amount of support from the people, their success would have been impossible had the workers opposed them. Furthermore, living in the mountains isn't exactly what I'd call a petty-bourgeois relationship to the means of production (are you kidding me?).

2.) The workers hold power. If you're going to make claims like these, back them up with something that goes beyond commonly held misconceptions perpetuated by imperialist misinformation.

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

Can someone sticky that link, or at least make it required reading for anyone who wants to criticize Cuba?

3.) The problem isn't just Castro's passing, the problem is that the revolution is losing momentum. The younger generations aren't as revolutionary as the older people, largely because they don't know what it was like before the revolution. As less and less people know what the revolution actually did, the problem increases. People make it seem that the revolution is tied to Castro's heartbeat, but that's purely delusional.

To answer your questions:

1.) This means nothing to the issue. A socialist society can and has screwed over anarchists. This has no relevance to your point, and so I'm not even going to address it.

2.) No, Americans were going there to vacation. Cuba was America's personal brothel and casino, so don't mistake tourism for immigration.

And, like most people who don't grasp reality, you assert that emigration is indicative of Cuba's "un-socialistness". The US embargoes have crippled the economy, and so many people go to the US because they can simply make a lot more money. More importantly, the amount of emigres is VERY low when you take into account the embargoes, the fact that the US offers more visas to Cubans than any other country on earth and the fact that any Cuban who makes it to US shores gets amnesty with no questions asked. In fact, the lack of significant emigration with all of these factors is indicative of the success of Cuba's system.

3.) You can listen to CNN with a simple radio in Havana. I've heard this from multiple people who've travelled there. I've also heard that Cubans are not afraid to speak their minds whatsoever.

4.) Ever hear of the "Ladies in White"? Oswaldo Paya? Didn't think so. Do some research first.

And the fact is that most Cubans support the government. Most anti-government demonstrations find themselves dwarfed by pro-government demonstrations.

5.) How many statues of Castro are there in Cuba?

6.) Your points are getting more and more removed from reality. Are you seriously suggesting that the CASTRO, not the CIA, hunted down Che? Wow. There is NO evidence whatsoever to suggest that Castro had a hand in either Cienfugos or Che's deaths.

Has Oswaldo Paya disappeared? No, he hasn't. How inconvenient for your ridiculous argument.

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

This ignorant Cuba-bashing is getting ridiculous and I want to say that people should try to do their homework before spouting this kind of stuff.

PRC-UTE

22nd February 2007, 04:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:30 am
1. A Marxist revolution is made by the organized workers, not a bunch of middle class guerillas living in the mountains.

One of the bodies that actually shapes Cuba's policies are the Workers Congress, an organisation that goes back to the 1930's. I've told you this before, posted an article about it, and despite it being documented you replied 'I don't believe in this organisation'. :lol:

Christ, stop wasting our time you liberal. The acid test for American communists is whether or not they support the Cuban Revolution.

2. The government, the bureacracy holds the power in Cuba, not the workers.

The government is made up of mass workers organisations. that's why they can mobilise the masses when hurricane Katrina hits for example and no one dies.

3. People talk about how the "socialism" may fall if Castro goes down, well, if Cuba was really socialist it would not be up for 1 person to decide whether it stays socialist or not....the Cuban people would be the ones who decide this!!!

Oh my, you've really missed the boat here.

Even the bourgeois press has been forced to admit that nuthin's changed in Cuba, if anything the revolution is stronger now.

1. Why did Cuba jail and even execute Cuban Anarchists simply for disagreeing with Castro??

Nonsense, some anarchists agreed with the revolution, some didn't. The violence that occured was when some anarchists took to the hills as guerillas. They were small bands funded by the CIA, not a mass rebellion of workers.

Just a few years back, the govt invited anarchists to criticise them and make recommendations for how they can do better. If I recal correctly, the anarchists said they should dissovle their military! :lol:

2. Even though the Batista regime sucked ass big time, more people were coming immigrating TO Cuba during this time....now it's the other way around.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

your liberal idealism is showing yet again. Forget the blockade, let's slander the Cuban Revolution and praise the mafia!!! I love it.

3. Why is there only 1 4-page newspaper in Cuba?? Why doesn't media that critcizies the government exist??

There was an article printed just recently in the Cuban papers published by the writers group warning that there must not be censorship again. I'd say that's open and transparent criticism, better than most capitalist coutnries.

4. No matter how popular you may believe Castro is, isn't it odd that in 40 years not one major protest has occurred in Cuba?? Surely not everyone can be happy with every decision made by the government in 40 years, so why not big protests?

No, the Cuban Revolution has the support of the clear majority, which isn't really debatable.

Why are you so concerned for the counter-revolutionary minority?

6. Isn't it interesting that aside from Raul, many of the people closest to Castro "conveniently" disappear or die?? Camilo Cienfiegos, Che, Huber Matos??

That's truly idiotic, we all know Che was murdered by the CIA.

RedLenin

22nd February 2007, 04:04

1. A Marxist revolution is made by the organized workers, not a bunch of middle class guerillas living in the mountains.
The Cuban Revolution is a peculiar situation. True, the main force of the revolution was the guerrilla movement. However, the working class did play a role and the workers were active in the cities. Revolutions do not happen according to a perfect formula. They can happen in vary peculiar and surprising ways. That said, I believe that Cuba is a workers state with deformities, aka socialist with problems.

2. The government, the bureacracy holds the power in Cuba, not the workers.
Actually, there is more democracy in Cuba than any other nation on earth as far as I am concerned. The vast majority of Cuba people vote, all delegates to the municipal assemblies and the National Assembly of People's Power are elected by the people, and municipal delegates are required to have accountability meetings with the eletorate. The Committees for the Defense of the Revolution are composed of the vast majority of ordinary Cubans. The Cuban people actively participate in the democratic running of their society. That said, there are some elements of bureuacracy. However, I think these can be overcome without having a political revolution.

3. People talk about how the "socialism" may fall if Castro goes down, well, if Cuba was really socialist it would not be up for 1 person to decide whether it stays socialist or not....the Cuban people would be the ones who decide this!!!
I agree. Fidel does not rule Cuba and is not a dictator. He is the elected head of state. He is elected like everyone else and does not have unlimited power by any means. Second, I agree that the Cuban people will decide this. The US imperialists are not afraid of an old man. They are afraid of the fact that this old man can inspire the Cuban people to fight to the death to defend the revolution.

1. Why did Cuba jail and even execute Cuban Anarchists simply for disagreeing with Castro??
First, I would like to see some evidence for this. The political prisoners currently imprisoned in Cuba were all funded by the US. However, I will not defend the Cuban government on all counts and it would not suprise me if there are some abuses of power and some people wrongfully jailed. That said, it is also true that there are Cuban anarchists who have tried to employ violence against the government. In that case, I have no problem with the Cuban government supressing them.

3. Why is there only 1 4-page newspaper in Cuba?? Why doesn't media that critcizies the government exist??
Would you prefer privately owned media? That way you would be getting capitalist propaganda run by the dollar. Sorry, but I do not want to see capitalism reinstated in Cuba. Also, I believe that other newspapers are allowed in Cuba. So your point is moot.

4. No matter how popular you may believe Castro is, isn't it odd that in 40 years not one major protest has occurred in Cuba?
Holy shit! A revolutionary leader who has the mass-backing of the people? No, that can't be! Believe it or not, the Cuban people do support Fidel. Why? Because he is a good leader and the Cuban people want socialism. Also, I would like to see some evidence that "not one major protest has occurred in Cuba".

5. Why is it necessary to support a cult of personality around Castro?
There is no fucking cult of personality around Castro. You want to see that, look at the Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Mao. Compare that to Cuba. Fidel is a widely respected and admired revolutionary leader. But he certainly does not have a personality cult. He himself has emphatically rejected this.

6. Isn't it interesting that aside from Raul, many of the people closest to Castro "conveniently" disappear or die?? Camilo Cienfiegos, Che, Huber Matos??
Can you come up with any fucking evidence to support this? Fidel intentionally set Che up? No. You sound like a conspiracy theorist toward Fidel. And you sound like a right-wing anti-castro reactionary.

Rawthentic

22nd February 2007, 04:36

I am very critical of Cuba, but it is important to understand that Cuba's problems stem mainly from the lack of solid material conditions to support a socialist system. I believe that Cuba's system is very good economic model for the third-world, but I do have problems with Fidel in power for 40+ years. I understand and admit that he is one of the most admired and incredible revolutionary leaders of the century, but for the sake of new faces, new ideas within the system, and freshness, a rotation of power once in a while wouldn't have been a bad idea.

I agree with RedLenin that the workers in Cuba can reclaim power in a more direct form without violence, but through the use of the current institutions that they make up.

Another problem I see is that there is only one major newspaper, that of the state anf the Cuban Communist Party. A socialist system should abound with new ideas and points of view which are critical of the leaders. I do not advocate privatization, by no means at all.

Check this link out: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...entry1292259470 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62344&st=0&#entry1292259470)

Guerrilla22

22nd February 2007, 05:13

Why did Cuba jail and even execute Cuban Anarchists simply for disagreeing with Castro??

Evidence?

A Marxist revolution is made by the organized workers, not a bunch of middle class guerillas living in the mountains.

The Cuban Revolution would not have been possible withou the support of the masses within Cuba itself, it wasn't just "a few Guerrillas in the mountains" it was a collective effort by the Cuban populus as a whole.

Why are you constantly attacking Cuba PA? Name one Latin American country that provides more opprotunities and an overall better quality of life than Cuba.

Whitten

22nd February 2007, 14:35

1. A Marxist revolution is made by the organized workers, not a bunch of middle class guerillas living in the mountains.

No one every said who should organise the revolution. Marxism does't prevent a peasents militia from defeating the Bourgeois dictators oppressing the proletarian and peasents of a country.

Its also important to point out that Castro was not fighting a communist revolution but one for national liberation. The workers choose the communists as their representitives for the new government.

2. The government, the bureacracy holds the power in Cuba, not the workers.

Proof? Workers councils, trade unions, students and women's organisation amongst other groups play important consulting and organising roles in the municiple governments in Cuba. The Committees for the defence of the revolution and local meetings with high attendence rates play important rolees in the day to day runnings of communities. Cuba has centralised all power in the hands of a very decentralised state. As per marxism.

3. People talk about how the "socialism" may fall if Castro goes down, well, if Cuba was really socialist it would not be up for 1 person to decide whether it stays socialist or not....the Cuban people would be the ones who decide this!!!

Castro is a popular figure in Cuba and when people talk of "socialism falling" when Castro dies they talk almost exclusivly of US intervention.

1. Why did Cuba jail and even execute Cuban Anarchists simply for disagreeing with Castro??

Some anarchists have been jailed or executed. Can you point to a particular case? I am aware of none where they were arrested "simply for disagreeing with Castro"

2. Even though the Batista regime sucked ass big time, more people were coming immigrating TO Cuba during this time....now it's the other way around.

More people were starving, and unable to afford healthcare or education under the Batista regime as well. I fail to see what Emigration rates away from Cuba have to do with anything. There were alot of people who opposed the revolution, or stood to be disadvantaged by it, surly you dont think socialism involves making life better for everyone, do you?

3. Why is there only 1 4-page newspaper in Cuba?? Why doesn't media that critcizies the government exist??

Bullshit, thats all that can be said about this.

Media criticism of the government and its policies does exist, you can look up any number of such articles youself, if you speak spanish or use an online translator. Criticism of the revolution does not exist, and neither should it.

There are a multitude of papers available in Cuba. Most trade and student unions have their own paper, as do most towns and communities. There are also much large national papers run by a publicly owned organisations. The Communist Party, ofcourse, also has its own newspaper, which I assume is the one you are refering to.

4. No matter how popular you may believe Castro is, isn't it odd that in 40 years not one major protest has occurred in Cuba?? Surely not everyone can be happy with every decision made by the government in 40 years, so why not big protests?

There have been anti-government protests in Cuba. You are simply lying, making stuff up, or believing a source which is complete bullshit. The majority of Protests are not heard of because the media is owned by pro-revolutionary groups. Protests are discouraged by the society of Cuba, you would often be frowned upon by your neighbours and community for such actions.

5. Why is it necessary to support a cult of personality around Castro?

What cult of personality? If the Cuban government or communist party is guilty of backing any cult of personality it is that arround Che Geuvara. One which is strong even outside of Cuba, as everyone here is well aware of.

6. Isn't it interesting that aside from Raul, many of the people closest to Castro "conveniently" disappear or die?? Camilo Cienfiegos, Che, Huber Matos??

Why would he kill his allies. We know what happened to Che, he was killed by US special forces in Bolivia.

AlwaysAnarchy

22nd February 2007, 18:41

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 22, 2007 03:57 am

What do you care about what's "Marxist" or not? I am, in fact, cutting the irony of your points at this very moment.

Oh and if something isn't anarchist I supposed I should never ever talk about it or bring it up. The only thing anarchists should talk about are anarchist-related issues, nothing more. Please. :rolleyes:

1.) The guerrillas had a great amount of support from the people, their success would have been impossible had the workers opposed them. Furthermore, living in the mountains isn't exactly what I'd call a petty-bourgeois relationship to the means of production (are you kidding me?).

But the fact remains that they did come from the upper middle class, Castro was a wealthy laywer, his brother was too and Che was a doctor. Not exactly the proleteriat here.

The problem isn't just Castro's passing, the problem is that the revolution is losing momentum. The younger generations aren't as revolutionary as the older people, largely because they don't know what it was like before the revolution. As less and less people know what the revolution actually did, the problem increases. People make it seem that the revolution is tied to Castro's heartbeat, but that's purely delusional.

Well revolutionaries get old...that is bound to happen.

Again, REAL socialism is not about people "getting older" or forgetting how bad capitalism was, it is supposed to be a vast improvement over former conditions, so great that no one or almost no one would think of going back to that place and time.

Cuba is not socialist.

1.) This means nothing to the issue. A socialist society can and has screwed over anarchists. This has no relevance to your point, and so I'm not even going to address it.

Then it is not socialist. Anarchists stand for workers power and destroying all

No, Americans were going there to vacation. Cuba was America's personal brothel and casino, so don't mistake tourism for immigration.

I wasn't. It was IMMIGRATION, not tourism. Yes of course tourism did exist (as it does now, under a cruel apartheid system where Cubans are not allowed to enjoy the same facilities, way to go capitalism!) but nevertheless it was a place where other people emigrated TO not left in droves like today.

You can listen to CNN with a simple radio in Havana. I've heard this from multiple people who've travelled there. I've also heard that Cubans are not afraid to speak their minds whatsoever.

Yea well "not afraid of speaking your minds" is not the same thing as being allowed and encouraged to speak freely, criticize yoru government and allow a multitude of opinions to develop not just official ones.

Your points are getting more and more removed from reality. Are you seriously suggesting that the CASTRO, not the CIA, hunted down Che? Wow. There is NO evidence whatsoever to suggest that Castro had a hand in either Cienfugos or Che's deaths.

WHEN did I ever say "Castro hunted down Che" I didn't. I simply remarked how interesting it was that so many of close fellow revolutoinaries died in mysterious ways. There are also many ways of getting rid of someone other than shooting them in the head directly. Castro did not give Che the support he needed in Bolivia, he was encouraged to do so by the Soviet Union who if you remember Che denounced adn was leaning more and more to the Chinese side.

The Soviet Union didn't like this. The Soviet Union was Cuba's new master and so they called the tune.

Has Oswaldo Paya disappeared? No, he hasn't. How inconvenient for your ridiculous argument.

While SOME dissent is allowed (albiet under intimidation) others are not. Political prisoners exist, and even with famous people like Paya there is intimidation and threats.

Although his political activity is tolerated and he has been allowed to travel abroad he reports that both he and his family are subject to routine intimidation. Today there are approximately 300 political prisoners in Cuba, including members of the Christian Liberation Movement and supporters of the Varela Project:

Paya later todl the Guardian: "I have been told that I am going to be killed before the regime is over but I am not going to run away." Guardian 2006

AlwaysAnarchy

22nd February 2007, 18:55

No one every said who should organise the revolution. Marxism does't prevent a peasents militia from defeating the Bourgeois dictators oppressing the proletarian and peasents of a country.

Essentially, people use the word "Marxist" to describe those who rely on Marx's conceptual language (e.g. "mode of production", "class", "commodity fetishism") to understand capitalist and other societies, or to describe those who believe that a workers' revolution as the only means to a communist society.

The workers choose the communists as their representitives for the new government.

When? How?

Castro is a popular figure in Cuba and when people talk of "socialism falling" when Castro dies they talk almost exclusivly of US intervention.

But the US could invade and conquer Cuba anytime it wants to. Do you seriously deny the US flag could be flying over Havana in 30 minutes if the US attacked Cuba with all its military power??

You guys should really read some of the socialist and anarchist criticisms and condemnations of the Castro regime:

The World Socialist Web Site is against Castro. (they call it "petty bourgeois")
World Socialist Movement.
Democratic Socialists of America.
Blackened.Net
AnarchisOrder.org

to list but a few of the socialist and anarchist organizations that are AGAINST this anti-worker regime.

manic expression

22nd February 2007, 19:10

Originally posted by AlwaysAnarchy+February 22, 2007 06:41 pm--> (AlwaysAnarchy @ February 22, 2007 06:41 pm)
manic [email protected] 22, 2007 03:57 am

What do you care about what's "Marxist" or not? I am, in fact, cutting the irony of your points at this very moment.

Oh and if something isn't anarchist I supposed I should never ever talk about it or bring it up. The only thing anarchists should talk about are anarchist-related issues, nothing more. Please. :rolleyes:

1.) The guerrillas had a great amount of support from the people, their success would have been impossible had the workers opposed them. Furthermore, living in the mountains isn't exactly what I'd call a petty-bourgeois relationship to the means of production (are you kidding me?).

But the fact remains that they did come from the upper middle class, Castro was a wealthy laywer, his brother was too and Che was a doctor. Not exactly the proleteriat here.

The problem isn't just Castro's passing, the problem is that the revolution is losing momentum. The younger generations aren't as revolutionary as the older people, largely because they don't know what it was like before the revolution. As less and less people know what the revolution actually did, the problem increases. People make it seem that the revolution is tied to Castro's heartbeat, but that's purely delusional.

Well revolutionaries get old...that is bound to happen.

Again, REAL socialism is not about people "getting older" or forgetting how bad capitalism was, it is supposed to be a vast improvement over former conditions, so great that no one or almost no one would think of going back to that place and time.

Cuba is not socialist.

1.) This means nothing to the issue. A socialist society can and has screwed over anarchists. This has no relevance to your point, and so I'm not even going to address it.

Then it is not socialist. Anarchists stand for workers power and destroying all

No, Americans were going there to vacation. Cuba was America's personal brothel and casino, so don't mistake tourism for immigration.

I wasn't. It was IMMIGRATION, not tourism. Yes of course tourism did exist (as it does now, under a cruel apartheid system where Cubans are not allowed to enjoy the same facilities, way to go capitalism!) but nevertheless it was a place where other people emigrated TO not left in droves like today.

You can listen to CNN with a simple radio in Havana. I've heard this from multiple people who've travelled there. I've also heard that Cubans are not afraid to speak their minds whatsoever.

Yea well "not afraid of speaking your minds" is not the same thing as being allowed and encouraged to speak freely, criticize yoru government and allow a multitude of opinions to develop not just official ones.

Your points are getting more and more removed from reality. Are you seriously suggesting that the CASTRO, not the CIA, hunted down Che? Wow. There is NO evidence whatsoever to suggest that Castro had a hand in either Cienfugos or Che's deaths.

WHEN did I ever say "Castro hunted down Che" I didn't. I simply remarked how interesting it was that so many of close fellow revolutoinaries died in mysterious ways. There are also many ways of getting rid of someone other than shooting them in the head directly. Castro did not give Che the support he needed in Bolivia, he was encouraged to do so by the Soviet Union who if you remember Che denounced adn was leaning more and more to the Chinese side.

The Soviet Union didn't like this. The Soviet Union was Cuba's new master and so they called the tune.

Has Oswaldo Paya disappeared? No, he hasn't. How inconvenient for your ridiculous argument.

While SOME dissent is allowed (albiet under intimidation) others are not. Political prisoners exist, and even with famous people like Paya there is intimidation and threats.

Although his political activity is tolerated and he has been allowed to travel abroad he reports that both he and his family are subject to routine intimidation. Today there are approximately 300 political prisoners in Cuba, including members of the Christian Liberation Movement and supporters of the Varela Project:

Paya later todl the Guardian: "I have been told that I am going to be killed before the regime is over but I am not going to run away." Guardian 2006 [/b]
Saying that something isn't "Marxist" from an ANARCHIST perspective is patently ridiculous and I trust that you can see why. Next time I start lecturing anarchists on what was and wasn't true anarchism, you can say the same thing about me.

You don't inheret class. It doesn't stay with you for your entire life. They were living in the mountains and had not a single petty-bourgeois relationship to their life, how are you going to brand them "petty-bourgeois" when they themselves abandoned that many years prior?

Oh really? People get old? Groundbreaking stuff Alwayscriticizingsocialistsocieties!

If people do not know how far the revolution has brought them, they may be tempted to go against it. Does that support your point? Not at all.

Socialism doesn't mean that no one would ever think a bad thought against the revolution; although according to you, the lack of criticism against the government is somehow proof that it isn't socialist. If one follows your "logic", dissidents prove that a society isn't socialist, but not having dissidents proves that a society isn't socialist. Which one is it? Can people criticize the revolution, or can they not?

So if a hair on an anarchist's head is harmed, then a society can't be socialist? You're delusional. This supposed persecution of anarchists that you haven't even quantified has nothing to do with the label of "socialist" or not, you just want it to be because you're clueless and you think the world revolves around your imagination.

Cite all this immigration you're claiming, because the idea that the masses were flocking to Cuba is laughable. I could see rich people moving there, but that doesn't help your argument either.

What the f*ck do you think "not afraid of speaking one's mind" means? It means that people are fully able to say what they want, when they want to whomever they want. How is that NOT free speech?

Che didn't die in a mysterious way, everyone and their granny knows that the CIA killed him. Che was trying to build a guerrilla movement inside Bolivia, a Cuban airlift and invasion would probably do a BIT more harm than good.

Oh, and give us something solid before making these slanderous claims.

Do you even know who Oswaldo Paya is? He's a well-known dissident who's won many awards abroad. He's not "SOME" dissent by any stretch of the imagination. Did you even read what I said about those dissidents in prison? They were taking money illegally for subversive activities...and you're defending them.

Paya can say that he's going to be killed all he wants. Does that mean anything? I've researched his activity, and I can only find a single night that he spent in jail. A counterrevolutionary's delusion doesn't exactly translate to anything in reality.

Unfortunately, reality is something you have little interest in.

AlwaysAnarchy

22nd February 2007, 19:45

Manic: Read my last post, it details all the socialist and anarchist organizations which are against and strongly criticize Castro and his regime:

The World Socialist Web Site is against Castro. (they call it "petty bourgeois")
World Socialist Movement.
Democratic Socialists of America.
Blackened.Net
AnarchisOrder.org

Karl Marx's Camel

22nd February 2007, 19:48

2. Even though the Batista regime sucked ass big time, more people were coming immigrating TO Cuba during this time....now it's the other way around.

There are many things one can criticize the current regime for, but this is not one of them, really.

Well revolutionaries get old...that is bound to happen.

Again, REAL socialism is not about people "getting older" or forgetting how bad capitalism was,

Quoted for truth.

Like Redstar2000 said, on the case of Cuba:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not easily done...but distinctly possible.

The workers choose the communists as their representitives for the new government.
Yeah yeah.

We hear this yap all the time.

Go live in Cuba. Live with a Cuban family, get to know the Cuban family. After a while, ask those people you have created a bond with, about the realities of Cuba. Ask them if Cubans really live in "the world's greatest democracy", ask them if they do "choose" communists as their "representatives" as IIRC Fidel has proclaimed Cuba is.

The reality of Cuba is miles away from the rightwing (exile-Cuban gusanos in particular) sentiment and the regime loyal people fondling Fidel's balls. Both groups have very unreal perceptions of what Cuba is like.

If you want to know the truth about Cuba, what is going on; Live in Cuba!

And if you can't, read some books (I have two wonderful norwegian books) about life in Cuba from people who either live or have lived there, about Cuban life, culture, mentality, etc.

PRC-UTE

22nd February 2007, 19:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:45 pm
Manic: Read my last post, it details all the socialist and anarchist organizations which are against and strongly criticize Castro and his regime:

The World Socialist Web Site is against Castro. (they call it "petty bourgeois")
World Socialist Movement.
Democratic Socialists of America.
Blackened.Net
AnarchisOrder.org
Some of those groups you list are petite bourgeois, the democratic socialists.

and some tiny left wing splinter group Peoples front of judea oppose the revolution? all six of em? :lol:

Councilman Doug

22nd February 2007, 19:58

But the fact remains that they did come from the upper middle class, Castro was a wealthy laywer, his brother was too and Che was a doctor. Not exactly the proleteriat here.

So it's alright for anarchists like Kropotkin, who you "support 100 percent", to be from the ruling class?

Again, REAL socialism is not about people "getting older" or forgetting how bad capitalism was, it is supposed to be a vast improvement over former conditions, so great that no one or almost no one would think of going back to that place and time.

Have you ever actually done any research on Cuba? Living conditions have greatly improved since before the revolution. It was never the intent of the regime to make socialism about "forgetting how bad capitalism was", but sometimes things don't work out as planned.

Yea well "not afraid of speaking your minds" is not the same thing as being allowed and encouraged to speak freely, criticize yoru government and allow a multitude of opinions to develop not just official ones.

There is more differences in opinion within the communist party then there is within the the two major US parties.

I wasn't. It was IMMIGRATION, not tourism. Yes of course tourism did exist (as it does now, under a cruel apartheid system where Cubans are not allowed to enjoy the same facilities, way to go capitalism!) but nevertheless it was a place where other people emigrated TO not left in droves like today.

You really need to read the whole thread, espesouly when you started it.

Then it is not socialist. Anarchists stand for workers power and destroying all

Not when they activly resist a socialist state that is constantly on the defensive against imperialist powers.

You seem to be obsesed with idelogically pure anarchists as the only ones capable of secureing worker's power. This is strange since they have rarly succeded.

While SOME dissent is allowed (albiet under intimidation) others are not. Political prisoners exist, and even with famous people like Paya there is intimidation and threats.

Socialism is a system in which the working class uses state power to secure its intrests and oppress those who would threaten those intrests. If this means having "political prisners" no rational leftist should object.

But the US could invade and conquer Cuba anytime it wants to. Do you seriously deny the US flag could be flying over Havana in 30 minutes if the US attacked Cuba with all its military power??

How can you expect a country to develope to the later stages of socialism when they are constantly threatended by imperialists.

manic expression

22nd February 2007, 21:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:48 pm
Yeah yeah.

We hear this yap all the time.

Go live in Cuba. Live with a Cuban family, get to know the Cuban family. After a while, ask those people you have created a bond with, about the realities of Cuba. Ask them if Cubans really live in "the world's greatest democracy", ask them if they do "choose" communists as their "representatives" as IIRC Fidel has proclaimed Cuba is.

The reality of Cuba is miles away from the rightwing (exile-Cuban gusanos in particular) sentiment and the regime loyal people fondling Fidel's balls. Both groups have very unreal perceptions of what Cuba is like.

If you want to know the truth about Cuba, what is going on; Live in Cuba!

And if you can't, read some books (I have two wonderful norwegian books) about life in Cuba from people who either live or have lived there, about Cuban life, culture, mentality, etc.
I've talked to many people who have been to Cuba, studied in Cuba and lived with Cubans. The perception I get is more supportive of the government and society's direction than anything else. Some do hold the same position you do, that both the gusanos and the supporters are wrong, but I've gotten that perception less than the positive view.

The fact that there is less revolutionary sentiment is something I've had confirmed to me by two pretty good sources (one being a professor in Latin American studies who knows countless students who have travelled to the island). That's a big problem.

And I'm trying to get the book "Democracy in Cuba & the 1997-1998 Elections" to read. However, the perception that I have presented is taken indirectly from this source (many of the sources I've cited cite that very book, which is a firsthand account of elections in Cuba).

So while you would like to think that I'm "fondling Castro's balls", the fact is that I've done my homework.

Hopefully I can get to Cuba this summer. Wish me luck.

manic expression

22nd February 2007, 21:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:45 pm
Manic: Read my last post, it details all the socialist and anarchist organizations which are against and strongly criticize Castro and his regime:

The World Socialist Web Site is against Castro. (they call it "petty bourgeois")
World Socialist Movement.
Democratic Socialists of America.
Blackened.Net
AnarchisOrder.org
This is getting ludicrous.

a.) Democratic Socialists of America? Are you kidding me? Do you really think that revolutionaries should heed the advice of those lapdogs?

b.) Oh, sure, it's a big surprise that ANARCHISTS don't support MARXISM-LENINISM. :lol: :rolleyes:

I couldn't care less about anarchist objections to Cuba, simply because I'm not an anarchist.

c.) I honestly don't care what those groups say.

PRC-UTE

22nd February 2007, 21:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:48 pm
Like Redstar2000 said, on the case of Cuba:

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

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

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

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

except the facts don't fit what redstar2k was saying there. he later admitted he was wrong on Cuba when faced with overwelming evidence to the contrary of his stated position.

The workers choose the communists as their representitives for the new government.
Yeah yeah.

We hear this yap all the time.

we see the evidence of it as well.

Karl Marx's Camel

22nd February 2007, 21:16

I've talked to many people who have been to Cuba, studied in Cuba and lived with Cubans. The perception I get is more supportive of the government and society's direction than anything else. Some do hold the same position you do, that both the gusanos and the supporters are wrong, but I've gotten that perception less than the positive view.

Of course, why would not people either accept or support the government? The regime has made a lot of advances for Cuba. And the people of Cuba do not want the U.S. to take over and exile cubans to march in and privatize anything. People are afraid to lose there healthcare, education etc.

but I've gotten that perception less than the positive view.

What are you saying here?

Hopefully I can get to Cuba this summer. Wish me luck.

Good luck.

What will you be doing in Cuba, and to what city or village are you going to?

except the facts don't fit what redstar2k was saying there. he later admitted he was wrong on Cuba when faced with overwelming evidence to the contrary of his stated position.

Where did he admit that? And the main point of the quote was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In any case I think it holds water.

we see the evidence of it as well.

Would not a fitting "evidence" be of the general opinion among people?

If the general opinion among the people is that the country they live in is not really democratic, could there be a better evidence?

manic expression

22nd February 2007, 21:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:16 pm
Of course, why would not people either accept or support the government? The regime has made a lot of advances for Cuba. And the people of Cuba do not want the U.S. to take over and exile cubans to march in and privatize anything. People are afraid to lose there healthcare, education etc.
Yes, I agree with you.

I'll probably be going to Havana. I should start planning how I'm going to go about the visit but I have a rough idea.

Karl Marx's Camel

22nd February 2007, 22:31

Sounds nice. :)

I am sure you will have a lovely trip.

If you're going to Havana, don't miss out on Al Medina and Flor de Loto, two wonderful resturants (the former has arabian inspired food, while the latter has chinese)!

And for God's sake, avoid the hamburger across Parque Central in that kiosk. You'll thank me for it if you knew what pain I had to go through by setting my teeth in that hamburger! :lol: :( :unsure:

PRC-UTE

22nd February 2007, 22:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:16 pm

I've talked to many people who have been to Cuba, studied in Cuba and lived with Cubans. The perception I get is more supportive of the government and society's direction than anything else. Some do hold the same position you do, that both the gusanos and the supporters are wrong, but I've gotten that perception less than the positive view.

Of course, why would not people either accept or support the government? The regime has made a lot of advances for Cuba. And the people of Cuba do not want the U.S. to take over and exile cubans to march in and privatize anything. People are afraid to lose there healthcare, education etc.

but I've gotten that perception less than the positive view.

What are you saying here?

Hopefully I can get to Cuba this summer. Wish me luck.

Good luck.

What will you be doing in Cuba, and to what city or village are you going to?

except the facts don't fit what redstar2k was saying there. he later admitted he was wrong on Cuba when faced with overwelming evidence to the contrary of his stated position.

Where did he admit that? And the main point of the quote was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In any case I think it holds water.

we see the evidence of it as well.

Would not a fitting "evidence" be of the general opinion among people?

If the general opinion among the people is that the country they live in is not really democratic, could there be a better evidence?
it was after CDL posted that interview with a cuban comrade, and he admitted that cuba was in better shape than he thought.

I liked the old guy but he had a tendency to indulge in speculation.

re: popular opinion- the problem with that is what perspective the person has. if they don't have a basis for making a comparison with life in Cuba, their opinions whilst valid may not shed much light on the situation. for instance, I've spoken to cuban immigrants who told me their life was much worse after leaving their island, they now faced problems they'd never known before like drugs addiction and so on. I would guess most in Cuba nowadays who get a free education and guaranteed health care wouldn't be able to make a meaninful comparison to a capitalist hellhole like britain or usa and have no idea of the deprivation the working classes face there.

the more fundamental problem with the approach by you and pass-a-fist-right-thru-ya is that you come to the conclusion that because Cuba isn't perfect that means it isn't socialist. any marxist worth their salt can spot the liberalism in this thinking.

Fawkes

22nd February 2007, 22:56

But the fact remains that they did come from the upper middle class, Castro was a wealthy laywer, his brother was too and Che was a doctor. Not exactly the proleteriat here.
Nearly every major leftist intellectual came from a relatively well off background.

PRC-UTE

22nd February 2007, 22:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:56 pm

But the fact remains that they did come from the upper middle class, Castro was a wealthy laywer, his brother was too and Che was a doctor. Not exactly the proleteriat here.
Nearly every major leftist intellectual came from a relatively well off background.

they abandoned and even turned against their class roots, that's indesputable. Castro's family's plantation was nationalised first!

of course, I should just cease responding to this crap. he attacks the cuban revolution cos some of the leadership came out of the petite-bourgeoisie, and look who he's got for an avatar! :lol:

Karl Marx's Camel

22nd February 2007, 23:14

the more fundamental problem with the approach by you and pass-a-fist-right-thru-ya is that you come to the conclusion that because Cuba isn't perfect that means it isn't socialist.

False.

Rather because I have no belief in the sentiment that Cuba is a truly democratic nation where people actively control and make the policy of that nation, where everyone from the lowest person in charge to the President, is chosen and elected by the people.

The lack of workers power does it. Cuba could have been like Haiti, and if there was no doubt that the people were in power, that a dictatorship of the proletariat had been created, then yes one could call Cuba socialist. Even if it was hell on earth. It doesn't have to be a "family picture", and from history we know that is not the case; that the dictatorship of the proletariat, facing enemies, the battle that occurs and the aftermath; it is not pretty. Take the spanish civil war for instance.

No country is perfect, especially not third world countries. Poverty or not, or other societal problems; it has nothing to do with evaluating if Cuba is socialist or not.

re: popular opinion- the problem with that is what perspective the person has. if they don't have a basis for making a comparison with life in Cuba, their opinions whilst valid may not shed much light on the situation. for instance, I've spoken to cuban immigrants who told me their life was much worse after leaving their island, they now faced problems they'd never known before like drugs addiction and so on. I would guess most in Cuba nowadays who get a free education and guaranteed health care wouldn't be able to make a meaninful comparison to a capitalist hellhole like britain or usa and have no idea of the deprivation the working classes face there.

Regarding what you have said, yes, I have had this confirmed multiple times. Yes, so we agree.

But can't quite see your "point".

If people feel they "are part" of the decision making in that country, is that not valid enough? And if people feel they are being ruled rather than leading their nation themselves through representatives, is that not valid enough?

Who is to decide, and assert wether Cuba is democratic or not? Some boys and girls in Europe and North America holding up white papers with text, or Cubans themselves?

It's like what my friend from Camaguey said; that Cubans can change some things, neighbourhood stuff, local things, but other than that, people are pretty much lead and not leading.

metalero

23rd February 2007, 01:40

Why is that a thirld world struggling nation, which has sucessfully provide healthcare, education, culture to its people despite enormous difficulties, constitutes such a terrible ideological menace to liberals?
Before posting the same liberal ranting about Cuba over and over, read the pinned topics in learning section, thus you can save some time for yourself to invest it in other fruitful things rather than keeping your obsessive attacks on Cuba.

Rawthentic

23rd February 2007, 02:40

I am not saying that Cuba is hell on earth, because I know that its not. But as Marxists, it is our responsibility to criticize these self-proclaimed "socialist" nations for the benefit of the working class.

Check this link out:HERE (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62344&st=0&#entry1292259470)

manic expression

23rd February 2007, 03:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:40 am
I am not saying that Cuba is hell on earth, because I know that its not. But as Marxists, it is our responsibility to criticize these self-proclaimed "socialist" nations for the benefit of the working class.

Check this link out:HERE (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62344&st=0&#entry1292259470)
I'll check out that link, but I think there is a difference between criticism and condemnation. The anti-Cuban posts here are usually the latter.

Furthermore, most of the criticisms that I've read are borne of misconceptions about the country and the issues surrounding it. Those criticisms have no validity at all.

Unless you're an anarchist, there is very little reason to criticize the system; it is reasonable, however, to point out the aspects that can be bettered. The problem is that I don't usually see that.

Rawthentic

23rd February 2007, 03:49

I am not an anarchist at all, I am also not a "Leninist." As a Marxist, without the blinding screen of "Fidelista" or "anti-Fidelista", I call Cuba a state-capitalist nation. This is because Cuba has a market economy, deeply hampered by the State to regulate it to the needs of the Cubans. "Free"-market or hampered market, a market it remains. This is becoming increasingly shown with the introduction of capitalist relations and production in the tourist sector, mainly wage-labor. This is a product of the lack of material conditions necessary to support a socialist society, yet I do not hold this against Cuba. As I have stated earlier, working Cubans, which form the vast majority in Cuba, can take direct control of the policy, economy, and means of production in Cuba through the democratic institutions that they form. You see, Cuba is not transitioning anywhere, just merely following the path of industrialization. Yet because Fidel claims to working to achieve the transition, he can justify his grip on power.

There's a problem if you can't point out problems within a country or society. Its necessary to reject bourgeois propaganda, but it would be equally worse to accept everything that you hear from self-described "socialists" or communists." You need to make your mind up from self experiences and knowledge.

Entrails Konfetti

23rd February 2007, 03:57

I'm not a Trotskyist, but every once in a while ISR says something interesting.

What do you Fidelistas make of this?
Cuba: Image and Reality (http://www.isreview.org/issues/51/cuba_image&reality.shtml)

manic expression

23rd February 2007, 04:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:49 am
I am not an anarchist at all, I am also not a "Leninist." As a Marxist, without the blinding screen of "Fidelista" or "anti-Fidelista", I call Cuba a state-capitalist nation. This is because Cuba has a market economy, deeply hampered by the State to regulate it to the needs of the Cubans. "Free"-market or hampered market, a market it remains. This is becoming increasingly shown with the introduction of capitalist relations and production in the tourist sector, mainly wage-labor. This is a product of the lack of material conditions necessary to support a socialist society, yet I do not hold this against Cuba. As I have stated earlier, working Cubans, which form the vast majority in Cuba, can take direct control of the policy, economy, and means of production in Cuba through the democratic institutions that they form. You see, Cuba is not transitioning anywhere, just merely following the path of industrialization. Yet because Fidel claims to working to achieve the transition, he can justify his grip on power.

There's a problem if you can't point out problems within a country or society. Its necessary to reject bourgeois propaganda, but it would be equally worse to accept everything that you hear from self-described "socialists" or communists." You need to make your mind up from self experiences and knowledge.
"State-capitalism" has no real defintion, no one knows what it means. This much was clear in the 30's and it's clear now.

While I do acknowledge that Cuba has now permitted some private enterprise (minimal, practically insignificant), this is due to the fact that their only trading partner disappeared (thanks a lot Gorbachev), and they are basically under siege. If that happened to any comprable country, people would be dying in the streets; however, Cuba has maintained its extraordinary standard of living for the Cuban workers.

Workers HAVE direct control over policy. The system is geared to respond precisely to what the workers demand. The government, the means of production and other aspects of society are controlled by the workers. Please read the link I provided on the first page.

Fidel's "grip on power" is, in reality, not what it seems. He had little power and exercised less of it. The real power is in the people's assembly. Again, the link I provided shows this (and it uses citations from other sources).

Yes, there are problems to point out, but they are not problems that lie with the system. Cuba's system is a great model, and the achievements of the revolution are beyond impressive. That needs to be kept in mind (I'm not saying you're ignoring it, this is to everyone).

I also want to say that your points are well taken, they are not unreasonable IMO, I just disagree with them.

Rawthentic

23rd February 2007, 05:00

State-capitalism means here that the Cuban ruling class owns the means of production, the workers work it. You see, Fidel Castro is no worker, he does not create any wealth. The ruling elite in the CCP do quite better than the average Cuban worker. Not significantly, but better.

Cuba is a class society. The governmental bureaucracy controls society, which supplanted the bourgeois class before the revolution.

Karl Marx's Camel

23rd February 2007, 11:35

Why is that a thirld world struggling nation, which has sucessfully provide healthcare, education, culture to its people despite enormous difficulties, constitutes such a terrible ideological menace to liberals?

Providing healthcare education and culture "despite enormous difficulties" doesn't constitute socialism. That is the opinion of social democrats.

Vargha Poralli

23rd February 2007, 14:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:10 am
I am not saying that Cuba is hell on earth, because I know that its not. But as Sectarians, it is our responsibility to criticize these self-proclaimed "socialist" nations for the benefit of the working class.

Check this link out:HERE (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62344&st=0&#entry1292259470)
Fixed.

Check this link out:HERE (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62344&st=0&#entry1292259470)

And I have refuted your argumnet in the same thread in this post. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62344&view=findpost&p=1292259569)

Well what of you have missed out is the Cuban Working class. It had solidly stood firmly for the revolution all these years and still stands for it. My solidarity is with the Cuban working class. Cuba can't have communism anytime soon until there is a world revolution so instead of bashing Cuba for not having socialism we all concentrate on doing something in the countries where we live to achieve communism.

***************

BTW welcome back [email protected]$$|-|013.

Guerrilla22

23rd February 2007, 14:57

xule

23rd February 2007, 15:03

cuba isnt socialist...not yet. that's what they're ultimately aiming for, as far as i understand. but i really doubt any country will suceed as regards socialism.
the truth is, a society cant function without some authorative figure.
my reasons for some of the factors you mention are:
1]people from all over are falling over each other to get into america because they think they'll get a big house, good job, and magically look like britney spears [ick] :blink:
2] every country imprisons people unfairly :mellow:
3] with all the garbage most newspapers talk about, maybe having a single, condensed one wouldn't be such a bad idea :P
4] oh yes, of course capitalism is completely flawless :rolleyes:

Karl Marx's Camel

23rd February 2007, 16:59

The government officials are elected from the bottom down, with the people directly electing the National Assembly, the National Assembly selects the Coucil of State, whose President proposes the Council of Ministers, which must be confirmed by the National Assembly. Both the President and Vice President are elected by the Natational Assembly also. So the real power lies within the National Assembly, which is directly appointed by the workers.

In theory.

I know my Cuban friends laugh every time they hear "Cuba is the most democratic nation on earth", as so many European and North American Fidelistas like to claim.

It's easy to stand on the other side of the fence and shout at how democrat this and that is.

and always will be a democratic worker's state.

Just as the Soviet Union and China were democratic workers state, something they would forever be.

Is this based on evidence, or "gut feeling", faint religious hope, what?

It doesn't make more sense than the christian fanatics talking about how everything was first invented in heaven; The notion is based on "faith".

Cuba has been and always will be a democratic worker's state.

How long do you claim Cuba has been a "democratic worker's state"?

manic expression

23rd February 2007, 17:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:00 am
State-capitalism means here that the Cuban ruling class owns the means of production, the workers work it. You see, Fidel Castro is no worker, he does not create any wealth. The ruling elite in the CCP do quite better than the average Cuban worker. Not significantly, but better.

Cuba is a class society. The governmental bureaucracy controls society, which supplanted the bourgeois class before the revolution.
Fidel Castro sure as sh*t isn't a worker, he's 80 YEARS OLD. Is your idea of socialism a place where 80 year olds are supposed to work? Please, be serious.

Castro does not live in luxury, even his most virulent enemies can only point to a grainy video of a bottle of wine. So no, the "ruling elite" do NOT do "quite better" than the average worker, that is a complete pile of crap.

Socialism is a class society. Classes exist in socialism. The workers control society, period. Suggesting that they do not is simply incorrect in light of the facts.

PRC-UTE

23rd February 2007, 19:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:14 pm

the more fundamental problem with the approach by you and pass-a-fist-right-thru-ya is that you come to the conclusion that because Cuba isn't perfect that means it isn't socialist.

False.

Rather because I have no belief in the sentiment that Cuba is a truly democratic nation where people actively control and make the policy of that nation, where everyone from the lowest person in charge to the President, is chosen and elected by the people.

The lack of workers power does it. Cuba could have been like Haiti, and if there was no doubt that the people were in power, that a dictatorship of the proletariat had been created, then yes one could call Cuba socialist. Even if it was hell on earth. It doesn't have to be a "family picture", and from history we know that is not the case; that the dictatorship of the proletariat, facing enemies, the battle that occurs and the aftermath; it is not pretty. Take the spanish civil war for instance.

No country is perfect, especially not third world countries. Poverty or not, or other societal problems; it has nothing to do with evaluating if Cuba is socialist or not.

re: popular opinion- the problem with that is what perspective the person has. if they don't have a basis for making a comparison with life in Cuba, their opinions whilst valid may not shed much light on the situation. for instance, I've spoken to cuban immigrants who told me their life was much worse after leaving their island, they now faced problems they'd never known before like drugs addiction and so on. I would guess most in Cuba nowadays who get a free education and guaranteed health care wouldn't be able to make a meaninful comparison to a capitalist hellhole like britain or usa and have no idea of the deprivation the working classes face there.

Regarding what you have said, yes, I have had this confirmed multiple times. Yes, so we agree.

But can't quite see your "point".

If people feel they "are part" of the decision making in that country, is that not valid enough? And if people feel they are being ruled rather than leading their nation themselves through representatives, is that not valid enough?

Who is to decide, and assert wether Cuba is democratic or not? Some boys and girls in Europe and North America holding up white papers with text, or Cubans themselves?

It's like what my friend from Camaguey said; that Cubans can change some things, neighbourhood stuff, local things, but other than that, people are pretty much lead and not leading.
Oh my. this is why I don't think you're genuine. After all the documentation of Cuba's democratic society, from the CDR's to the workers congress, or the simple fact that the majority support the Revolution and its gains, which would certainly be aware of, you still attempt to fetishise the issue of 'democracy'.

I also suspect you're from a rather privelaged background, which is why you're not impressed with the gains made for the working class in cuba as many of us of humbler origins are.

I'll post a few links later about Cuba and why I consider it a Workers' Republic. I know it won't matter mcuh to you cos you'll go on comparing it to an ideal that only exists in your head.

AlwaysAnarchy

23rd February 2007, 19:55

AlwaysAnarchy

23rd February 2007, 19:57

Yea and just how many thousands has Castro killed since the revolution?
Do you know what Marx said about the death penalty?

"No nation can call themselves a civilized country who still use the death penalty"

Ponder that one for a second.

AlwaysAnarchy

23rd February 2007, 20:19

Anarchist demands of Castro

A few years ago, Cuban anarchists met Castro and had several demands, all of which I feel should be enacted but unfortunately none have. You can see them for yourself.

1. Abolish the death penalty (Even Marx hated the death penalty)
2. Abolish the standing army (Instead make a armed workers with no petty bourgeois standing army)
3. De-centralize the country; step down from the "Maximum leader" position and allow for workers councils not government control.

manic expression

23rd February 2007, 20:29

Originally posted by AlwaysAnarchy+February 23, 2007 07:55 pm--> (AlwaysAnarchy @ February 23, 2007 07:55 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 05:00 am
State-capitalism means here that the Cuban ruling class owns the means of production, the workers work it. You see, Fidel Castro is no worker, he does not create any wealth. The ruling elite in the CCP do quite better than the average Cuban worker. Not significantly, but better.

Cuba is a class society. The governmental bureaucracy controls society, which supplanted the bourgeois class before the revolution.
Exactly!! :D :D

In socialism, everyone is supposed to be making worker's wages...does Castro live like just another worker? I don't think so. He enjoys big screen TVs, drinks fine wine, and is driven around in Mercedez Benz. :rolleyes: [/b]
Your points are increasing in their stupidity. Just give up while you still have a shred of dignity.

Castro's living standards are not significantly higher than that of many Cubans. He has a TV and he has been seen in the vicinity of a bottle of unknown wine. If that's the only evidence you have, I suggest not making unfounded and slanderous claims.

Yea and just how many thousands has Castro killed since the revolution?
Do you know what Marx said about the death penalty?

"No nation can call themselves a civilized country who still use the death penalty"

Ponder that one for a second.

Cuba doesn't have the death penalty. A rare exception was made for a bunch of reactionary terrorists who murdered innocent men, women and children. Yet you seem to be defending these monsters and condemning the country that gave them what they deserved. I should have known you would eventually side with gusano terrorists.

And about those 5 anarchists' demands: who cares? Please realize that no one of any real importance gives a flying f*ck about your delusional "demands".

AlwaysAnarchy

23rd February 2007, 20:34

In socialism, ALL must be making workers wages.

I asked a simple question: Does (or did) Fidel Castro? yes or no??

Not having the death penalty means not having the death penalty. Period. No exceptions. Marx said this over 100 years ago man, how about some progress??

And please, don't play the right wing game of "if you don't support the death penalty that means you support the criminals who commit these violent acts that the STATE deems worthy of the death penalty."

Heck you sound like a conservative defending the death penalty in the US right there.

manic expression

23rd February 2007, 20:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:34 pm
In socialism, ALL must be making workers wages.

I asked a simple question: Does (or did) Fidel Castro? yes or no??

Not having the death penalty means not having the death penalty. Period. No exceptions. Marx said this over 100 years ago man, how about some progress??

And please, don't play the right wing game of "if you don't support the death penalty that means you support the criminals who commit these violent acts that the STATE deems worthy of the death penalty."

Heck you sound like a conservative defending the death penalty in the US right there.
Fidel Castro lives like many other Cuban workers. So, in effect, he does live on a "worker's wage". A bottle of wine does not contradict this.

So you would like mass-murderers to live out their lives? How "enlightened" of you. There is nothing wrong with making an exception for terrorists. And the rule stays the same in spite of the exception (although someone of your intelligence probably can't grasp that simple concept). How about some thinking?

You're the one opposing the punishment of reactionaries, not me.

You sound like you don't have a single clue of what you're talking about. Disagree with the death penalty all you want, it has no bearing on Cuba being socialist or not. I'm sure you've noticed by now that you've abandoned arguing your original point, which effectively means that you've lose the argument.

AlwaysAnarchy

23rd February 2007, 20:43

I do not oppose the punishment of reactionaries, I oppose the death penalty, Not the same thing. Again you should compare your arguments about the death penalty in Cuba vs that of right wingers defending the death penalty in the US.

I am for punishing reactionaries but humanely, not making the same barbaric examples of the capitalists.

Pirate Utopian

23rd February 2007, 20:46

humanely punishing?, what?
Batista you are very bad for opressing all those people!, go sit in the corner and think about what you did!

metalero

23rd February 2007, 20:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:35 am

Why is that a thirld world struggling nation, which has sucessfully provide healthcare, education, culture to its people despite enormous difficulties, constitutes such a terrible ideological menace to liberals?

Providing healthcare education and culture "despite enormous difficulties" doesn't constitute socialism. That is the opinion of social democrats.
Ignoring material conditions when condemning Cuba is in fact a typical anti-communist tactic used by liberals and armchair socialists. Many of these basic services you take for granted wouldn't be possible in a isolated social democracy subdued to a brutal blockade, let alone colonial capitalist regimes in latinamerica which haven't been be able to provide these basic rights to their population despite having great resources.

revolutionaryspirit

23rd February 2007, 20:48

hey ım new at here can you tell me about site please? :P

southernmissfan

23rd February 2007, 21:50

I figure I'll add my two cents to the debate, for what it's worth.

AlwaysAnarchy, do you oppose the "death penalty" and killing in general during a revolution? I'm no expert, but it's no real secret that nearly all anarchists, Marxists, and communists of various sorts believe that revolution is necessary, and that this revolution will not be pretty. I don't know specifically of the cases alluded to, so I'm working simply on what's been posted here. But looking at it from the Cuban point of view, wouldn't "terrorists" like that be no different than any other kind of counter-revolutionary or class enemy? I mean, is this really "the death penalty"? This isn't just common murderers or violent criminals we're talking about.

Guerrilla22

23rd February 2007, 23:05

In theory.

I know my Cuban friends laugh every time they hear "Cuba is the most democratic nation on earth", as so many European and North American Fidelistas like to claim.

It's easy to stand on the other side of the fence and shout at how democrat this and that is.

who's claimming that Cuba is the most democratic country on earth. Are you denying that this how the Cuban government works? If not please enlighten us as to how it does work,.

Is this based on evidence, or "gut feeling", faint religious hope, what?[QUOTE]

Based on my knowledge of how Cuba actually operates. By the same token, what are your presumptions based on? You're not an expert on Cuba, nor can you point to any evidence to refute my claims.

[QUOTE]How long do you claim Cuba has been a "democratic worker's state"?

Since the revolutionary government took power.

Entrails Konfetti

23rd February 2007, 23:19

What do you make of this in particular?

Cuba: Image and Reallity (http://www.isreview.org/issues/51/cuba_image&reality.shtml)

Is there “direct democracy,” or any democracy, in Cuba?

Castro supporters, and Castro and Guevara themselves, have argued that Cuba had abandoned “the commonplaces of bourgeois democracy”19 for a new kind of direct democracy. The nature of this democracy derived allegedly from Fidel’s connection with the masses established, for example, at the numerous mass rallies where he would deliver hours-long speeches. But these rallies allowed millions to applaud Castro’s decisions, not debate or guide them. “Fidel Castro will decide on the orientation of the future,” a university director told René Dumont in 1969, expressing a widespread sentiment at the time.20 In the early phases of the revolution, these rallies were genuinely spontaneous expressions of mass enthusiasm, but by the late sixties they had become, according to Dumont, “obligatory.”21 At best, the masses are expected to play a consultative role, at worst, as an echo chamber for decisions already made at the top.

For Fidel, according to his 1960 May Day speech, democracy in Cuba was expressed not in elections, “so often prostituted to falsify the will and the interests of the people,” but in “the close union and identification of the government and the people.”22 It is one thing to expose the limits of bourgeois democracy, however, and another to claim that democracy can exist without voting and elections. As Nigel Harris writes, for Marxists,

The critique of parliament…was not a rejection of democracy itself. Lenin wrote: “The way out of parliamentarianism is not, of course, the abolition of representative institutions and the electoral principle, but the conversion of the representative institutions from mere ‘talking shops’ into working bodies.” For, Lenin continues: “We cannot imagine democracy, not even proletarian democracy, without representative institutions, but we can and must think of democracy without parliamentarianism.”23

“Close union,” that is, in the sense of support or agreement with decisions taken at the top, is not democracy, unless the close union is a product of elected leaders answering to their constituents. For Castro, however, democracy was not about the power of the masses to make important decisions or to exercise control over their elected representatives. Nigel Harris, writing about Mao’s China, captures in his description a similar reality in Castro’s Cuba:

The Chinese Communist party’s view of democracy was taken from the Russia of the 1930s. Democracy is a style of relationship between cadres and non-cadres, between party leaders and cadres, not the subordination of power to the majority. In this sense democracy is not directly about power at all.24

Real working-class democracy would have required the creation of formal institutions of working-class rule, such as existed in the Paris Commune or the Russian Revolution—real decision-making bodies directly elected and instantly recallable, making no more than an average worker’s wage. As Argentine socialist Francisco Sobrino notes, “There can be no substantive democracy (one with truly egalitarian features) without it also being a formal democracy.”25 The fact that the old “national institutions were in varying degrees of disrepute”26 meant that the mass of Cubans did not cry when Castro failed to revive bourgeois elections. Yet neither were new organs of popular democracy created from below to replace them. State power was in the hands of a small group around Fidel.
A number of supporters of the Cuban regime point to the existence of mass organizations such as the neighborhood-based Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR) and the Federation of Cuban Women, which, says McInerney, “involved the masses of Cuban workers and peasants in the revolutionary process,” as evidence of democracy in Cuba. But the CDRs are not decision-making organs; their day-to-day function is to act as the eyes and ears of the regime at the neighborhood level. As one author notes, “CDR militants have…hounded ‘nonintegrated’ individuals, denouncing and condemning all forms of parasitic and antisocial behavior, as well as collaborating with local authorities in policing neighborhoods. In 1980, according to eyewitness accounts from Mariel refugees, the CDR sponsored ‘repudiation meetings’ designed to chastise, browbeat, and humiliate citizens who wanted to leave Cuba. Often, these meetings turned into violent and vituperative mob action.”27

The Federation of Cuban Women (FMC), like all state-sponsored “mass organizations” in Cuba, is an instrument for the mobilization of women to fulfill tasks determined by the party rather than collective debate and decision-making. A study of women’s role in Cuba by Alfred Padula and Lois M. Smith found that the FMC “was an intensely hierarchical organization.”

With its top-down lines of command and its use of military terminology, the FMC—like all mass organizations in Cuba—had a certain martial aura. Activities were perceived as battles, struggles, campaigns; members were organized in brigades and detachments. Uniformity was the watchword. In 1974 the FMC launched a campaign to encourage proper sleeping habits in children, which included a contest “to select a figure and a melody that will be used every day at a specific hour [on radio] to urge the children to go to sleep.”28

As with most important gatherings, Fidel Castro was always the last speaker at FMC congresses, and according to Vilma Espín, president of the FMC, “His words constitute a mandate.”29
Even the much-celebrated system of “poder popular” or people’s power, does not in fact confer any real power on ordinary people. Popular power was touted as a means to institutionalize the revolution after a period of years (it wasn’t formed until 1976!) in which the revolutionaries had lost contact with the masses. A system of municipal and regional assemblies, crowned by a National Assembly—popular power, in the words of Sam Farber, offered “the appearance of democracy without the substance.”30

This is true for a number of reasons. One, there is only one legal political party—the Cuban Communist Party. Barred from campaigning, candidates can only present their political biographies. The electoral law of 1992 allowed for the election of all the members of the National Assembly (previously only 55 percent were elected, the rest appointed from above). A “candidacy commission” consisting of leaders of the CCP and leaders of the mass organizations nominates the candidates, resulting in a situation in which the overwhelming majority of candidates are either members of the CCP or its organizations. What’s more, the number of candidates is restricted in such a way that the municipal electors can either vote for “all the candidates, some of the candidates, or none of them.”31

All of this, in any case, is moot because the National Assembly, which meets only twice a year for a few days, is a rubber-stamp body. As Marifeli Pérez-Stable writes, it is “not a permanent legislature and consequently did not have an actual role in governing Cuba.” Its role is to listen to various reports and approve various budgets, economic plans and laws and vote for them. “Debate could modify but never reject proposals. The assembly approved most matters unanimously, or nearly so.… Invariably…once President Castro spoke definitively on an issue, discussion stopped.”32

Scholar Carollee Bengelsdorf, who observed a meeting of the National Assembly in 1978, witnessed a discussion about Cuba’s housing shortage in which some delegates complained that they had lost voters’ confidence because none of the problems affecting people at the municipal level ever seemed to get solved. On the last day of the assembly, Fidel explained,

We cannot simply do things because the electorate says it’s best, that it is good, really beautiful. There are many beautiful things in the world that have to wait to be realized. Unquestionably, there is a yearly plan of work, construction, and when this plan is made, the wishes of the electorate cannot be taken into account.33

Quite simply, the bureaucracy denies democracy because it has decisions it wants to make that it knows Cuban workers won’t accept.
The top CCP leaders are also not accountable to their own party. It held its first congress in 1975—ten years after the party’s founding. Since then there have been only five congresses, the last one being held in 2002. In the party itself, as Maurice Zeitlin, a sympathetic observer, described in 1970, “The Central Committee of the Communist Party was not chosen by the rank and file of the party throughout the country, and there seems to be no inclination to carry out such elections with the Party itself.”34
One might expect that in a workers’ state the working class might have some degree of control over economic priorities, but such is not the case in Cuba. The technical advisory councils established in 1960, for example, were seen as a way to get workers to accept management decisions. “It is not a question of discussing all administrative decisions with the workers,” noted Politburo member Armando Hart, “but of obtaining their enthusiasm to support the principal measures of the administration.”35 Guevara and other leaders were of the same opinion. Writes Pérez-Stable,

Collective decision-making was never their prerogative: the revolutionary government conferred exclusive power over enterprise matters to management. “Collective discussions, one-man decision-making and responsibility,” Guevara contended. Carlos Rafael Rodriguez seconded him: “We hear from many quarters the idea that workers should decide by majority vote…. Collective management is destructive. Administrators should have, have, and will have the last word.”36

The trade unions in Cuba are also adjuncts of management that promote productivity and labor discipline rather than defend workers’ rights. The justification for this new role for the unions was that the interests of the working class and the state were now identical. “One of the principal functions of the trade unions under socialism,” wrote Raúl Castro in 1971,

is to serve as a vehicle for the orientation, directives, and goals which the revolutionary power must convey to the working masses…. The work of the trade unions helps and supports that of the administration…. The principal tasks [in which the unions should be involved] are productivity and work discipline; more efficient utilization of the workday…and most efficient and rational use of both material and human resources.37

Union organizations independent of party (state) control are prohibited, and there is no right to strike. Beginning in 1969, a new law required that “everyone in the labor force carry an identification card listing his occupational and employment record, and making the maintenance of such records on their employees mandatory.”38 This emphasis on the part of the Cuban leadership on the role of unions promoting greater productivity continues today. The September 20, 2006, edition of Granma, an official organ of the CCP, cited a speech by José A. Carrillo Gómez, chief political director of the Cuban armed forces, stating that, “The principal role of the labor unions is to promote productivity and labor discipline.”39
Political opposition to the regime is carefully monitored and frequently suppressed, either through intimidation or imprisonment. And it is not just Miami-funded dissidents who are harassed. Pro-Soviet communists and left-wing critics have also been repressed, as well as various artists. In the 1960s, “The tiny group of Cuban Trotskyists (Posadistas) was in prison for several years after their literature and printing press were seized by the government,” writes Farber. This was a group that supported the Cuban Revolution. “They were eventually released on condition that they cease independent political activity.”40 Ariel Hidalgo spent seven years in prison in Cuba, according to Amnesty International, on the charge of “hostile propaganda,” for writing a pamphlet in 1984 criticizing the “prerogatives” enjoyed by managers but “denied to nearly the whole rank-and-file working population.”41 Where critical opinions that contradict official policy are not permitted one cannot speak of real debate, let alone democracy.

Raúl Castro once said that Cuba is “the most democratic state” in history, “even without representative institutions” because it “represents the interests of the working class, no matter what its form and structure.” It is surely a peculiar democracy whose superiority consists in the fact that the governing party rules in the name of the working class without having to answer to any “representative institutions.”42 The Cuban regime squared this circle by asserting that, “The working class considered as a whole…cannot exercise its own dictatorship.” Why? “Originating in bourgeois society,” the working class is “marred by flaws and vices from the past.”43 (Apparently, Raúl, Fidel, Che, and all the other revolutionaries who “originated in bourgeois society” were somehow unmarked by these vices). Ironically, when Raúl Castro made this statement, the head of the CTC was Lázaro Peña, the same Stalinist bureaucrat who was president of the union federation under Batista’s first dictatorship.

Some socialists who have no problem seeing through the limitations of bourgeois democracy—the choice every four to six years of who will misrepresent the people—seem to wear blinders when it comes to the absence of any democracy at all in Cuba.

Rawthentic

24th February 2007, 02:19

I am not saying that Cuba is hell on earth, because I know that its not. But as Sectarians, it is our responsibility to criticize these self-proclaimed "socialist" nations for the benefit of the working class.

Oh shut the fuck up, just because I don't agree with you does not make me a sectarian. Ha, talk about sectarianism in the Trotskyist movement.

And I have refuted your argumnet in the same thread in this post.

Then I suggest you to reread it because LSD slaughtered you there. I also invite all comrades to please check out the link I provided earlier, simply to refute this comrade.

Fidel Castro sure as sh*t isn't a worker, he's 80 YEARS OLD. Is your idea of socialism a place where 80 year olds are supposed to work? Please, be serious.

Neither are any of the ruling Communist Party officials. This argument you made is ridiculous. In socialism, all the leaders and officials will create wealth, we will not have a small clique of "experts" and "intellectuals" who just know whats good for the masses, no matter how revolutionary they claim to be.

Socialism is a class society. Classes exist in socialism. The workers control society, period. Suggesting that they do not is simply incorrect in light of the facts.
Yeah, theres classes, but the workers are supposed to control it, and they don't. They do enjoy a great degree of democracy and control, but this is by no means direct.

Ignoring material conditions when condemning Cuba is in fact a typical anti-communist tactic used by liberals and armchair socialists.
Agreed.

Yet those material conditions you speak of is precisely why Cuba cannot sustain a socialist society. Through a world revolution can Cuba accelerate the process to socialism.

RNK

24th February 2007, 02:40

I think this sheds light on two facts. For me atleast.

First is that it may be impossible to make that great leap to true Communism unless it is a world-wide movement. A Communist society can not endure when living next to a capitalistic, imperialist country.

Secondly, is it possible that the best we can hope for at the moment is a sort of socialist transitional "limbo" until Communism is ready to be implimented world-wide? Personally, I simply can not see how a country can establish Communism when capitalism is quite strong and healthy in the world.

That being said, although Cuba obviously has it's faults, I feel it is probably one of the best, if not THE best, cases of socialism we've yet seen in the world. For all of the trumped-up "dictatorship" that right-wing media would like to make Cuba out to be, I feel that they have established a pretty fair and equal society that is, yes, prone to corruption and degredation, but nevertheless has not degraded into socialist imperialism and proto-capitalism like so many other socialist countries. They are semi-introverted, but only because of the looming threat of the greatest capitalist power to ever exist; they are literally within sight of America, and do not have the luxery of being situated far from it's immediate grasp.

All in all, like I said, Cuba's system has its faults but by and large it should be examined and taken as an example of how to deal with the vagaries of the transitional socialist stage of development. Castro definately made some mistakes, but he also generated a lot of success, and just because Cuba isn't "perfectly Communistic" does not mean Cuba does not deserve our praise for the hard work they've done, which, under the circumstances, is quite a lot of work.

Rawthentic

24th February 2007, 02:48

I feel that they have established a pretty fair and equal society that is, yes, prone to corruption and degredation
No. Read the facts. In Cuba, alot do better than others. Fidel does better than your average Cuban prostitute. Go figure.

just because Cuba isn't "perfectly Communistic" does not mean Cuba does not deserve our praise for the hard work they've done, which, under the circumstances, is quite a lot of work.
Nobody is pushing Cuba to be "perfectly Communistic", whatever that means. We simply take a critical look at Cuba and the government, instead of accepting everything that self-described "socialists" or "communists" say about it. I applaud the Cuban workers for what they have done in face of difficult material conditions.

I am not a "hater" on Cuba or Fidel's regime for no particular reason. It is due mainly to adverse material conditions, the US embargo, and the bureaucratic government which have not allowed socialism to come and prosper.

manic expression

24th February 2007, 05:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:43 pm
I do not oppose the punishment of reactionaries, I oppose the death penalty, Not the same thing. Again you should compare your arguments about the death penalty in Cuba vs that of right wingers defending the death penalty in the US.

I am for punishing reactionaries but humanely, not making the same barbaric examples of the capitalists.
You ARE criticizing Cuba for punishing a bunch of mass murderers. That is at least pathetic, failing that an insult to the families of those who were killed.

You can sit around and masturbate to your "humanity"; real people in the real world have to deal with real problems with real solutions. "Barbaric"? Try "reality".

I'm sick and tired of fools like yourself, who know nothing of Cuba's system, trying to condemn it because they give a bunch of monsters what they deserve.

RGacky3

24th February 2007, 08:33

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 24, 2007 05:55 am
You ARE criticizing Cuba for punishing a bunch of mass murderers. That is at least pathetic, failing that an insult to the families of those who were killed.
Damn man there were A LOT of mass murderers in Cuba, hell aparently there still are, I hope Castro gets all of them quickly.

Vargha Poralli

24th February 2007, 09:53

Oh shut the fuck up, just because I don't agree with you does not make me a sectarian. Ha, talk about sectarianism in the Trotskyist movement.
Sorry my mistake you are not just Sectarian but a "first world elitist sectarian". And I am not in any Trotskyists movement.

Then I suggest you to reread it because LSD slaughtered you there. I also invite all comrades to please check out the link I provided earlier, simply to refute this comrade.

LSD didn't slaughter me. He dodged the point I made by saying that it is not relevant to the subject at hand.So stop lying.

Link (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62344&view=findpost&p=1292259938)

Yet those material conditions you speak of is precisely why Cuba cannot sustain a socialist society. Through a world revolution can Cuba accelerate the process to socialism.

That is my point too.

VukBZ2005

24th February 2007, 11:54

In my opinion, the reason why Cuba has not reached Communism at all is lack of a constant supply of Coal, Iron ore, Aluminum, Bauxite, Tin, Zinc, Copper, Nitrates and Cobalt, in addition to making use of its own natural resources of Nickel.

They are just giving away the nickel to China without making any industrial-minded deals in the process, like getting some of the cheap industrial manufacturing equipment that it's producing..

if you have these materials, in addition to having a industrialist-minded economic policy (i.e. making deals to import natural resources and necessary industrial manufacturing equipment from willing economic partners - Cuba could get the iron ore and coal from Venezuela and Brazil, the copper and nitrates from Chile, the tin, the zinc and the cobalt also from Brazil and the industrial machinery from China - which it is doing already) and modernize, expand and democratize its industrial manufacturing operations; you would probably reach a communist society a lot more rapidly, even with a embargo. Things would probably cost more to import due to the embargo, but as long as you manage your finances properly, that really would not make that much of a severe impact.

What has hurt Cuba more than anything is the lack of a policy that is based upon a program of total import-substitution industrialization.

It seems to have partially abandoned that approach and has bet its future hard currency earnings and economic development on the development of information technology (which is why that fiber optic line that Cuba is building with the help of Venezuela is so important to the Cuban economic ministry; it would speed up the development of IT initiatives such as the Computer Sciences University outside of Havana and the development of "software factories" in all universities throughout Cuba, allowing the Cuban government to export the software that Cuban workers manufacture to the Latin American market.)

I just feel that the Cuban economic policy needs to return to having the policy of import-substitution industrialization as the main basis for economic development, while having services become something that supplements the development of import-substitution industrialization initiatives.

These initiatives include the further expansion and modernization of the Antillana de Acero steelworks in Havana province, the expansion of the steel mill in Las Tunas de Victoria, the expansion and modernization of the electronic manufacturing plants in Havana City, which manufacture televisions, electronic parts for both steel mills and sugar mills and has the potential to manufacture computers for the entire Cuban populace, the rebuilding of a paper manufacturing industry, and even the development of a automobile industry (which can be done if you expand the steelworks and develop the electronics industry in a consistent and proper manner.)

After all, import-substitution industrialization is the policy that industrialized England, America and all the other major industrialized nations in the first place.

Karl Marx's Camel

24th February 2007, 12:53

who's claimming that Cuba is the most democratic country on earth.

Fidel Castro. And other Fidelistas.

Are you denying that this how the Cuban government works? If not please enlighten us as to how it does work,.

We all have been presented with papers that claim the Soviet Union and other east european states were democratic, that they had a "free and democratic electoral system", we all know it isn't. I'm sorry, wasn't.

There is no free exchange of opinion, free press (yes the press can to some extent write what they want and to some extent be critical of the economic situation etc. but it is closely bound to what the government clique says they can and can't) and free formation of opposition against the Castro clique in Cuba, etc.

What do you think would happen to a journalist who would write a damning article condemning Fidel's farse democracy and intervention in Ethiopia?

When have we ever in Cuba seen elections of people directly opposed to Castro, elections of anarchists, marxists etc. opposed to Castro?

Is there really a possibility to be a candidate, to be opposed to the sole legal party in Cuba and the official line?

Sepsa, a state owned security firm has their own counter-demonstration unit. In demonstrations where slogans are directed against Castro, they come driving in white Mercedes minibusses and their white pants and shirts with tie, and run against the demonstrators and shout slogans in favor of Castro. You really think this happens in democratic societies?

I established a thread a while ago about the various holes in the so-called elections in Cuba. IIRC, no Fidelistas responded to it. Cannot find the thread though, due to problems with the search engine.

Based on my knowledge of how Cuba actually operates. By the same token, what are your presumptions based on?
So you say Cuba will forever be a workers state. You cannot rule out foreign objects like a meteor hitting the Carribean, a war against Cuba, a fall of the regimes like we saw in Eastern Europe, etc. etc.
There is a difference between your gut feeling that Cuba will forever be a (ahem) "democratic workers state", and my assumption that you cannot ever claim that a status quo will forever exist. It's as stupid to think that the Roman empire would last forever.

You're not an expert on Cuba, nor can you point to any evidence to refute my claims.

Are you an expert?

How could one, in 1934, refute that the German empire would forever exist? One doesn't have a crystal ball to look into and "provide evidence", you know. You seem to have one though. I think your little crystal ball is called "denial" and "spasmic defense of irrational thinking".

Cheung Mo

24th February 2007, 13:59

The only think Castro needs to do is to stop throwing pot heads in jail for 5 years at a time. Shit like that gives the left no credibility with criticising American drug policy and its role in Washington's imperialism.

Karl Marx's Camel

24th February 2007, 15:00

Isn't it often more than five years?

On a personal note - I met a really nice casa owner in Santa Clara on a trip last year and we quickly became good friends (a common event in Cuba). On a trip back, I called several times to make casa arrangements to stay there again. To make a long story short, he was caught with some marijuana and is currently serving a 20 year prison sentence! Not a position you want to put yourself in.

http://www.cuba-junky.com/cuba/crime.html

Rawthentic

24th February 2007, 16:29

Sorry my mistake you are not just Sectarian but a "first world elitist sectarian". And I am not in any Trotskyists movement.
Baseless.

I want Cuba to become socialist, yet socialism is more of a goal in Cuba than where social organization is at. If this idea makes me a "first world elitist sectarian", than so be it.

And you are a Trotskyist, it doesn't matter if you're not part of such an organization because the sectarianism is very evident.

LSD didn't slaughter me. He dodged the point I made by saying that it is not relevant to the subject at hand.So stop lying.
Once again, all comrades, please check out this link I provided earlier to see who is lying.

That is my point too.
Good.

You can sit around and masturbate to your "humanity"; real people in the real world have to deal with real problems with real solutions. "Barbaric"? Try "reality".
I agree here with manic. It will be up to the Cuban people and workers to determine their own destiny, to take direct power.

AlwaysAnarchy

24th February 2007, 17:28

Originally posted by NWOG+February 24, 2007 12:53 pm--> (NWOG @ February 24, 2007 12:53 pm)

who's claimming that Cuba is the most democratic country on earth.

Fidel Castro. And other Fidelistas.

[/b]

NWOG, you rock!! :wub: :wub:

You are completely 100% correct:

Originally posted by Fidel Castro+--> (Fidel Castro)"This election is the most democratic in the world, there is no doubt," Castro said. "No other country has a system like this."[/b]

And other Fidelistas... check out this very thread for instance! :lol:

Originally posted by Red Lenin
Actually, there is more democracy in Cuba than any other nation on earth as far as I am concerned

[email protected]
What do you think would happen to a journalist who would write a damning article condemning Fidel's farse democracy

Well we already knows what happens:

Report: Cuba won't renew reporters' credentials (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070223/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cuba_news_media;_ylt=AnLONmBiZRDt9rH3bFuZX1a3IxIF)

Is there really a possibility to be a candidate, to be opposed to the sole legal party in Cuba and the official line?

Nope.

609 candidates (one candidate per seat). Up to 50% of the candidates must be chosen by the Municipal Assemblies. The candidates are otherwise proposed by nominating assemblies, which comprise representatives of workers, youth, women, students and farmers as well as members of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, after initial mass meetings soliciting a first list of names. The final list of candidates is drawn up by the National Candidature Commission taking into account criteria such as candidates' merit, patriotism (!!), ethical values and revolutionary history(IE "support for Fidel Castro).

Human Rights Watch
Cuba remains a Latin American anomaly: an undemocratic government that represses nearly all forms of political dissent. President Fidel Castro, now in his forty-seventh year in power, shows no willingness to consider even minor reforms. Instead, his government continues to enforce political conformity using criminal prosecutions, long- and short-term detentions, mob harassment, police warnings, surveillance, house arrests, travel restrictions, and politically-motivated dismissals from employment. The end result is that Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law.”

Now lemme guess the reaction from the Fidelistas: "My eyes see Human Rights Watch, I stop reading. I only read what is Castro-approved. What!?! You disagree?!? Reactionary!! Off to the gulag with you!! and btw, we're still democratic!"

Rawthentic

24th February 2007, 17:32

AlwaysAnarchy, now that you have pointed out real problems that Cuban workers face, what is your solution? It's not enough to simply criticize without offering alternatives.

And anarchy isn't one either.

Guerrilla22

24th February 2007, 17:39

Sepsa, a state owned security firm has their own counter-demonstration unit. In demonstrations where slogans are directed against Castro, they come driving in white Mercedes minibusses and their white pants and shirts with tie, and run against the demonstrators and shout slogans in favor of Castro. You really think this happens in democratic societies?

<_< again, this like most of your other wild claims cannot be substantiated, maybe by the anti-Castro camp in Miami, but no one takes their word seriously.

When have we ever in Cuba seen elections of people directly opposed to Castro, elections of anarchists, marxists etc. opposed to Castro

Probaly because anarchist are indifferent to politics and don't participate in governments.

At any rate, you dodged my arguments, Cuba has had an established electoral system for a long time now, it may not be a perfect democracy, but no such thing exist.

Karl Marx's Camel

24th February 2007, 17:51

again, this like most of your other wild claims cannot be substantiated

Live in Cuba for a year or two. I am sure you will hear of it. If not, ask some people you know and who trust you.

It is not "my claim", it is what one of my good friends who has a Cuban wife, who has lived in Cuba for years and have visited Cuba countless of times during the past ten years says. And in case you wonder if he has any motive for saying this, I doubt it. He is relatively pro-Castro.

This doesn't get any coverage by Granma of course. Why? Because Cuba doesn't have a free press.

You will hear many "wild claims" when you have been in Cuba for a while. But you will also find new and positive things about Cuba that is rarely mentioned. I recommend living in Cuba for a while. You'll probably shed the absolute faith in the regime fairly quick, just as if you had been a hater of the regime in Cuba, you would have gotten a far more balanced view.

At any rate, you dodged my arguments, Cuba has had an established electoral system for a long time now

So did the soviet union and ddr, yes?

Guerrilla22

24th February 2007, 18:03

It is not "my claim", it is what one of my good friends who has a Cuban wife, who has lived in Cuba for years and have visited Cuba countless of times during the past ten years says. And in case you wonder if he has any motive for saying this, I doubt it. He is relatively pro-Castro.

wow, even better a secon person, eyewitness account. Next you'll be telling me, that you yourself live in Cuba.

Rawthentic

24th February 2007, 18:05

NWOG did you live in Cuba?

Karl Marx's Camel

24th February 2007, 18:08

I am not born Cuban, but I have been to Cuba enough to feel Cuban and not think politics when being in Cuba.

It's my "second home". :)

manic expression

24th February 2007, 19:48

AlwaysAnarchy

Now that you've also withdrawn from defending reactionaries (which means you've lost that argument, too), let me address your new-and-improved idiotic points.

Yes, Cuba is right in disallowing reporters who spread the propaganda that insipid fools like yourself love so much.

You have once again demonstrated that you lack a single f*cking clue about Cuba. There are many, many, many office-holders in Cuba that are not members of the PCC. Candidates are chosen by the people in public meetings.

NWOG

Since AlwaysAnarchy has become your little cheerleader, and since you've dragged every supporter of Cuba into your argument, I'm going to try and respond.

First, Cuba is extremely democratic, that much is a fact. Please, for f*cks' sake, read this link that I've posted about 1,001 times:

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

(please note that it cites many sources to support its claims, something you have seemingly failed to do)

Next, "freedom of the press" translates to "freedom of gusano propaganda". Why would Cuba want to allow reactionaries to spread BS about their system? It makes no sense to assert that they should, and so that point is senseless. Oh, and I know for a fact that Cubans can listen to CNN with a simple radio in Havana.

I've read countless first-hand accounts of pro-government counter-demonstrations in Cuba in the bourgeois press, and there was not a SINGLE mention of what you have claimed. What do you cite when asked for a source? "Go and live there for a year or two"...pretty underwhelming stuff. On the contrary, I've heard that those pro-government demonstrators are regular Cubans, even Cuba's enemies cite the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution as the main body which coordinates these efforts (translation: Cuba's enemies contradict your claims).

And comparing Cuba's electoral system to the USSR is in defiance of the facts.

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

And if your biggest criticism of Cuba is the penalties they have for drug use, that says quite a bit about your overall argument.

manic expression

24th February 2007, 19:50

Oh, and another thing. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International both have their heads far up their asses when it comes to the situation of Cuba. They take the opinions of gusano reactionaries as fact, they perpetuate thoroughly debunked misconceptions.

Nice try, AlwaysAnarchy (or, more appropriately, AlwaysDefendingReactionaryTerrorists), but your pathetic arguments are shown to be false yet again.

Karl Marx's Camel

24th February 2007, 20:35

First, Cuba is extremely democratic, that much is a fact. Please, for f*cks' sake, read this link that I've posted about 1,001 times:

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

If Cuba is "extremely democratic", how come so many Cubans (and I am not talking about the Jineteras) disagree? :huh:

Next, "freedom of the press" translates to "freedom of gusano propaganda".
Uh, no it doesn't.

Have you ever seen a marxist critique of Fidel in Granma, or any other Cuban newspaper, the past half century?

If you have, if you can provide a marxist critique in Granma openly condemning Fidel as a failed leader, failing the proletariat and peasantry of Cuba in the formation of socialism, the lack of democracy, the support for the brutal regime in Ethiopia etc. An open and direct, utter damning criticism of Fidel as a leader, I will not participate in Cuba discussions for the next three months. And you can ask the moderators to change my name title from "Comandante" to "Gusano". I will accept it, if you can provide such an article.

And if your biggest criticism of Cuba is the penalties they have for drug use, that says quite a bit about your overall argument.

It wasn't an argument. Not everyone is trying to "make a point" or have a "hidden agenda". :)

Rawthentic

25th February 2007, 00:56

If you have, if you can provide a marxist critique in Granma openly condemning Fidel as a failed leader, failing the proletariat and peasantry of Cuba in the formation of socialism, the lack of democracy, the support for the brutal regime in Ethiopia etc. An open and direct, utter damning criticism of Fidel as a leader, I will not participate in Cuba discussions for the next three months. And you can ask the moderators to change my name title from "Comandante" to "Gusano". I will accept it, if you can provide such an article.

Manic, that seems like a fair negotiation doesn't it? You seem quite convinced of Cuba's great democracy and socialism, I see no problem in proving NWOG wrong.

manic expression

25th February 2007, 05:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:35 pm

First, Cuba is extremely democratic, that much is a fact. Please, for f*cks' sake, read this link that I've posted about 1,001 times:

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

If Cuba is "extremely democratic", how come so many Cubans (and I am not talking about the Jineteras) disagree? :huh:

Next, "freedom of the press" translates to "freedom of gusano propaganda".
Uh, no it doesn't.

Have you ever seen a marxist critique of Fidel in Granma, or any other Cuban newspaper, the past half century?

If you have, if you can provide a marxist critique in Granma openly condemning Fidel as a failed leader, failing the proletariat and peasantry of Cuba in the formation of socialism, the lack of democracy, the support for the brutal regime in Ethiopia etc. An open and direct, utter damning criticism of Fidel as a leader, I will not participate in Cuba discussions for the next three months. And you can ask the moderators to change my name title from "Comandante" to "Gusano". I will accept it, if you can provide such an article.

And if your biggest criticism of Cuba is the penalties they have for drug use, that says quite a bit about your overall argument.

It wasn't an argument. Not everyone is trying to "make a point" or have a "hidden agenda". :)
Cite the opinions of these "so many Cubans".

No, I only read the Granma in passing, and my Spanish isn't very good anyway (I read the Spanish version because it's good to practice). At any rate, it matters little to me whether the official press criticizes Fidel or not, since other news sources are readily available to practically any Cuban, and dissenting views are tolerated. I may (or may not) try to find such an article, but this variable is of little importance to me, and I suspect the same for others who support Cuba.

The overall argument I was referring to was the criticism of Cuba. The point was that if the biggest objection people can come up with is drug policy, then that says volumes.

manic expression

25th February 2007, 05:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:56 am

If you have, if you can provide a marxist critique in Granma openly condemning Fidel as a failed leader, failing the proletariat and peasantry of Cuba in the formation of socialism, the lack of democracy, the support for the brutal regime in Ethiopia etc. An open and direct, utter damning criticism of Fidel as a leader, I will not participate in Cuba discussions for the next three months. And you can ask the moderators to change my name title from "Comandante" to "Gusano". I will accept it, if you can provide such an article.

Manic, that seems like a fair negotiation doesn't it? You seem quite convinced of Cuba's great democracy and socialism, I see no problem in proving NWOG wrong.
Whether or not the official newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party criticizes its leader (and arguably its most recognized and influential figure) is of no importance to the question of Cuba's democracy.

The real factors that people need to be looking at is how candidates are selected, how the workers' voices are reflected and responded to, how dissidents are treated (dissidents, NOT people illegally taking money from Miami and Washington DC); in short, how democratic the system is. The paper of the PCC can declare Fidel a demi-god for all I care (well, that might be an overstatement), it has no bearing on whether or not Cuba is democratic.

RedAnarchist

25th February 2007, 13:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:48 pm
hey ım new at here can you tell me about site please? :P
Reading the Guidelines is always a good idea if you're new - Guidelines (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=boardrules)

Also, have a look at the different subforums and don't be afriad to post your opinion :)

Rawthentic

25th February 2007, 20:21

The paper of the PCC can declare Fidel a demi-god for all I care (well, that might be an overstatement), it has no bearing on whether or not Cuba is democratic.
I agree with what you say in your overall post, but I have something to say on this. If the Granma paper is the main paper in Cuba and is of the PCC, then democracy should include criticisms of Castro, his policy, and his leadership. Don't you think?

manic expression

25th February 2007, 21:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:21 pm

The paper of the PCC can declare Fidel a demi-god for all I care (well, that might be an overstatement), it has no bearing on whether or not Cuba is democratic.
I agree with what you say in your overall post, but I have something to say on this. If the Granma paper is the main paper in Cuba and is of the PCC, then democracy should include criticisms of Castro, his policy, and his leadership. Don't you think?
Democracy does include criticisms of Castro, criticisms which come from many factions in Cuba. Oswaldo Paya, the Ladies in White and other opposition groups are very critical of the Cuban government and Fidel Castro, and they are permitted to demonstrate and organize.

I'm not sure why the paper of the PCC would want to criticize Castro. It's not a matter of not questioning him, it's a matter of not maligning your most recognized figure in public. You can be sure that Fidel's word isn't the last by any measure, and I've heard of many instances where the Popular Assembly has went against the wishes of Castro (I'll try to find a source, but I can't make any promises).

Karl Marx's Camel

25th February 2007, 21:51

Democracy does include criticisms of Castro, criticisms which come from many factions in Cuba. Oswaldo Paya, the Ladies in White and other opposition groups are very critical of the Cuban government and Fidel Castro, and they are permitted to demonstrate and organize.

"I have been told that I am going to be killed before the regime is over but I am not going to run away." - Oswaldo Paya.

And Martha Beatriz Roque (yes we know she is a *****) has been threatened and terrorized for voicing her opinion.

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of organization requires that one is not terrorized, punished or anything similar for saying what is on your heart, writing what you feel, or organizing.

Demonstrating should be free, shouldn't it?

But in Cuba, it is not so:If your employer says you will march, you do it. Or else you might lose many benefits, become partially black listed and never promoted.

It comes with a price.

manic expression

25th February 2007, 21:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:51 pm

Democracy does include criticisms of Castro, criticisms which come from many factions in Cuba. Oswaldo Paya, the Ladies in White and other opposition groups are very critical of the Cuban government and Fidel Castro, and they are permitted to demonstrate and organize.

"I have been told that I am going to be killed before the regime is over but I am not going to run away." - Oswaldo Paya.

And Martha Beatriz Roque (yes we know she is a *****) has been threatened and terrorized for voicing her opinion.

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of organization requires that one is not terrorized, punished or anything similar.

Demonstrating should be free, shouldn't it?

But in Cuba, it is not so:If your employer says you will march, you do it. Or else you might lose many benefits, become partially black listed and never promoted.

It comes with a price.
NWOG, we've been over this before.

I couldn't care less how much Oswaldo Paya THINKS he is going to be killed, I only care how much he has REALLY been killed, and the answer to that is ZERO. Until something actually happens outside of Oswaldito's puny and backwards head, there is nothing to discuss.

"Threatened and terrorized"? Last I checked, these reactionaries go on marches and are met by counterdemonstrators, since most people disagree with them. This isn't all too different than the experience of demonstrators in so many countries.

It seems that the only "price" these people pay is the rejection and opposition of their ideas by the rest of society, in addition to all these threats that they hear in their imagination.

Karl Marx's Camel

25th February 2007, 22:05

I couldn't care less how much Oswaldo Paya THINKS he is going to be killed

"Being told" he is going to be killed, not "thinking" he is going to be killed.

In other countries that claim to be "free and democratic", such people receive police protection. But I doubt they (prominent dissidents like Oswaldo and Roque) would want this, considering they, IIRC, have been saying those behind the threats and terrorizing are the same that control the police in Cuba; the state.

And I doubt the state would want to give them police protection.

In any case, as mentioned before, this isn't just about prominent dissidents, but also of common people;

In Cuba, if you ARE "loyal" to the regime, you will get awarded. I can't remember exactly what and I do not have a complete list, but it is often material things like new air condition, TV, or a promotion.

If you are NOT "loyal" to the regime, you might lose many benefits, become partially black listed and never promoted.

Rawthentic

25th February 2007, 22:19

Manic, I wouldn't necessarily call them "reactionaries" for demonstrating would you? You sound like the US government calling every anti-war protest or immigrant protest radical. They're not, at least for the most part.

manic expression

25th February 2007, 22:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:05 pm

I couldn't care less how much Oswaldo Paya THINKS he is going to be killed

"Being told" he is going to be killed, not "thinking" he is going to be killed.

In other countries that claim to be "free and democratic", such people receive police protection. But I doubt they (prominent dissidents like Oswaldo and Roque) would want this, considering they, IIRC, have been saying those behind the threats and terrorizing are the same that control the police in Cuba; the state.

And I doubt the state would want to give them police protection.

In any case, as mentioned before, this isn't just about prominent dissidents, but also of common people;

In Cuba, if you ARE "loyal" to the regime, you will get awarded. I can't remember exactly what and I do not have a complete list, but it is often material things like new air condition, TV, or a promotion.

If you are NOT "loyal" to the regime, you might lose many benefits, become partially black listed and never promoted.
"Saying that he was told" he was going to be killed, not necessarily anything else.

Again, that's what they're saying, which I will take with a truckload of salt at least. Furthermore, the treatment they have recieved is downright gracious compared to what the US routinely does to protestors.

So they don't get a new TV? Is that really the worst they can allegedly come up with?

manic expression

25th February 2007, 22:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:19 pm
Manic, I wouldn't necessarily call them "reactionaries" for demonstrating would you? You sound like the US government calling every anti-war protest or immigrant protest radical. They're not, at least for the most part.
I don't call them reactionary just because they're demonstrating, I'm calling them reactionary because they basically oppose socialism completely. Make no mistake, these people are Boris Yeltsin wannabes at best.

Karl Marx's Camel

25th February 2007, 22:47

So they don't get a new TV? Is that really the worst they can allegedly come up with?

Might lose their job, house, benefits and become terrorized. If I was Cuban and had the choice of the aforementioned consequenses or go to a government demonstration ordered by the government, I would go. And that is what Cubans do .

This in a country where people live in tight quarters, where you will need your money, where you will need all the benefits you can get in order to survive. You don't want to lose your house, move back into the family and lose priviledges you need or worrying about being beaten up or other forms of intimidation (the physical intimidation though, as I have understood it, is not normally used against ordinary dissidents, they just whip them by taking away economic assistance, promotions etc etc).

You do not want to lose the social security you have.

Most people just follow the state. Go to pro-Castro anti-U.S. demonstrations so you will not be blacklisted etc.
I think that says a lot, both of the regime and to some extent of the cuban people.

Cuban people aren't revolutionary enough to get up and go to demonstrations, so they will need a small carrot in front of their face and a whip behind their arse. Of course the one feeding and whipping the uninspired mule is the regime.

I have heard sick people can decided to participate or not, but most people go because of the reasons mentioned.

A society where the proletariat rule, where the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, I assume people would have enough revolutionary fervor to go to demonstrations without rewards and punishment.

manic expression

25th February 2007, 23:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:47 pm

So they don't get a new TV? Is that really the worst they can allegedly come up with?

Might lose their job, house, benefits and become terrorized. If I was Cuban and had the choice of the aforementioned consequenses or go to a government demonstration ordered by the government, I would go. And that is what Cubans do .

This in a country where people live in tight quarters, where you will need your money, where you will need all the benefits you can get in order to survive. You don't want to lose your house, move back into the family and lose priviledges you need or worrying about being beaten up or other forms of intimidation (the physical intimidation though, as I have understood it, is not normally used against ordinary dissidents, they just whip them by taking away economic assistance, promotions etc etc).

You do not want to lose the social security you have.

Most people just follow the state. Go to pro-Castro anti-U.S. demonstrations so you will not be blacklisted etc.
I think that says a lot, both of the regime and to some extent of the cuban people.

Cuban people aren't revolutionary enough to get up and go to demonstrations, so they will need a small carrot in front of their face and a whip behind their arse. Of course the one feeding and whipping the uninspired mule is the regime.

I have heard sick people can decided to participate or not, but most people go because of the reasons mentioned.

A society where the proletariat rule, where the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, I assume people would have enough revolutionary fervor to go to demonstrations without rewards and punishment.
I have read many objections to Cuba from Cuba's enemies, and not once has this sort of claim come up. Those demonstrations are not mandatory, even Cuba's most virulent critics don't assert as much.

Furthermore, are you actually suggesting that every person who signed Paya's petition has suffered consequences? I doubt it for many reasons, one being that no one has said anything of it.

Cubans, dissident or otherwise, do not need to worry about survival, that much is clear. You can't say the same for the society Paya encourages.

Your points have no support behind them. Furthermore, I have heard nothing to even remotely suggest what you have claimed from any source, even the most anti-Cuban sources. It is difficult to take your argument seriously with this lack of evidence.

Rawthentic

25th February 2007, 23:21

NWOG did say that he lived in Cuba and had been there. If this is true, his claims should be taken more seriously. On the other hand, you have CdL, who also says that he's lived in Cuba and claims that Cuba is socialist.

Karl Marx's Camel

25th February 2007, 23:31

I have read many objections to Cuba from Cuba's enemies, and not once has this sort of claim come up. Those demonstrations are not mandatory, even Cuba's most virulent critics don't assert as much.

As I've said before, the problem with Cuba's enemies is that they spread lies. Even when they try to attack Cuba and the regime, they bring up lies, when they could have used real life examples. But they do not know Cuba, and they do not want to tell of the more balanced reality in Cuba.

To them, it is "Cuba's healthcare is in total ruins", not "well, the intensive care is actually quite good but the common doctor's office is often of varying quailty".

To them, it is "Do as Castro says you are dead", not "well, actually, you CAN choose to stay at home, and nothing major will happen, but you might just lose these and these things that you normally take for granted".

They don't want people to think and reflect on Cuba. It is Cuba is bad under Castro, end of story.

Why can't they talk about how Cuba actually is?

Because, gosh, then they would actually tell the fucking truth! :o

And the truth and the demonisation of Castro and Cuba is not running in accordance with reality, so naturally the haters of Cuba cannot speak of reality.

Reality is their enemy, so they have created a whole different Cuba.

Cuba is so much incredibly better than the Castro and Cuba haters would like to have it, and not so romantic, great and pure as Castro supporters would like to have it.

That's why I have always said, you need to go to Cuba (and not on a government tour since it is, well, "rigged" by the government), and if you cannot, read a book about the Cuban people that is written by a person living in Cuba for long periods and who has a Cuban family.

They will tell the truth, because they do not have an agenda, other than to tell what Cuba and its people are about.

You have two official versions; Cuba is bad and suffering and Castro is evil, and Cuba is a good socialist state and Castro is a great saint. These are the "lines" that have been drawn up, and the truth is squeezed in the middle and few gets access to the truth since the two sides mentioned are fighting.

Those demonstrations are not mandatory

I don't think I have ever said they are "mandatory". It is not like one is getting shot in the head for not participating in demonstrations.' :P

But if you don't you might just suffer in some way or another. And Cubans are smart enough to do what it takes to get by in life, even if it is going to some government organization. And the demonstrations and rallies are not that bad, IIRC you get free day from work the same day, and you drink and dance afterwards and might just get some "meat" from the male or female market. That is at least, my experience from participating in some rallies in Cuba. I think the rallies are nice, you meet people and all that, but I am a foreigner so I have "nothing to lose" by not going to rallies.
No consequense.

It is difficult to take your argument seriously with this lack of evidence.

If Cuba would have a free press than it would have been a different case. I could have given you an article criticizing various things, but since such articles in Cuba are rarely written, how can I?

The evidence lies in Cuba. Live in Cuba on a non-governmental program (not in the brigades) for enough time and you will not just accept the evidence, but agree as well, I am sure.

Furthermore, are you actually suggesting that every person who signed Paya's petition has suffered consequences? I doubt it for many reasons, one being that no one has said anything of it.

Who knows, I do not have a crystal ball, nor do I know or want to have contact with his supporters.

Listen, it is NOT like this in Cuba: If you are critical this and this WILL happen.

Laws and "rules" in Cuba vary from place from place and are rarely static. One day, this might be allowed here, this might be illegal there, in this area, it is uncertain. Just because one is critical doesn't mean one will face serious consequenses automatically, and if one do face consequenses, there is no fixed rules on what consequenses.

As I have understood but in this case I am not entirely sure, many of these decisions belong to the local CDR or your employer.

manic expression

26th February 2007, 04:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:31 pm

I have read many objections to Cuba from Cuba's enemies, and not once has this sort of claim come up. Those demonstrations are not mandatory, even Cuba's most virulent critics don't assert as much.

As I've said before, the problem with Cuba's enemies is that they spread lies. Even when they try to attack Cuba and the regime, they bring up lies, when they could have used real life examples. But they do not know Cuba, and they do not want to tell of the more balanced reality in Cuba.

To them, it is "Cuba's healthcare is in total ruins", not "well, the intensive care is actually quite good but the common doctor's office is often of varying quailty".

To them, it is "Do as Castro says you are dead", not "well, actually, you CAN choose to stay at home, and nothing major will happen, but you might just lose these and these things that you normally take for granted".

They don't want people to think and reflect on Cuba. It is Cuba is bad under Castro, end of story.

Why can't they talk about how Cuba actually is?

Because, gosh, then they would actually tell the fucking truth! :o

And the truth and the demonisation of Castro and Cuba is not running in accordance with reality, so naturally the haters of Cuba cannot speak of reality.

Reality is their enemy, so they have created a whole different Cuba.

Cuba is so much incredibly better than the Castro and Cuba haters would like to have it, and not so romantic, great and pure as Castro supporters would like to have it.

That's why I have always said, you need to go to Cuba (and not on a government tour since it is, well, "rigged" by the government), and if you cannot, read a book about the Cuban people that is written by a person living in Cuba for long periods and who has a Cuban family.

They will tell the truth, because they do not have an agenda, other than to tell what Cuba and its people are about.

You have two official versions; Cuba is bad and suffering and Castro is evil, and Cuba is a good socialist state and Castro is a great saint. These are the "lines" that have been drawn up, and the truth is squeezed in the middle and few gets access to the truth since the two sides mentioned are fighting.

Those demonstrations are not mandatory

I don't think I have ever said they are "mandatory". It is not like one is getting shot in the head for not participating in demonstrations.' :P

But if you don't you might just suffer in some way or another. And Cubans are smart enough to do what it takes to get by in life, even if it is going to some government organization. And the demonstrations and rallies are not that bad, IIRC you get free day from work the same day, and you drink and dance afterwards and might just get some "meat" from the male or female market. That is at least, my experience from participating in some rallies in Cuba. I think the rallies are nice, you meet people and all that, but I am a foreigner so I have "nothing to lose" by not going to rallies.
No consequense.

It is difficult to take your argument seriously with this lack of evidence.

If Cuba would have a free press than it would have been a different case. I could have given you an article criticizing various things, but since such articles in Cuba are rarely written, how can I?

The evidence lies in Cuba. Live in Cuba on a non-governmental program (not in the brigades) for enough time and you will not just accept the evidence, but agree as well, I am sure.

Furthermore, are you actually suggesting that every person who signed Paya's petition has suffered consequences? I doubt it for many reasons, one being that no one has said anything of it.

Who knows, I do not have a crystal ball, nor do I know or want to have contact with his supporters.

Listen, it is NOT like this in Cuba: If you are critical this and this WILL happen.

Laws and "rules" in Cuba vary from place from place and are rarely static. One day, this might be allowed here, this might be illegal there, in this area, it is uncertain. Just because one is critical doesn't mean one will face serious consequenses automatically, and if one do face consequenses, there is no fixed rules on what consequenses.

As I have understood but in this case I am not entirely sure, many of these decisions belong to the local CDR or your employer.
I find it suspect that such claims are corroborated by neither Cuba's enemies nor supporters. Surely you can understand this curiosity.

The link that I consistently provide draws heavily from "Democracy in Cuba", a book that was written by someone who went to Cuba and observed the elections of 1998. It does support the notion that I put forth, and so I do feel as though my claims are not baseless and have a great deal of validity.

OK, that is good to know (the reality behind the demonstrations). To be clear, the demonstrations I meant were the counterdemonstrations against groups like the Ladies in White. I am quite sure that they have nothing to do with rewards and consequences, they are done by people who support the revolution. Anyway, it is unfortunate that the revolution is losing momentum (I've heard this from a few sources); I do think that Cuba is reasonable in swelling their numbers to keep morale and energy high, even if it is partially superficial.

I'm not just asking for articles from the Granma. Other news sources have correspondents in Cuba, and I'm quite sure they would have jumped on the opportunity to paint the government in a negative light.

That is also good to know (the way things are enforced and decided). I would submit, however, that the local CDR's are organs of the workers.