Nature of the Cuban State [Archive]

manic expression

2nd October 2007, 21:15

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 02, 2007 07:28 pm
Already did: Cuba buys hundreds of millions of dollars worth food from US. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EU...twp=body_middle)
"Publication not found"...good one!

Of what sort of a regime Cuba is.

It's like this. Castro lives in a luxury which workers can't even dream of living in, which shows that Cuba is a capitalist country. Castro living in a luxury which workers can't even dream of living in isn't the reason for, however, Cuba being a capitalist country; it is a sign of it.

More unsubstantiated crap from the Castrophobes. Castro is not living in significant luxury, that is flatly wrong. By all accounts (even hostile ones) he lives in humble quarters. Furthermore, workers DO live in similar conditions.

This is a sign, afterall. A sign that you are beyond clueless and insane.

Yeah, he's a bourgeois scum - the only time I really need to think of how he specifically lives is when I'm dealing with people like yourself, promoting the remnants of Russian imperialist propaganda.

Again, unsubstantiated slander against revolutionaries. Do you get paid to help the capitalist cause or is this done for free?

No, you are doing that.

By asking you for sources? Right.

No. Because the "socialist revolution" in Cuba is a myth, something invented by the new Cuban state leaders to officially announce that they have joined the Russian imperialist camp.

That's right, everyone, taking the property of capitalists and putting it in the workers' hands is a "myth". Please, if you took off your ultra-leftist (or anti-leftist) blinders and looked at the history of the socialist revolution of Cuba, you'd see that the workers control the means of production and have established and maintained a worker state to combat the interests of the bourgeoisie. Then again, that is precisely what you seem to oppose.

How about the historical fact that the movement was merely nationalist and "democratic", not even Stalinist, not even claiming to be "socialist" when it seized the existing state? It seems facts are going against your understanding of history.

Once again, the "because I said so" argument. The Cuban revolution didn't claim to be overtly socialist when it took power because a.) the revolutionaries knew how dangerous (and foolhardy) such a declaration it would be and b.) the Cuban revolutionaries would later come to socialism and Marxism through their struggles. They didn't need to wave the Manifesto, but they DID carry out socialist revolution through the expropriation of capitalist property and worker control.

But don't let the facts get in your way, Leo, they do terrible things to ultra-leftist arguments.

Cuba had joined the Russian imperialist block.

Please do the following:
a.) Define imperialism
b.) Demonstrate how Russia constituted an "imperialist block" (bear in mind that imperialism isn't just something ultra-leftists invented for their convenience...like the rest of their pitifully misguided fantasies).
c.) Show how Cuba joined such an "imperialist block".

If you can't do the above:
a.) Shut your mouth and stop slandering socialist revolutions.

It's always fun to see you ultra-leftists flounder when faced with the challenge of presenting a lucid argument.

Castro's kids are all grown up - they don't live with him any more. If you try thinking, for a change, you can understand that children of an 80 year old probably are full adults with families themselves.

He has extended family that visits. Do you really think Castro is playing basketball and tennis? Are you truly that senile?

Regardless, having private tennis and basketball courts in the garden of your villa is not really something ordinary workers have. You are, of course, interested in the comfort of this "great leader" rather that being interested of the working class. Typical.

Why is it a villa? Because it is somewhat secluded and has some reasonable precautions against intruders? Hey, now a regular family farmer's house is a "villa"! Oh, and ordinary workers can and do play basketball and tennis; the privacy is for protection against counterrevolutionaries (who you seem so intent on aiding).

He's not a monster, he's just bourgeois.

Yawn. More unbased slander.

Even if Castro had little kids and had those private basketball and tennis courts, there would be nothing to separate him from a rich CEO who is building basketball and tennis courts for his children because he doesn't want them to play with the kids from working class families as he thinks "they are dangerous".

Why? Because you said so? Try making an analysis instead of making an idiot out of yourself. HOW is Castro not unlike a CEO? You have provided NOT A SINGLE reason for this. This is ultra-anti-leftist fallacy at its best.

Oh, and Castro is being protected from the CAPITALIST CLASS, not the working class. Don't forget that you're helping the former in their fight for exploitation.

I don't think I would have gotten a different reaction from American nationalists if I was talking about Bush. "Why don't you just come out and say that you blindly hate George Bush for no reason?"

It is not about the individual, it's just the good old class antagonism.

Bush = bourgeois (whose interests you support)
Castro = socialist revolutionary (whose intersts you oppose)

It's not that hard to understand: there are reactionaries, and there are revolutionaries; it's easy to see where you throw your lot.

So you claim that there are workers, and many workers who have several villas in different cities, private basketball and tennis courts, private pools, electronic fences that detect intruders and so forth?

I would instead say that many rather well doing capitalists don't have the private luxuries Castro is enjoying.

Villas in several cities? Castro doesn't have that much. Making up stuff as you go along, again. And, as I've said, Castro has been targeted by counterrevolutionaries, of course he needs a modicum of protection from such capitalist threats (that you aid).

You haven't argued anything worth even commenting on.

Nothing is worth commenting on for an ultra-anti-leftist like yourself, Leo, because you CAN'T logically comment on anything.

Leo

3rd October 2007, 16:30

"Publication not found"...good one!

Sorry - here you go.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EU...twp=body_middle (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EUY/is_8_10/ai_114086545?lstpn=search_sampler&lstpc=search&lstpr=external&lstprs=other&lstwid=1&lstwn=search_results&lstwp=body_middle)

More unsubstantiated crap from the Castrophobes. Castro is not living in significant luxury, that is flatly wrong. By all accounts (even hostile ones) he lives in humble quarters. Furthermore, workers DO live in similar conditions.

Several nice private villas spread in the country with tennis and basketball courts, swimming pools, electronic fences that detect intruders, roads designed to prevent "ordinary people" from going there and so forth. I'll let the reader judge whether his lifestyle is bourgeois or proletarian.

This is a sign, afterall. A sign that you are beyond clueless and insane.

Again, unsubstantiated slander against revolutionaries. Do you get paid to help the capitalist cause or is this done for free?

Don't forget that you're helping the former in their fight for exploitation.

Nothing is worth commenting on for an ultra-anti-leftist like yourself, Leo, because you CAN'T logically comment on anything.

Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?

I am fine with you making yourself look stupid but really, you are embarrassing people who have the same line with you.

By asking you for sources?

No, by not reading and ignoring the sources provided.

That's right, everyone, taking the property of capitalists and putting it in the workers' hands is a "myth".

No, just the assertion about workers taking property from capitalists hands to put it in their hands is a myth.

and looked at the history of the socialist revolution of Cuba

I'd see that it didn't exist until it was announced by Castro because he was moving towards the USSR.

you'd see that the workers control the means of production and have established and maintained a worker state to combat the interests of the bourgeoisie

Prove this. Were there workers' councils in Cuba? No. Did workers councils take power in Cuba? Again, no as they didn't exist to begin with. What happened? Castro's guerrilla movement seized the state and nationalized the economy and moved into the Russian block.

Once again, the "because I said so" argument. The Cuban revolution didn't claim to be overtly socialist when it took power because a.) the revolutionaries knew how dangerous (and foolhardy) such a declaration it would be and b.) the Cuban revolutionaries would later come to socialism and Marxism through their struggles.

First of all, "a" and "b" here contradict each other. If they knew how dangerous it would be and that was why they didn't do it, this would mean that they were Stalinists who were lying about their politics because they thought it was dangerous. This of course is an untrue scenario as the Cuban CP reported that Castro was a representative of the "haute bourgeoisie" and probably working for the CIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Cuba#History).

Now, let's see how the process actually happened:

May 1959: Castro takes power.
July 1959: Castro's intelligence chief Ramiro Valdés contacts the KGB in Mexico City. Subsequently, the USSR sends over one hundred mostly Spanish speaking advisers.
October 1959: (Due to the intelligence reports about the men sent by USSR, in my opinion) US starts to get worries about the new Cuban regime and starts planning to overthrow of Castro.
February 1960: Cuba signs an agreement to buy oil from the USSR.
February 1960: US owned refineries in Cuba refuse to process the oil coming from Russia, thus causing the Cuban state to nationalize them.
Spring 1960: A variety of pacts were signed between Castro and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, allowing Cuba to receive large amounts of economic and military aid from the USSR. Eisenhower administration is concerned with Cuba establishing closer ties with the Soviet Union.
June 1960: Eisenhower reduces Cuba's sugar import quota by 7,000,000 tons, and in response, Cuba nationalizes some $850 million worth of U.S. property and businesses.
Autumn 1960: Castro, starting to fear an invasion, becomes further dependent to the USSR and the US becomes engaged in a semi-secret campaign to remove Castro from power.
January 1961: Eisenhower brakes relations with Cuba.
April 1961: U.S. government unsuccessfully attempts to depose Castro from power by supporting an armed force of Cuban exiles to retake the island.
May 1961: Castro implies that their regime is socialist in his speech.
December 1961: Castro declares that he is a "Marxist-Leninist" for the first time.
February 1962: US launches the embargo.
October 1962: Nuclear missiles are put in Cuba for strengthening the imperialist interests of the Russian block globally. After the after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Cuba becomes even more increasingly dependent on Soviet markets and military and economic aid.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro

Now, as we see, what caused the conflict between America and Cuba is the economic relations Cuba was starting to form with the USSR, and what the conflict between America and Cuba caused is to push Cuba further to the Russian imperialist block. Again, at the root of it all, there is the economic relations of Cuba and the USSR.

Please do the following:
a.) Define imperialism

I will quote from Rosa Luxemburg:

Originally posted by Reform or Revolution+--> (Reform or Revolution)In a general way, cartels ... appear ... as a determined phase of capitalist development, which in the last analysis aggravates the anarchy of the capitalist world and expresses and ripens its internal contradictions. Cartels aggravate the antagonism existing between the mode of production and exchange by sharpening the struggle between the producer and consumer ... They aggravate, furthermore, the antagonism existing between the mode of production and the mode of appropriation by opposing, in the most brutal fashion, to the working class the superior force of organised capital, and thus increasing the antagonism between Capital and Labour.

Finally, capitalist combinations aggravate the contradiction existing between the international character of the capitalist world economy and the national character of the State – insofar as they are always accompanied by a general tariff war, which sharpens the differences among the capitalist States. We must add to this the decidedly revolutionary influence exercised by cartels on the concentration of production, technical progress, etc.

In other words, when evaluated from the angle of their final effect on capitalist economy, cartels and trusts fail as “means of adaptation”. They fail to attenuate the contradictions of capitalism. On the contrary, they appear to be an instrument of greater anarchy. They encourage the further development of the internal contradictions of capitalism. They accelerate the coming of a general decline of capitalism.[/b]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected]
Accumulation is impossible in an exclusively capitalist environment. Therefore, we find that capital has been driven since its very inception to expand into non-capitalist strata and nations, the ruin of artisans and peasantry, the proletarianization of the intermediate strata, colonial policy (the policy of ‘opening up’ markets) and the export of capital. The existence and the development of capitalism since its beginning has only been possible through a constant expansion of production into new countries.

Anti-Critique
The events that bore the present war did not begin in July 1914 but reach back for decades. Thread by thread they have been woven together on the loom of an inexorable natural development until the firm net of imperialist world politics has encircled five continents. It is a huge historical complex of events, whose roots reach deep down into the Plutonic deeps of economic creation, whose outermost branches spread out and point away into a dimly dawning new world, events before whose all-embracing immensity, the conception of guilt and retribution, of defence and offence, sink into pale nothingness.

Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will. From this point of view only is it possible to understand correctly the question of “national defence!’ in the present war... Today the nation is but a cloak that covers imperialist desires, a battle cry for imperialist rivalries, the last ideological measure with which the masses can be persuaded to play the role of cannon fodder in imperialist wars

Emphasis mine.

b.) Demonstrate how Russia constituted an "imperialist block"

It was the leader of one of the two blocks which was competing with the American imperialism for the world, that's why we can say that the Russian block was their block. As for why it was imperialist, read the Rosa Luxemburg quotes.

c.) Show how Cuba joined such an "imperialist block".

It's foreign politics were done to be mostly in favor of Russian interests (such as condemning the suppression of the Prague Spring) and it's economy was completely dependent on USSR, as demonstrated above.

And how did they economically survive when their block collapsed? In 1993, Cuban Government made it legal for its people to possess and use the U.S. dollar. From then until 2004, the dollar became a major currency. The government set up state-run "dollar stores" throughout Cuba that sold 'luxury' food, household, and clothing items, compared with basic necessities, which were bought using the Cuban peso to capture the hard currency flowing into the island through tourism and remittances - estimated at $500-800 million annually. As such, a gap in the standard of living developed between those with access to dollars and those without, showing the existence of class difference of class differences in Cuba. When the economy was doing better, dollar was replaced with "Cuban Convertible Pesos", a new currency to be exchanged with dollars by those entering Cuba and the state now even makes a 10% profit over the exchange. This currency is still in use and the "dollar stores" now only accept "Cuban Convertible Pesos". Euros, pounds sterling or Canadian dollars are still accepted however.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cu...eign_Investment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba#Foreign_Investment) , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_store_%28Cuba%29 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Convertible_Peso

He has extended family that visits. Do you really think Castro is playing basketball and tennis?

When he is healthy, I think so, yeah. If I recall correctly actually, he was playing tennis in Oliver Stone's film "Comandante".

Why is it a villa?

A big, several story private house, away from the noise of the city with a big garden, pools, tennis and basketball courts, electronic fences and so forth can be called a villa. Many more humble houses are called villas.

Oh, and ordinary workers can and do play basketball and tennis

Not in private courts in their massive gardens.

the privacy is for protection against counterrevolutionaries

Or rather for protection against those germs which the dirty workers are carrying <_<

Why? Because you said so?

No, because it simply is not different - it is simply the same mentality.

Try making an analysis instead of making an idiot out of yourself.

Just the irony of you saying that is worth spending all this time proving you wrong :rolleyes:

HOW is Castro not unlike a CEO?

He lives like they are living, more importantly runs a state like they are running a company.

Oh, and Castro is being protected from the CAPITALIST CLASS, not the working class.

Of course he is being protected by the capitalist class in Cuba, who are his associates.

Bush = bourgeois (whose interests you support)

No I don't, stop lying.

Castro = socialist revolutionary

:rolleyes:

Villas in several cities? Castro doesn't have that much. Making up stuff as you go along, again.

The Castro brothers are known to have had several other houses around the island set aside for vacations or official visits to the provinces. But they handed
over most of them for tourist lodgings after Soviet subsidies stopped arriving in 1991 and Cuba plunged into an economic crisis.

I have put the second part in to prevent you from claiming that they were small huts in different cities rather than being nice big, comfortable and luxurious houses from which the state can make good money by renting to foreign tourists.

Source: http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/fidel/castro-family.htm

spartan

3rd October 2007, 17:11

What i dont understand about this situation is why should one man namely Fidel Castro be so important? So what if the CIA kills him is this the end of "Socialist" Cuba? No because i am sure someone else will take his place but then of course people here will say "Yes and the CIA will kill his successor aswell!" My answer to that would be "Let the USA do that as they will be shooting themselves in the foot as the Proletariat everywhere will recognise the USA for what it is if it does these undemocratic things such as assassinating leaders of independent nations, who happen to follow a different system to the USA's or who sometimes disagree with the USA, all the time".

Stop treating Fidel like some sort of a God or natural superior and stop making excuses for him all the time! The fact is in a so called Socialist state everything should be as equal as possible and Castro with his big house and outdoor Basketball and Tennis court not to mention his outdoor swimming pool is hardly giving off the appearence of equality is he now? Especially as your average Cuban is unlikely to have these things such as a big house let alone an outdoor Basketball and Tennis court and swimming pool! Indeed this reminds me of the Pigs in George Orwell's book Animal Farm where they have all the best things in the farm including the most comfortable living quarters, beds, the best food and drink, etc and all because the Pigs see themselves as the vanguard or leaders of the "revolution" :lol: These state Capitalist nations like Cuba are a perfect example as to why authoritarian vanguardism never succeeds in establishing Socialism as the leaders of the vanguard no matter what they say or do just simply replace the old ruling class with a new bueracratic hierarchy and the hopes of all those people fighting for equality are crushed.

Karl Marx's Camel

3rd October 2007, 17:35

Relevant questions:

Is there any public debate on how to reach communism?

What are kids taught in class? Marxism or just the "founding fathers" of the "Revolution" like Ernesto? The educational system can tell us a lot about what is actually happening in a country, and it can give us strong indications of the nature of that society.

To what extent are people allowed to criticize? This one is a grey area, but generally one can criticize contemporary economic problems but one shouldn't criticize Fidel or the nature of the revolution.

What is socialism according to Fidel? Fidel has said Eastern Europe was socialist before it dissolved. And since Eastern Europe was state capitalist and he claims Cuba is socialist, is it not reasonable to think that Cuba may be state capitalist, too?

I know Cubans who say Cuba is not ruled by the people, and those who say otherwise generally (though not always) point to how Fidel made life better. That doesn't sound like a revolutionary society, doesn't it? "We rule this nation because the ruler is such a nice guy to us".

It looks to me that Cubans have a government that truly represents working class interests and is accountable to the people.

Is that why Cuban workers are subordinated by their bosses, is that why the bosses (employers, party bigwigs etc.) have so much power over Cuban daily life, even moreso than bosses in capitalism?

luxemburg89

3rd October 2007, 17:52

the Castrophobic anti-leftists

For fuck's sake!! This is really annoying and contributes nothing. Whether people are anti-Castro or not anti-Castro does not make them anti-leftist. That is a pathetic thing to call a member - particularly when you know bloody well that it is not true. I like Fidel, but I criticise many aspects of the Cuban state - equally I would never be stupid enough to condemn someone as 'anti-leftist' simply because they disagreed with me on one point.

I suggest you look in the mirror, grow up and take a deep breath before you post again.

Guerrilla22

3rd October 2007, 18:24

Like Fidel said "prove I have a dime." And no wikipedia is not a solid source to prove or disprove anything, in fact it has been revealed that the CIA has a tendenancy to edit it at times. Otherwise these claims amount to little more than hearsay. who needs the Miami Herald when people on leftist stes are willing to spread propaganda so willingly.

Karl Marx's Camel

3rd October 2007, 18:32

That was in relation to foreign bank accounts, IIRC. I have heard he has a resonably good wage (I heard a Cuban say something like 40 convertibles, but I am not entirely sure) but anyhow no one can get what Fidel has by that wage.

We have seen how he lives through that famous videotape, and it is obvious that Cubans can never live as well as him. I live in Norway and I wish I lived as good as Fidel.

Ander

3rd October 2007, 18:54

I can understand why there are so many Castroites floating around. I mean, a huge amount, if not most, of communists in the 30's and 40's supported Stalin til the regime was cracked open and examined on the inside.

I suppose with time the number of Castro's international supporters will diminish as his not-so-socialist nation is exposed for what it really is.

I'd also like to point out how to manic_expression that your points are just getting ripped apart by Leo. Your resorts to ad hominem attacks really weaken whatever argument you think you may have.

Accusing Leo of supporting Bush? C'mon, are you really trying to make yourself look like a tool?

manic expression

3rd October 2007, 20:55

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 03, 2007 03:30 pm
Sorry - here you go.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EU...twp=body_middle (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EUY/is_8_10/ai_114086545?lstpn=search_sampler&lstpc=search&lstpr=external&lstprs=other&lstwid=1&lstwn=search_results&lstwp=body_middle)
Yes, you've brought that up before, and it flatly doesn't matter. There is nothing wrong with socialist states buying food from capitalist countries, it is done through the worker state. Or should Cuba not buy any food from anyone and just isolate itself from the world? Good tactic, I'm sure the Cuban workers would appreciate that piece of ultra-anti-leftist theory.

Several nice private villas spread in the country with tennis and basketball courts, swimming pools, electronic fences that detect intruders, roads designed to prevent "ordinary people" from going there and so forth. I'll let the reader judge whether his lifestyle is bourgeois or proletarian.

Yawn. Sources? Even taking your unbased claims as the truth that they aren't, do you really think Castro is the one using the basketball and tennis courts? Are you really that dumb? No, he isn't using them, because he physically can't at this point, so obviously they're there for visitors (oftentimes kids) to use in relative protection. Castro is wanted dead by capitalists (and yourself, apparently, putting you in their camp yet again), why shouldn't there be fences? Lastly, Castro's quarters are not extravagant, even hostile sources say he lives in humble conditions.

Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?

I am fine with you making yourself look stupid but really, you are embarrassing people who have the same line with you.

Why, because I call a spade a spade? Don't expect to spread slander about revolutionary movements and NOT get called out on it. Your pandering isn't going to help you this time, Leo, because it's obvious that my characterizations are very much warranted.

No, by not reading and ignoring the sources provided.

Until now, you've provided very few sources that haven't satisfied a modicum of reasonable expectations.

I'd see that it didn't exist until it was announced by Castro because he was moving towards the USSR.

The Cuban workers expropriated the property of capitalists before they knew what socialism meant. They knew that they hated being exploited by United Fruit and other bourgeois establishments, and so with the guidance of the Cuban revolutionaries, they smashed their power and took control of the means of production. Through their struggles, they came to socialism, and you belittle and slander that struggle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPlnGiS488s

Prove this. Were there workers' councils in Cuba? No. Did workers councils take power in Cuba? Again, no as they didn't exist to begin with. What happened? Castro's guerrilla movement seized the state and nationalized the economy and moved into the Russian block.

As you should have seen, the Cuban workers themselves pushed for the siezure of the means of production. Land, factories and more were put in control of the revolutionary government.

http://www.themilitant.com/2007/7112/711250.html

First of all, "a" and "b" here contradict each other. If they knew how dangerous it would be and that was why they didn't do it, this would mean that they were Stalinists who were lying about their politics because they thought it was dangerous.

No, it was because the US, the strongest bourgeois nation in the world, was mere miles from their border. They first consolidated their gains before declaring the revolution socialist. Second, many of these revolutionaries and workers CAME to socialism by struggling against the bourgeois holdings in their country. It did not happen all at once; therefore, it was not declared all at once. You ignore the realities of revolution.

Now, as we see, what caused the conflict between America and Cuba is the economic relations Cuba was starting to form with the USSR, and what the conflict between America and Cuba caused is to push Cuba further to the Russian imperialist block. Again, at the root of it all, there is the economic relations of Cuba and the USSR.

Indefensible ultra-anti-leftism. The Cuban revolutionaries sought the help of the USSR because it was the only (deformed) socialist country around. They wanted aid, and the USSR gave it to them.

Emphasis mine.

Now, show me how the USSR was imperialist, given this definition. Rosa Luxembourg quotes don't show me anything about the USSR in 1959.

It was the leader of one of the two blocks which was competing with the American imperialism for the world, that's why we can say that the Russian block was their block. As for why it was imperialist, read the Rosa Luxemburg quotes.

You never showed how it was imperialist. Be specific, don't just quote something that was written before the USSR existed and expect it to prove anything about post-1959 events. Scientific analysis means you work with the facts of the time, not some nice quote you thought was pretty.

It's foreign politics were done to be mostly in favor of Russian interests (such as condemning the suppression of the Prague Spring) and it's economy was completely dependent on USSR, as demonstrated above.

So fighting apartheid in Angola was in favor of Russian interests? How about aiding socialist movements in Latin America? Cuba sacrificed itself for the international struggle against capital, yet you are blind to these events.

And how did they economically survive when their block collapsed? In 1993, Cuban Government made it legal for its people to possess and use the U.S. dollar. From then until 2004, the dollar became a major currency. The government set up state-run "dollar stores" throughout Cuba that sold 'luxury' food, household, and clothing items, compared with basic necessities, which were bought using the Cuban peso to capture the hard currency flowing into the island through tourism and remittances - estimated at $500-800 million annually. As such, a gap in the standard of living developed between those with access to dollars and those without, showing the existence of class difference of class differences in Cuba. When the economy was doing better, dollar was replaced with "Cuban Convertible Pesos", a new currency to be exchanged with dollars by those entering Cuba and the state now even makes a 10% profit over the exchange. This currency is still in use and the "dollar stores" now only accept "Cuban Convertible Pesos". Euros, pounds sterling or Canadian dollars are still accepted however.

The special period is over, many of its remnants gone. Those were desperate times, when the entire bourgeoisie besieged the socialist worker state of Cuba, and so it called for desperate measures. I'm sure you were rooting for the American bourgeoisie to win out, but the Cuban workers stopped that from happening by taking the necessary steps to preserve their gains.

Sources:

Proves nothing, for you have not established by the USSR was imperialist ("Rosa Luxembourg said so!" doesn't count).

When he is healthy, I think so, yeah. If I recall correctly actually, he was playing tennis in Oliver Stone's film "Comandante".

Sure, he could play tennis in relative safety from counterrevolutionary threats on his life (that you want to aid). Big deal.

A big, several story private house, away from the noise of the city with a big garden, pools, tennis and basketball courts, electronic fences and so forth can be called a villa. Many more humble houses are called villas.

It's private because of safety concerns (thus the electric fence), it has tennis and basketball courts mostly for visitors (like child relatives) and the garden isn't that big at all (I saw the video, don't try to lie your way out of this one, too).

You calling it a "big villa" is purely slander, because the facts don't support your claims.

Not in private courts in their massive gardens.

Stop being thick. It's private for safety reasons.

And no, the gardens are not massive at all, they're pretty modest.

Or rather for protection against those germs which the dirty workers are carrying

More insipid ultra-anti-leftist garbage. Castro routinely made hour-long speeches with workers, to workers (by a revolutionary). Don't play that game of stubborn stupidity that you're so fond of.

No, because it simply is not different - it is simply the same mentality.

...because you said so. I see.

Just the irony of you saying that is worth spending all this time proving you wrong

Cute, but it won't win you any points. Keep it coming, you're just digging yourself a bigger hole.

He lives like they are living, more importantly runs a state like they are running a company.

:lol: Yeah! A tennis and basketball court makes someone a CEO! Property relations and scientific evidence be damned!

Oh, and your insipid BS about "state capitalism" can't even be defined in the first place. You have no argument here except for your ultra-anti-leftist delusions.

No I don't, stop lying.

Isn't that typical. First, you can't stop slandering the Cuban revolution; then, when I point out that you're supporting American bourgeois interests (which you are), you get all flustered. Sorry, but your own words condemn you: you have thrown your lot against the socialist revolution of Cuba.

I have put the second part in to prevent you from claiming that they were small huts in different cities rather than being nice big, comfortable and luxurious houses from which the state can make good money by renting to foreign tourists.

Several other HOUSES. Villas? Not so much. Your own sources contradict you.

At any rate, anyone (who isn't hopelessly infantile) can see that official visits are a reasonable and legitimate purpose for these houses. Foreign relations is a big part of running a worker state (something you have no interest in understanding), and that includes this sort of thing. Get used to the fact that the real world doesn't revolve around ultra-anti-leftist fallacies.

manic expression

3rd October 2007, 21:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:54 pm
I'd also like to point out how to manic_expression that your points are just getting ripped apart by Leo. Your resorts to ad hominem attacks really weaken whatever argument you think you may have.

Accusing Leo of supporting Bush? C'mon, are you really trying to make yourself look like a tool?
If you put aside your petty biases for a second, you'd see that Leo's arguments are based on absolutely nothing. He cannot show what "state capitalism" is, much less how Cuba can be defined as such. He is simply wrong on Castro's living conditions, his own sources contradict his claims. His entire argument is an ad hominem attack against Castro, and yet you ignore this and accuse me of the same act. How convenient.

I said his interests align with the American bourgeoisie. They want to destroy the Cuban worker state, and he is aiding that effort. If you want to tell me he's supporting Cuba, you'd be wrong; my point stands. As I said, your bias is getting in the way. Stop cheerleading and contribute something valuable.

black magick hustla

3rd October 2007, 21:47

Originally posted by manic expression+October 03, 2007 08:00 pm--> (manic expression @ October 03, 2007 08:00 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 05:54 pm
I'd also like to point out how to manic_expression that your points are just getting ripped apart by Leo. Your resorts to ad hominem attacks really weaken whatever argument you think you may have.

Accusing Leo of supporting Bush? C'mon, are you really trying to make yourself look like a tool?
If you put aside your petty biases for a second, you'd see that Leo's arguments are based on absolutely nothing. He cannot show what "state capitalism" is, much less how Cuba can be defined as such. He is simply wrong on Castro's living conditions, his own sources contradict his claims. His entire argument is an ad hominem attack against Castro, and yet you ignore this and accuse me of the same act. How convenient.

I said his interests align with the American bourgeoisie. They want to destroy the Cuban worker state, and he is aiding that effort. If you want to tell me he's supporting Cuba, you'd be wrong; my point stands. As I said, your bias is getting in the way. Stop cheerleading and contribute something valuable. [/b]
Um, state-capitalism is very lucidly explained by a lot of left communist theorists. According to left communists, it is a world wide tendency manifested not only in the "socialist" countries but in almost all countries, obviously in differing degrees.

Now, I always withdraw myself from the question of Cuba because I don't have the enough information nor I really have made up my mind about it. But I won't participate in the vicious, ad-hominen, shit slinging from some of its defendants.

PRC-UTE

3rd October 2007, 22:15

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 01, 2007 09:33 pm
Cuba might seem to be against American imperialism and all, but economically, it is very much tied up to US. They 250 to 400 million$ worth food every year, for example. Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EU...twp=body_middle (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EUY/is_8_10/ai_114086545?lstpn=search_sampler&lstpc=search&lstpr=external&lstprs=other&lstwid=1&lstwn=search_results&lstwp=body_middle)

So basically you've established that... Cuba has to trade with other countries to survive? :huh: And you act like this is some kind of 'evidence' of state capitalism?

So the inverse must be true: Cuba would be 'more communist' if it didn't buy food from surrounding capitalist countries? :lol:

I'm sure you'd have a more purist way to survive in a capitalist world... one you conveniently won't expound upon using concrete examples.

Herman

3rd October 2007, 22:21

So basically you've established that... Cuba has to trade with other countries to survive? huh.gif And you act like this is some kind of 'evidence' of state capitalism?

So the inverse must be true: Cuba would be 'more communist' if it didn't buy food from surrounding capitalist countries?

Yes, I never actually understood why some socialists criticize Cuba for trading with capitalist countries. What is it supposed to do? Cuba doesn't have all the resources to be self-sufficient. There is nothing the government can do about that, except trade with other countries.

PRC-UTE

3rd October 2007, 22:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:21 pm

So basically you've established that... Cuba has to trade with other countries to survive? huh.gif And you act like this is some kind of 'evidence' of state capitalism?

So the inverse must be true: Cuba would be 'more communist' if it didn't buy food from surrounding capitalist countries?

Yes, I never actually understood why some socialists criticize Cuba for trading with capitalist countries. What is it supposed to do? Cuba doesn't have all the resources to be self-sufficient. There is nothing the government can do about that, except trade with other countries.
Yes, it's a very poorly constructed critique, for if it's carried out to its logical conclusion, it implies advocacy of the Stalinist "socialism in one country" model.

More Fire for the People

3rd October 2007, 22:40

Revolutionary worker's republic in decay.

Leo

3rd October 2007, 23:44

Yes, you've brought that up before, and it flatly doesn't matter. There is nothing wrong with socialist states buying food from capitalist countries, it is done through the worker state.

And it is sold in the Cuban markets :rolleyes:

Or should Cuba not buy any food from anyone and just isolate itself from the world?

Of course not, this is not even a real question - the thing is, they have to be dependent to world imperialism as they can't isolate themselves from world imperialism, they have to be a part of world imperialism. Before, the Russian block provided Cuba with what it economically needed, now the Americans are doing that.

Yawn. Sources?

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/fidel/castro-family.htm

I am getting bored with copying the same source over and over for you.

Even taking your unbased claims as the truth that they aren't, do you really think Castro is the one using the basketball and tennis courts?

In my last post I said:

When he is healthy, I think so, yeah. If I recall correctly actually, he was playing tennis in Oliver Stone's film "Comandante".

You should read before you write something. Otherwise you will keep embarrassing yourself.

Are you really that dumb? No, he isn't using them, because he physically can't at this point

Yeah, he's sort of dying right now. That's why I said "when he is healthy".

so obviously they're there for visitors

What visitors? As you know, ordinary people are not allowed in there.

Castro is wanted dead by capitalists

I don't think so. I'd say they don't care whether he lives or dies anymore. Cuba really lost it's importance in the imperialist area with the end of the Eastern block. I think capitalists are rather happy because they can do business with Castro.

and yourself, apparently, putting you in their camp yet again

Funny logic. Lenin wanted the Tsar dead in 1914. Kaiser also wanted the Tsar dead in 1914. According to your logic, Lenin was in the Kaiser's camp. Congratulations, you made Lenin a German agent. :rolleyes:

why shouldn't there be fences?

Why should I know? Being a proletarian, I will never even have to deal with this question, will I?

Deciding on whether to build fences on a massive piece of private land is a decision for a bourgeois leader, not a prole.

Lastly, Castro's quarters are not extravagant, even hostile sources say he lives in humble conditions.

Oh, but by humble they mean he doesn't have (or display) loads of jewelry in his house. Otherwise, as I said, he lives in a big villa with a pool, basketball and tennis court, a big garden, hi-tech fences surrounding his garden and of course every kind of comfort in his house.

Why, because I call a spade a spade?

No, because you don't really say anything to be taken seriously.

Until now, you've provided very few sources that

You have found "important enough" to take the time to read, obviously.

If you want to know how many sources I quoted though, I have provided eight links. Of course I had to repost the links because you didn't read them and simply kept saying them as if repeating them would make them true.

The Cuban workers expropriated the property of capitalists before they knew what socialism meant.

No, the Cuban state nationalized property - it was done because of international politics and economics.

They knew that they hated being exploited by United Fruit and other bourgeois establishments, and so with the guidance of the Cuban revolutionaries, they smashed their power and took control of the means of production.

Except they didn't smash the power and took control of the means of production - instead the "revolutionaries" who "guided" them came to power, and they put the economy under state control. For the workers, it was still exploitation. They did not come to power, the property relations weren't changed - before they were ran by "private" capitalists who were under the influence of America, now they were being ran by capitalists who "collectively" ran the economy under the influence of Russia. For the workers, property remained in bourgeois hands, were now controlled, collectively, by the bourgeoisie. It was still exploitation, it was still poverty.

Through their struggles, they came to socialism, and you belittle and slander that struggle.

No, I am simply saying the truth: they came to "socialism" through international relations and economic dependency.

As you should have seen, the Cuban workers themselves pushed for the siezure of the means of production. Land

What I actually saw was Cuban peasants pushing for the distribution of land to the landless peasants - that is the government giving small pieces of land to landless peasants, as private property of course. To be fair, it is hardly workers taking control of the means of production - it is agricultural, landless workers being given land. You might argue that it's a "democratic" or "progressive" thing to do, and still would be wrong in the general picture due to the motives behind such action but it is a ridiculous to claim land distribution to be socialist.

No, it was because the US, the strongest bourgeois nation in the world, was mere miles from their border. They first consolidated their gains before declaring the revolution socialist. Second, many of these revolutionaries and workers CAME to socialism by struggling against the bourgeois holdings in their country. It did not happen all at once; therefore, it was not declared all at once. You ignore the realities of revolution.

You didn't write what I wrote at all. You have simply repeated what you have said.

The Cuban revolutionaries sought the help of the USSR because it was the only (deformed) socialist country around. They wanted aid, and the USSR gave it to them.

:rolleyes:

Now, show me how the USSR was imperialist, given this definition. Rosa Luxembourg quotes don't show me anything about the USSR in 1959.

Luxemburg says: "Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will." Russia is no exception.

How was Russia capitalist? It was a class society in which the ruling class was the bourgeoisie, who owned capital and the means of production, who employed all the workers, payed them salaries and then sold them food and the most easily noticeable representatives of this bourgeoisie were the bureaucrats. From a very simplistic perspective, it was a mechanism which both has the functions of a bourgeois welfare state, of a huge company which had monopolistic control over the economy and the usual internal competition of the capitalist system: competition between individual capitalists, only a slightly different competition. The means of production are legally owned "collectively" by the entire bourgeoisie, by the state, but of course it is individual bureaucrats who run, control, benefit and even, to some extent, profit from them. As far as the workers are concerned, of course, the property relations are capitalist.

You never showed how it was imperialist.

I expect you have heard of the Spanish Civil War, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Invasion of Poland in Collaboration with Nazis, the Second Imperialist War, Invasion of Eastern Europe in Collaboration with US and UK, the Yugoslav-Soviet Split, the Korean War, the East German Uprising of 53, the Suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 56, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Sino-Soviet split, the Suppression of the Prague Spring, the Invasion of Cambodia, the Invasion of Afghanistan and so forth? Why do you think all those happened? Because Russia was really after socialist interests or because it was interested in it's imperialist interests? Right. :rolleyes:

not some nice quote you thought was pretty.

It wasn't "pretty", it was relevant. I'd say read it again if you didn't understand it.

So fighting apartheid in Angola was in favor of Russian interests?

Of course it was.

How about aiding socialist movements in Latin America?

Those movements weren't really "socialist".

Cuba sacrificed itself for the international struggle against capital, yet you are blind to these events.

No, Cuba paid back USSR's economical and military aid.

The special period is over, many of its remnants gone.

No it's not. As you didn't read the last part of what I wrote, I'm going to put it here again. "When the economy was doing better, dollar was replaced with "Cuban Convertible Pesos", a new currency to be exchanged with dollars by those entering Cuba and the state now even makes a 10% profit over the exchange. This currency is still in use and the "dollar stores" now only accept "Cuban Convertible Pesos". Euros, pounds sterling or Canadian dollars are still accepted however."

Those were desperate times, when the entire bourgeoisie besieged the socialist worker state of Cuba, and so it called for desperate measures. I'm sure you were rooting for the American bourgeoisie to win out

Which struggle? There wasn't any struggle, they legalized dollar! When they established a solid base for tourists to come to Cuba, then they replaced it with convertible pesos so that they can make more profit out of the sales.

Sure, he could play tennis in relative safety from counterrevolutionary threats on his life (that you want to aid).

I don't really care one bit about Castro's life, just like I don't care about any other bourgeois scum's life, this includes all bourgeois scum - from Bush to Putin.

As far as I can see, you don't really care one bit about the living standards of Cuban workers but are really interested in the safety of one person from Cuba who lives in greatly privileged.

it has tennis and basketball courts mostly for visitors (like child relatives)

To be honest I don't care for whom his private tennis and basketball courts are. As Cuban workers are not allowed in the house, it's bound to be for some privileged bourgeois scum or a bourgeois kid.

and the garden isn't that big at all ... I saw the video

To have a basketball and tennis court and a swimming pool in your house, you'll need a big garden already. It's not like he has a small front yard and a small backyard. I'm sure he has a private parking lot for his visitors, which also takes space. Put all those near a big complex and unless the hi-tech electronic fences are half a meter away from the front door, we are necessarily dealing with quite a huge piece of land. Logic suggests it's quite a big piece of land. I am sure you only saw a very small part of a garden which could only be seen behind Castro speaking. I don't think the camera walked around in the whole garden with a subtitle saying "This is the garden around Fidel Castro's house".

You calling it a "big villa" is purely slander, because the facts don't support your claims.

A big, several story private house, away from the noise of the city with a big garden, pools, tennis and basketball courts, electronic fences and so forth can be called a villa. Much more humble houses are called villas.

Castro routinely made hour-long speeches with workers, to workers

So it was safe to make hour long speeches with workers and oh-so-horribly dangerous to play basketball outside the safety of his comfortable house. :rolleyes:

Yeah! A tennis and basketball court makes someone a CEO!

A big villa made on a big piece of land, private tennis and basketball courts, private pools, hi-tech fences to detect intruders, several other nice houses for vacations and visits and so forth indicates a lifestyle which lots of CEOs are living and which less succesful ones are aspiring to. I am talking about his living conditions.

Property relations and scientific evidence

Indicate that he runs a state like CEOs are running a company.

First, you can't stop slandering the Cuban revolution

Which is not really a revolution but a coup.

then, when I point out that you're supporting American bourgeois interests (which you are)

Actually due to the good business relations US has with Cuba, I'd say that by supporting the Cuban regime, you support American bourgeois interests. Had you held this position eighteen years ago, you would have been supporting Russian imperialist interests. Opposing the Cuban bourgeoisie isn't supporting the American bourgeoisie at all - actual revolutionaries oppose all existing bourgeois regimes in the world. When I start talking about why Castro is living in this big house and considerable comfort and privilege when the working class in Cuba are living in huts, when the working class in Cuba are in poverty you say "but oh he's such a great leader, he needs to be safe, he needs to be private" and so forth and then, with the shame of what you are defending: the privilege of one individual, capitalism, you hide behind the supposed "anti-americanism" of this regime and descend into insults, lying about me "supporting American bourgeois interests" for opposing this "beloved and heroic individual". This is nothing but typical Stalinist lies.

Several other HOUSES. Villas? Not so much.

Sigh...

I have put the second part in to prevent you from claiming that they were small huts in different cities rather than being nice big, comfortable and luxurious houses from which the state can make good money by renting to foreign tourists.

It seems I couldn't prevent you from making the same separation.

Any house half the size of the house we have been talking about before would have classified as a villa in a great majority of the world. But when it's about this specific person, no - he needs it, he's too important!!!

His other houses are not small huts but big houses which are probably as comfortable and big as the one we have been talking about. By general standards, I'm sure they can be classified as villas.

At any rate, anyone (who isn't hopelessly infantile) can see that official visits are a reasonable and legitimate purpose for these houses.

Of course, in a bourgeois regime they are completely legitimate and reasonable.

Foreign relations is a big part of running a worker state

As this "workers' state" is run by the bourgeoisie and has been a part and tool of Russian imperialism and the proletariat is deprived of any power and is in poverty - yeah, I'll say that relations with other capitalist countries is a big part of running it.

Leo

3rd October 2007, 23:57

And no wikipedia is not a solid source to prove or disprove anything, in fact it has been revealed that the CIA has a tendenancy to edit it at times.

I don't think the CIA made things written about the history, economy and current developments in Cuba on Wiki up just to fool those who post on RevLeft.

So basically you've established that... Cuba has to trade with other countries to survive?

Rather that Cuba has to be economically dependent on imperialism to survive.

And you act like this is some kind of 'evidence' of state capitalism?

No I don't, I simply show it to some kind of evidence to Cuba being economically dependent on American imperialism.

So the inverse must be true: Cuba would be 'more communist' if it didn't buy food from surrounding capitalist countries?

No, it wouldn't be true. That's simply demagogy.

Yes, I never actually understood why some socialists criticize Cuba for trading with capitalist countries.

It is not really a criticism, it's simply a fact about Cuba being dependent on American imperialism.

Yes, it's a very poorly constructed critique, for if it's carried out to its logical conclusion, it implies advocacy of the Stalinist "socialism in one country" model.

No it doesn't. It rather implies, from the historical perspective, that Cuba is not going to be the next place on the world to have a proletarian revolution due to the material conditions.

manic expression

4th October 2007, 01:38

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 03, 2007 10:44 pm
And it is sold in the Cuban markets
Wrong, read the link. It says that the US is selling food to Cuba, not that there is a domestic market for food. When it says "Since food sales were allowed", it means that food sales from the US TO Cuba were allowed, not a market within Cuba. Get your facts straight (I guess I'm asking too much).

Of course not, this is not even a real question - the thing is, they have to be dependent to world imperialism as they can't isolate themselves from world imperialism, they have to be a part of world imperialism. Before, the Russian block provided Cuba with what it economically needed, now the Americans are doing that.

Buying food from a nearby country constitutes “world imperialism”? Try to justify that statement. The fact is that the worker state of Cuba is buying food it needs from another country. That does not equal exploitation at all.

I am getting bored with copying the same source over and over for you.

You posted that once, at the end. Try posting it where it’s needed.

Oh, and on your source? Here comes the other shoe that we’ve all been waiting for:

…Fuentes, a member of Cuba's inner circles who met her several times before he
defected in 1994.

Emphasis mine. You’re using evidence from a defector.

You should read before you write something. Otherwise you will keep embarrassing yourself.

Do you really think Castro is the only person to use those courts? Do you really think that, even a few years back when his health was better, Castro went shooting hoops in the Cuban sun? You really think that? If so, then I’m embarrassed that someone like yourself calls themselves a “communist”.

Yeah, he's sort of dying right now. That's why I said "when he is healthy".

Yeah, he’s obviously not the sole reason those courts are there. They’re likely for visitors. Of course, don’t let likeliness get in your way.

What visitors? As you know, ordinary people are not allowed in there.

You really think no one visits? Of course there are visitors: relatives, statesmen on official visits, etc…

I don't think so. I'd say they don't care whether he lives or dies anymore. Cuba really lost it's importance in the imperialist area with the end of the Eastern block. I think capitalists are rather happy because they can do business with Castro.

Of course, America is so apathetic (or “rather happy”, since you don’t seem to care about consistency) about Cuba that they’ve tightened sanctions (the above link is an exception) and created an entire department dedicated to overthrowing Cuban socialism! America most definitely wants the Cuban revolution defeated, and they’re harboring reactionary terrorists to further that end (as well as what I described above). So no, you’re obviously clueless when it comes to American policy towards Cuba (especially since 1991).

Funny logic. Lenin wanted the Tsar dead in 1914. Kaiser also wanted the Tsar dead in 1914. According to your logic, Lenin was in the Kaiser's camp. Congratulations, you made Lenin a German agent.

No, the Kaiser wanted Russia out of the war, the Tsar getting deposed didn’t help that. Wrong analogy. Try this: the Kaiser wanted Russia out of the war, Lenin wanted a socialist revolution. Now, let’s look at our situation: American capitalists want the Cuban revolution defeated, and you see no problem with this. That speaks for itself.

Why should I know? Being a proletarian, I will never even have to deal with this question, will I?

If you’re ever the head of a socialist government (although no ultra-leftist ever will be), you would have to deal with the question of security against counterrevolutionary threats. It would be foolhardy to ignore the very real dangers in such a situation.

Deciding on whether to build fences on a massive piece of private land is a decision for a bourgeois leader, not a prole.

Or a revolutionary leader who doesn’t want to get killed by counterrevolutionaries.

Oh, but by humble they mean he doesn't have (or display) loads of jewelry in his house. Otherwise, as I said, he lives in a big villa with a pool, basketball and tennis court, a big garden, hi-tech fences surrounding his garden and of course every kind of comfort in his house.

That jewelry was probably in his family for decades before the revolution. It’s not like you see Castro wearing too much bling-bling. As I’ve said, the house has security because people want him dead; the garden is not nearly as big as you make it out to be (I’ve seen the video); the courts and pool are for visitors; the house is quite modest. Every kind of comfort? Give me a break.

No, because you don't really say anything to be taken seriously.

Whatever you say, Leo. Just tell me when you can define “state capitalism”.

You have found "important enough" to take the time to read, obviously.

If you want to know how many sources I quoted though, I have provided eight links. Of course I had to repost the links because you didn't read them and simply kept saying them as if repeating them would make them true.

Your sources contradict your arguments more than not, and even then they blatantly use DEFECTORS (people who have a strong interest in lying). Especially in regards to the “Cuban market” link, your sources really don’t support your claims.

No, the Cuban state nationalized property - it was done because of international politics and economics.

Yes, the worker state. The workers nationalized property with the support of the whole of the Cuban working classes.

Except they didn't smash the power and took control of the means of production - instead the "revolutionaries" who "guided" them came to power, and they put the economy under state control. For the workers, it was still exploitation. They did not come to power, the property relations weren't changed - before they were ran by "private" capitalists who were under the influence of America, now they were being ran by capitalists who "collectively" ran the economy under the influence of Russia. For the workers, property remained in bourgeois hands, were now controlled, collectively, by the bourgeoisie. It was still exploitation, it was still poverty.

The workers did take control of the means of production. They nationalized industry and put it in the hands of the worker state. The Cuban working classes established control over society, and so exploitation was virtually ended. Subsequently, property relations reflect these events, as property is not owned privately, but by the workers. To say that a “new bourgeoisie” took control is insane, especially when one considers the actual organs of the Cuban worker state:
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

Again:
http://www.themilitant.com/2007/7112/711250.html

No, I am simply saying the truth: they came to "socialism" through international relations and economic dependency.

So now they came to socialism? Clarify your point.

What I actually saw was Cuban peasants pushing for the distribution of land to the landless peasants - that is the government giving small pieces of land to landless peasants, as private property of course. To be fair, it is hardly workers taking control of the means of production - it is agricultural, landless workers being given land. You might argue that it's a "democratic" or "progressive" thing to do, and still would be wrong in the general picture due to the motives behind such action but it is a ridiculous to claim land distribution to be socialist.

Watch the movie again and note how the Cuban workers take control of industry, banks and other former property of the capitalists. This nationalization put control of the means of production in the hands of the state, the worker state. Land re-distribution was done because the Cuban workers, like the Russian workers, recognized the importance of the worker-peasant alliance. Land re-distribution was what the Russian peasants wanted, so the Russian workers gave it to them; the same occurred in Cuba.

You didn't write what I wrote at all. You have simply repeated what you have said.

You didn’t address the argument. Were they supposed to send a singing telegram to Washington telling the capitalists they were socialist? That would have been self-defeating and counter-productive. Purity isn’t as important as you want it to be. Plus, many Cuban workers who supported these socialist actions didn’t even know what socialism was until they learned about it through practice.

Luxemburg says: "Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will." Russia is no exception.

So the USSR represented “a particular state of ripeness in the world development of capital”? You never justified this claim, you only repeated it in the hopes of side-stepping the issue. As I said, quotes from Luxembourg doesn’t give me an analysis of the Soviet Union (or Cuba) in 1959.

How was Russia capitalist? It was a class society in which the ruling class was the bourgeoisie, who owned capital and the means of production, who employed all the workers, payed them salaries and then sold them food and the most easily noticeable representatives of this bourgeoisie were the bureaucrats. From a very simplistic perspective, it was a mechanism which both has the functions of a bourgeois welfare state, of a huge company which had monopolistic control over the economy and the usual internal competition of the capitalist system: competition between individual capitalists, only a slightly different competition. The means of production are legally owned "collectively" by the entire bourgeoisie, by the state, but of course it is individual bureaucrats who run, control, benefit and even, to some extent, profit from them. As far as the workers are concerned, of course, the property relations are capitalist.

How were bureaucrats bourgeois? They owned nothing, they employed no one themselves; they made their gains through the abuse of the worker state. They established neither capitalist property relations nor capitalist modes of production; their profits did not come from capitalist exploitation, but abuse of power. The bureaucratic caste had very little, in fact nothing, in common with a bourgeoisie, and the property relations of the USSR prove this.

I expect you have heard of the Spanish Civil War, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Invasion of Poland in Collaboration with Nazis, the Second Imperialist War, Invasion of Eastern Europe in Collaboration with US and UK, the Yugoslav-Soviet Split, the Korean War, the East German Uprising of 53, the Suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 56, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Sino-Soviet split, the Suppression of the Prague Spring, the Invasion of Cambodia, the Invasion of Afghanistan and so forth? Why do you think all those happened? Because Russia was really after socialist interests or because it was interested in it's imperialist interests? Right.

Of course. Making treaties with a country for survival, sending guns to the Spanish Republic, taking control of half of Poland instead of letting all of it slip to the Nazis, trying to put an end to capitalist presence in a country, supporting progressive and socialistic governments (Afghanistan), using nuclear weapons to protect a socialist revolution and other things are not imperialist. Do I agree with all those policies? Of course not, but my disagreement and your disagreement don’t an imperialist make (as I’ve said, the world doesn’t revolve around the fantasies of an ultra-leftist, Leo) To take these events and try to twist them into evidence of imperialist interests is illogical, even IF you take Rosa Luxembourg’s definition. You’re still falling short in a big way.

It wasn't "pretty", it was relevant. I'd say read it again if you didn't understand it.

Relevant…in that Rosa Luxembourg was accurately analyzing the USSR in 1959? Give me a break.

Of course it was.

What profit did Cuba gain from sacrificing its people for the benefit of the Angolan struggle against apartheid? Not much in the way of imperialist profit; a lot in the way of helping the international struggle against capital.

Those movements weren't really "socialist".

Nothing is “socialist” to ultra-leftist puritans like yourself.

No, Cuba paid back USSR's economical and military aid.

No, I meant the Angolan War.

No it's not. As you didn't read the last part of what I wrote, I'm going to put it here again. "When the economy was doing better, dollar was replaced with "Cuban Convertible Pesos", a new currency to be exchanged with dollars by those entering Cuba and the state now even makes a 10% profit over the exchange. This currency is still in use and the "dollar stores" now only accept "Cuban Convertible Pesos". Euros, pounds sterling or Canadian dollars are still accepted however."

Care to comment on most of the special period policies, the vast majority of which are now gone? Didn’t think so.

On your point about the Convertible Pesos and the use of the dollar and euro, it’s a way to promote tourism to get more revenue for the worker state. What is wrong with that? If you have a chance to get people into your country to educate them about your achievements and have them contribute to those achievements, why shouldn’t you?

Which struggle? There wasn't any struggle, they legalized dollar! When they established a solid base for tourists to come to Cuba, then they replaced it with convertible pesos so that they can make more profit out of the sales.

Again, what’s wrong with promoting tourism? You seem intent on criticizing everything that Cuban workers gain from.

I don't really care one bit about Castro's life, just like I don't care about any other bourgeois scum's life, this includes all bourgeois scum - from Bush to Putin.

Baseless garbage that’s already been debunked. Your interests are in opposition to those of the Cuban workers, and you claim Castro to be “bourgeois scum”?

As far as I can see, you don't really care one bit about the living standards of Cuban workers but are really interested in the safety of one person from Cuba who lives in greatly privileged.

The Cuban revolution and its destruction of capitalism raised the living standards of the Cuban workers immensely. Astronomical increases in the quality of literacy, housing, healthcare, sanitation, workplace conditions and more are evidence of this. The facts are good enough for me.

To be honest I don't care for whom his private tennis and basketball courts are. As Cuban workers are not allowed in the house, it's bound to be for some privileged bourgeois scum or a bourgeois kid.

You mean, as long as revolutionary leaders protect themselves from counterrevolutionary dangers, you’ll criticize them and call them bourgeois.

To have a basketball and tennis court and a swimming pool in your house, you'll need a big garden already. It's not like he has a small front yard and a small backyard. I'm sure he has a private parking lot for his visitors, which also takes space. Put all those near a big complex and unless the hi-tech electronic fences are half a meter away from the front door, we are necessarily dealing with quite a huge piece of land. Logic suggests it's quite a big piece of land. I am sure you only saw a very small part of a garden which could only be seen behind Castro speaking. I don't think the camera walked around in the whole garden with a subtitle saying "This is the garden around Fidel Castro's house".

Leo, many of us have seen the video of his house, and the garden is really not that big. “You’re sure” doesn’t cut it, try being concrete. Even IF he had a parking lot, that serves a purpose that must be met, it isn’t because parking lots are luxurious (because they’re not, they’re piles of concrete). It’s not a “big complex”, it’s a private house with security (for a head of state who has been targeted for assassination on multiple occasions). You’re not using logic, you’re using your own bias as proof. “I am sure” and “I don’t think” are, again, not going to cut it. I’ve seen the video, others have as well, and I’ll use that over what you’re “sure” of.

A big, several story private house, away from the noise of the city with a big garden, pools, tennis and basketball courts, electronic fences and so forth can be called a villa. Much more humble houses are called villas.

YOU might call it a villa. People who watch the video evidence of his house (or people who understand the valid need for the fence and courts) wouldn’t. That’s the key here.

So it was safe to make hour long speeches with workers and oh-so-horribly dangerous to play basketball outside the safety of his comfortable house.

First, he DID make public hour long speeches very frequently, so the rest of your point is moot. And secondly, he reasonably wanted some safety from capitalist surveillance and threats in his personal time (as well as for his family). That’s not too much to ask for (unless you’re asking fundamentalist ultra-leftists).

Indicate that he runs a state like CEOs are running a company.

Want to try to prove this instead of repeating it mindlessly?

Which is not really a revolution but a coup.

Funny. That’s what capitalists say about all socialist revolutions.

Actually due to the good business relations US has with Cuba, I'd say that by supporting the Cuban regime, you support American bourgeois interests. Had you held this position eighteen years ago, you would have been supporting Russian imperialist interests. Opposing the Cuban bourgeoisie isn't supporting the American bourgeoisie at all - actual revolutionaries oppose all existing bourgeois regimes in the world. When I start talking about why Castro is living in this big house and considerable comfort and privilege when the working class in Cuba are living in huts, when the working class in Cuba are in poverty you say "but oh he's such a great leader, he needs to be safe, he needs to be private" and so forth and then, with the shame of what you are defending: the privilege of one individual, capitalism, you hide behind the supposed "anti-americanism" of this regime and descend into insults, lying about me "supporting American bourgeois interests" for opposing this "beloved and heroic individual". This is nothing but typical Stalinist lies.

Yes, by supporting a socialist government under siege by the US, I’m supporting American bourgeois interests! That’s rich, Leo. Your interests are in FULL alignment with the American bourgeoisie, you’ve thrown your lot AGAINST the workers of Cuba. That is enough evidence for anyone wanting to know where you stand, and your poetic slander about Cuba isn’t going to change that.

Oh, and remember who regularly uses capitalist defectors as sources.

It seems I couldn't prevent you from making the same separation.

Any house half the size of the house we have been talking about before would have classified as a villa in a great majority of the world. But when it's about this specific person, no - he needs it, he's too important!!!

His other houses are not small huts but big houses which are probably as comfortable and big as the one we have been talking about. By general standards, I'm sure they can be classified as villas.

You’ve been eternally ignoring the actual situation involved. You ignore the capitalist threats against his life (and, by extension, aid them), you ignore the fact that the house is used for visits of relatives (sometimes children) and government officials, you ignore the ACTUAL EVIDENCE of his living conditions, you even ignore your own sources.

Of course, in a bourgeois regime they are completely legitimate and reasonable.

Strawman. Why aren’t they reasonable for socialist governments? Because it doesn’t jive with your purity?

As this "workers' state" is run by the bourgeoisie and has been a part and tool of Russian imperialism and the proletariat is deprived of any power and is in poverty - yeah, I'll say that relations with other capitalist countries is a big part of running it.

And the counterrevolutionary slander continues. Every argument here has been proven wrong time and again. You can’t even define what you categorize Cuba as, much less provide a single lucid argument as to why Cuba is capitalist. Nice try, Leo, but your ultra-leftist fallacies have failed you again.

Karl Marx's Camel

4th October 2007, 07:08

Wrong, read the link. It says that the US is selling food to Cuba, not that there is a domestic market for food. When it says "Since food sales were allowed", it means that food sales from the US TO Cuba were allowed, not a market within Cuba.

You hint that there exist no market in Cuba, but peasants sell their food at the marketplace. And the black market is flourishing.

Hiero

4th October 2007, 09:29

I mean, a huge amount, if not most, of communists in the 30's and 40's supported Stalin til the regime was cracked open and examined on the inside.

They did, but the reason were more oppurtunistic. They supported Stalin untill Khrushchev said he was no good, then the gave up support for Khrushcehv after Leonid Brezhnev said he was no good. This poor standard continued untill Gorbachev, and now Communist Parties are looking back to Stalin, at least I know my party is.

The idea it was "cracked open" is incorrect. Khruschev was a minister and central commitee member under Stalin for a long time.

Ismail

4th October 2007, 11:35

So what I've learned from the ultra-left in this very thread is:

1. Trading is bad, yet trading is good in the case of, say, Enver Hoxha. (who tried to increase trade with western nations but they refused)
2. Tourism is bad, but Cuba shouldn't be an isolated state. (plus tourism can easily help a nations image which Cuba should use to its advantage)
3. Because Fidel doesn't live in a ditch next to a government building he is clearly a member of the bourgeois. One which the US would like to see dead.
4. A tennis court = Hitler.
5. You can say "State Capitalism" and sound smart so long as you aren't asked what the fuck you're talking about.
6. While we're at it, Fidel should go around naked, soaked in gasoline with a massive flag on his head and announcing every five minutes that he is Fidel Castro while standing in the middle of the sea with eight-trillion telephones active at once within his location just to show the bourgeois who they're messing with. Lord knows taunting the US every single second is better than actually implementing Socialism in a nation and not taking on the appearance of a dumbass.
7. Rosa Luxembourg is the greatest person in the history of mankind to all utopian idiots the world over. In a similar way, whenever I get into a debate I will forever quote the words of Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, etc to prove a point no matter if the person said the words 10, 20, or even 50 years ago and it is especially irrelevant whether said words themselves are relevant.

"So Mrdie, what do you think of Angola?"
"As the draft statement which has been prepared emphasises, our socialist camp is much stronger than that of the imperialists. Socialism rises higher and stronger day by day while imperialism grows weaker and decays. We would make use of all our means and exert all our efforts to speed up this process. This will come about if we abide loyally and unwaveringly by Marxism-Leninism and apply it correctly. Otherwise, we will retard this process, for we have to cope with a ruthless enemy -- imperialism, headed by U.S. imperialism whom we must defeat and destroy. - Enver Hoxha, 1960"
"..."

I'd do more serious debate, but manic expression is both entertaining and correct in my view so no need.

Connolly

4th October 2007, 13:21

Can I sak some of the pro-castro supporters some questions....

What exactly are the differences between Castro's regime and others, in terms of workers control over production and democracy? - how much more control over production do workers have as opposed to the US, UK etc.

Was Libya a socialist "revolution"?

Why must this version of socialism have a hereditary passing of power - I mean, I slag US democracy for having a son and father as president from a population of over 250000000 people - yet in cuba there is a similar situation taking place from a population of many millions. - are people that disenfranchised from power that control must rest from close friend to close friend, from brother to brother? That dosnt sound very inclusive. People are very much excluded from politics here in this parliamentary democracy with membership of the dail resting with many family dynasties - but Cuba is clearly much worse in this regard. Can you imagine being a working class factory worker or peasant living in dire conditions with your children following suite in the family trade knowing you or your children could never reach such heights of power which Castro and the rest enjoys?

That is privilege! - something I hope would be banished with socialist revolution, but clearly in Cuba it has its own rules for what constitutes socialism.

Have all other socilaist attempts using similar organizational structure not proven the end result of regimes such as Cuba?

How do you see Cuba surviving through, say, another two or three generations, where power will rest eventually with, more than likely, a privileged few sons of existing power? - what will stop this leading to reformism - as has happened in every other state of similar structure once the initial leaders pass away?

spartan

4th October 2007, 13:46

Mrdie:
3. Because Fidel doesn't live in a ditch next to a government building he is clearly a member of the bourgeois. One which the US would like to see dead.
Why should Fidel have a bigger house than the rest of the Cubans? Is it because he is special? No. Is it because he is somehow superior to all other Cubans? Again the answer is no. Again this reminds of the Pigs in animal farm who get everything that is denied to the "common" animals just because they are the "vanguard" of the "revolution".

4. A tennis court = Hitler.
It is when the majority of Cuban people dont have one outside their small houses!

5. You can say "State Capitalism" and sound smart so long as you aren't asked what the fuck you're talking about.
Do the workers own the means of production in Cuba? No! Government appointed (Not elected by the people) Bueracrats oversee everything just like a boss or manager in a Capitalist society would. So what is the difference between Cuba and the rest of the Capitalist world? Cuba has a planned economy whilst the rest of the Capitalist world practises a half way variant between a controlled economy and a mixed economy.

6. While we're at it, Fidel should go around naked, soaked in gasoline with a massive flag on his head and announcing every five minutes that he is Fidel Castro while standing in the middle of the sea with eight-trillion telephones active at once within his location just to show the bourgeois who they're messing with. Lord knows taunting the US every single second is better than actually implementing Socialism in a nation and not taking on the appearance of a dumbass.
But he is'nt implementing Socialism is he?

DEATH TO BUREAUCRATIC STATE CAPITALISM!

Ismail

4th October 2007, 15:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:46 am
Mrdie:
3. Because Fidel doesn't live in a ditch next to a government building he is clearly a member of the bourgeois. One which the US would like to see dead.
Why should Fidel have a bigger house than the rest of the Cubans? Is it because he is special? No. Is it because he is somehow superior to all other Cubans? Again the answer is no. Again this reminds of the Pigs in animal farm who get everything that is denied to the "common" animals just because they are the "vanguard" of the "revolution".

4. A tennis court = Hitler.
It is when the majority of Cuban people dont have one outside their small houses!

5. You can say "State Capitalism" and sound smart so long as you aren't asked what the fuck you're talking about.
Do the workers own the means of production in Cuba? No! Government appointed (Not elected by the people) Bueracrats oversee everything just like a boss or manager in a Capitalist society would. So what is the difference between Cuba and the rest of the Capitalist world? Cuba has a planned economy whilst the rest of the Capitalist world practises a half way variant between a controlled economy and a mixed economy.

6. While we're at it, Fidel should go around naked, soaked in gasoline with a massive flag on his head and announcing every five minutes that he is Fidel Castro while standing in the middle of the sea with eight-trillion telephones active at once within his location just to show the bourgeois who they're messing with. Lord knows taunting the US every single second is better than actually implementing Socialism in a nation and not taking on the appearance of a dumbass.
But he is'nt implementing Socialism is he?

DEATH TO BUREAUCRATIC STATE CAPITALISM!
1. He gets a slightly better house because he happens to be leader. If he were living like the Saudi royal family (or any royal family, for that matter) or something then I'd see your point. I don't see him getting unfair health benefits, etc.

2. Because a tennis court is so damned important to the revolution. Damn you, Nazi tennis court!

3. Bullshit, the people elect those who currently sit in various positions. Indeed, one can say that Cuba is more democratic than the United States. This was already linked to, but read it anyway, specifically the "Democracy in Cuba" part. (http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html) Show me proof of this massive bureaucracy and its corruption and control over the workers.

4. Why would I support him if I didn't think he was advancing towards a Socialist (and eventually, Communist) society?

LuÃs Henrique

4th October 2007, 19:28

1. Whatever Cuba is, it is not a model for us.

2. Also whatever it is, it is no business of imperialists to fix it.

3. There is a bourgeoisie mounted on the backs of each one of us. And it is not the Cuban bourgeoisie.

Luís Henrique

Karl Marx's Camel

4th October 2007, 20:51

3. Bullshit, the people elect those who currently sit in various positions.

Claim/statement.

Indeed, one can say that Cuba is more democratic than the United States.

Claim/statement.

4. Why would I support him if I didn't think he was advancing towards a Socialist (and eventually, Communist) society?

Because you support today's China, Vietnam, Laos etc. and calls them "socialist" too!

I have rarely met a Cuban who has said that Cuba is democratic and explained that people control the state through various mechanisms. What I do know is that Cubans have some influence on local levels, and I think most Cubans would agree to that. That participation in decision making is mostly how to improve the local community and stuff like that, and implementing local rules for improvements of life for people in the area. But it is not like the people control the leaders like they have their hands tied around the balls on the leaders and they can squeeze whenever they want.

It is more the other way around, to a certain extent of course.

manic expression

4th October 2007, 21:13

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 04, 2007 07:51 pm
I have rarely met a Cuban who has said that Cuba is democratic and explained that people control the state through various mechanisms. What I do know is that Cubans have some influence on local levels, and I think most Cubans would agree to that. That participation in decision making is mostly how to improve the local community and stuff like that, and implementing local rules for improvements of life for people in the area. But it is not like the people control the leaders like they have their hands tied around the balls on the leaders and they can squeeze whenever they want.

It is more the other way around, to a certain extent of course.
Many comrades of mine have been to Cuba and seen the country and its political organs firsthand. They are as positive about it as I am (if not moreso). Who are these Cubans you've met? There's a good chance that they're defectors and people who are completely opposed to socialism.

1. Whatever Cuba is, it is not a model for us.

Why isn't it a model? The Cuban revolution is an excellent example in the establishment of socialism, one of the last remaining worker states around (much less healthy worker state). The Cuban model of socialist political processes, industrial organization and more are lessons that we should learn from and apply.

Karl Marx's Camel

4th October 2007, 21:15

There's a good chance that they're defectors and people who are completely opposed to socialism.

These are people I know, some more some less, and they aren't "defectors". These are ordinary Cubans.

But this is personal experience against experience.

By the way, some of our members contacted some Cubans on the net and tried to get in contact with them, get to know them, but they were afraid of political questions. I remember the thread was made in Chit Chat.

manic expression

4th October 2007, 21:17

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 04, 2007 08:15 pm

There's a good chance that they're defectors and people who are completely opposed to socialism.

These are people I know, some more some less, and they aren't "defectors". These are ordinary Cubans.

But this is personal experience against experience.
I gather you know them. However, being "ordinary Cubans", they live in Cuba, I presume? Their residence is in the country as of now? Correct?

And on edit:

By the way, some of our members tried to contact some Cubans on the net and tried to get in contact with them, get to know them, but they were afraid of political questions. I remember the thread was made in Chit Chat.

Then post the thread, by all means. I can imagine Cubans not being so forthcoming with anonymous people who randomly contacted them over the internet and eventually asked them political questions. Hell, most people in most countries wouldn't be too big on that, either.

Karl Marx's Camel

4th October 2007, 21:19

Yes, that's right.

Of course I don't think anyone here would trust exile-Cubans anyhow. They are so distanced from Cuba and Cuban life, and they are more American than Cuban and more anti-Cuban than most Americans.

manic expression

4th October 2007, 21:22

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 04, 2007 08:19 pm
Yes, that's right.

Of course I don't think anyone here would trust exile-Cubans anyhow. They are so distanced from Cuba and Cuban life, and they are more American than Cuban and more anti-Cuban than most Americans.
Oh, good, so you've been to Cuba or did they travel to your country?

Karl Marx's Camel

4th October 2007, 21:28

Both. :)

Oh, some of those here at home live partly in Cuba (staying there for months at a time) and partly in Norway, because they have a Norwegian husband or wife in here, but go there whenever they can afford it.

Most of the Cubans you'll find both at home in Cuba and abroad (with the exception of the U.S. and a few other cases) are much more nuanced. But people who don't know Cuba (that includes exile-Cubans in Florida) and people who support Fidel are much more black and white. Cubans generally find both foolish.

manic expression

4th October 2007, 21:30

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 04, 2007 08:28 pm
Both. :)

Oh, some of those at home live partly in Cuba (staying there for months at a time) and partly in Norway, because they have a Norwegian husband or wife in here.
Cool stuff. And so these Cubans (Cuban citizens), who live a good deal of their lives in Cuba, are willing to talk about politics with you?

And before I forget (on edit): and do these Cubans, who may spend months in Cuba during a year but not all their time, fully participate in the political process? Are they deeply involved in these processes?

Karl Marx's Camel

4th October 2007, 21:38

Mostly Cuban life and society, but politics too, since that comes into that category.

People on the island aren't that afraid of talking about stuff to each other. They can complain and moan about things. But authorities get a little more edgy when they are talking to tourists about politics. I think this is a combination of Cuba's difficult political situation, only a relative freedom of speech where people know what they can say and can't, and of course police officers and party bigwigs (generally) don't want Cubans to bother tourists.

One other thing, unless you know them, it can be difficult to talk politics with Cubans in tourist areas, because they will mostly "sympathize" and agree with you if you are against Fidel and the Revolution or for Fidel or the Revolution, because they assume they will get more money if they agree on things. Of course tourists are often generous when they find Cubans who agree with them so they will give more cash to them.

I am not saying all Cubans are like this, but if you don't know them and you are in a tourist area it is very possible. But if you know them well, this will not happen unless you are being tricked into some great scam, which happens on some rare occasions.

and do these Cubans, who may spend months in Cuba during a year but not all their time, fully participate in the political process? Are they deeply involved in these processes?

The Cubans I know are generally relatively apolitical like most Cubans. They may have some opinions here and there on certain issues but not much more.

Those "deeply involved" in the processes generally are people very loyal to the party , their CDR or the revolution or have a reputation for being a "good" and "moral" citizen/worker and most often kept their mouth relatively closed when it comes to complaining about economic problems or politics.

So no, since they live half of the time in another country they don't have the time and like most Cubans they spend most of their time with their family and friends. I do know Cubans who live partly in Cuba and partly another country who have uncles and so on who are CDR boss/chief of the area.

manic expression

4th October 2007, 23:21

From virtually every person who's gone to Cuba I've talked to, Cubans are very comfortable talking about politics on the island (in a variety of situations). The perception that Cubans can't say what they want is just unfounded and has nothing to do with the facts (not that you said this at all, this is just for the record). This has come from multiple people who've visited the country in multiple capacities (students, tourists, representatives).

Secondly, the degree of political activity does vary, naturally, but this doesn't tell the whole story. Cubans do vote quite a bit, and by extension they take part in the political process.

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/enero03/mar21/elecciones.html
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

That is worth mentioning IMO.

To be honest, I wish I was able to talk to Cubans who aren't frothing-from-the-mouth reactionaries. Perhaps you can understand my skepticism on your sources, I'm kind of used to lunatic RW gusanos being very vocal.

Devrim

4th October 2007, 23:45

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 04, 2007 08:19 pm
Of course I don't think anyone here would trust exile-Cubans anyhow. They are so distanced from Cuba and Cuban life, and they are more American than Cuban and more anti-Cuban than most Americans.
I don't know anybody who lives in Cuba.

From my personal experience I only met one person who ever visited there. About twenty years ago we knew somebody who went on one of those 'Cuba Solidarity' type tours. She went as a staunch support of Cuba, and came back horrified. The Cuban guides were also quite horrified that her tour was a tour of foreign 'leftists', and they didn't expect a native Spanish speaker who could talk to people on it. The stories she told us about people's lives shocked even us.

This of course proves nothing.

Also, comments about Castro's lifestyle prove nothing.

The important question is the nature of the economy.

For me though the arguments on these threads are pointless. There are those who believe that there is 'socialism', of some sense, in Cuba. It is obvious nonsense.

On a subject, which is closer to home, Eastern Europe, I have also heard many leftists wax on lyrically about socialism there. I did, however, spend some time working in Eastern Europe, after the fall of 'Communism'. I talked to many of my fellow workers, and also to Communist militants*, and was engaged in activity around a strike in our factory. I never spoke to any of them who thought that there was anything to do with the working class there**.

I look at those who support things like Cuba, or 'real existing socialism' as something like Muslims, or Christians. Some of them may be on the side of the working class in the revolution, but you will never shake their beliefs with facts, politics, or logic.

Devrim

*note the lack of inverted commas.
** I am not denying that many of them called it communism.

Ismail

5th October 2007, 02:02

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 04, 2007 02:51 pm
Because you support today's China, Vietnam, Laos etc. and calls them "socialist" too!
Actually I don't claim that todays China, Vietnam, Laos and so on are Socialist. I think they ceased being so when their respective leaders died (At least in the case of Vietnam and China, not sure about Laos) as is the view of many Anti-Revisionists. China and Vietnam still have some Socialist-style programs and such around, but they are moving towards capitalism.

And I've already shown people that link that has been posted here before. That is my cite. It may not be the best cite, but that is what I used. (The other cite, being this (http://www.granma.cu/ingles/enero03/mar21/elecciones.html), was also posted)

Should I repeat it? (http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html)

Zurdito

5th October 2007, 02:24

what does "state capitalist" actually mean? In what sense can capitalism be seperated from private ownership of the means of production? Isn't this whole theory completely un-marxist? Isn't a key feature of capitalism the constant drive to increase the rate of profit, driven by competition, which is simply not present in deformed workers states such as Cuba and was not present in the Soviet Union either? That's the process that drives imperialism after all, so if we call Stalinist states "state capitalist" then aren't we redefining capitalism into something which doesn't have the dynamics and therefore phases of capitalism - ie it doesn't then lead to imperialism - and therefore invalidating Marx and Lenin's entire analises?

"State capitalism" is a "cop-out" for people who want to denounce Stalinism but won't go down the pro-imperialist route of calling it "bureaucratic collectivism", or the correct route of admitting the gains made and consolidated by the revolutions in those societies - presumably for fear of being labelled second-campist by their own bourgeoise consensus, which wants for them to just take a passive back seat from the real struggles between states. and just denounce all forms of opression as equally reactionary.

Devrim

5th October 2007, 02:37

Originally posted by Zurdito+October 05, 2007 01:24 am--> (Zurdito @ October 05, 2007 01:24 am) what does "state capitalist" actually mean? [/b]
From earlier in the thread:

Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)Um, state-capitalism is very lucidly explained by a lot of left communist theorists. According to left communists, it is a world wide tendency manifested not only in the "socialist" countries but in almost all countries, obviously in differing degrees.[/b]

[email protected]
In what sense can capitalism be seperated from private ownership of the means of production? Isn't this whole theory completely un-marxist?

No, I would suggest you go back, and reread Marx on this because he is quite clear that it can.

Zurdito
their own bourgeoise consensus, which wants for them to just take a passive back seat from the real struggles between states. and just denounce all forms of opression as equally reactionary.

I don't think it is about 'all forms of oppression being equally reaction'. It is about all capitalists states being equally reactionary. Think about it. It is a bit like the line Lenin took during the war really.

Devrim

Zurdito

5th October 2007, 02:45

noted I didn't read the whole thread.

but on your second point, the war was between imperialist states. are you going to give me the "sub-imperialism" theory now? where does that lead exactly, to Shachtmanism?

Devrim

5th October 2007, 03:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:45 am
but on your second point, the war was between imperialist states. are you going to give me the "sub-imperialism" theory now? where does that lead exactly, to Shachtmanism?
I have little idea what a "sub-imperialism theory" is. The theories developed by the communist left didn't lead to 'Shachtmanism'. The theories developed by Trotskyism did.

They have also led to Trotskyists backing one side, or another in every war between different capitalist states since 1939.

We talk the easy position of 'a plague on both your houses'. We probably did it because it was a little easier, and we didn't have to waste the time working out which nationalists to support.

It is remarkable how similar it turned out to the positions of both Lenin and Trotsky in times of war though.

Devrim

manic expression

5th October 2007, 04:14

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 05, 2007 01:37 am--> (devrimankara @ October 05, 2007 01:37 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:24 am
what does "state capitalist" actually mean?
From earlier in the thread:

Marmot
Um, state-capitalism is very lucidly explained by a lot of left communist theorists. According to left communists, it is a world wide tendency manifested not only in the "socialist" countries but in almost all countries, obviously in differing degrees. [/b]
That gives us nothing. You were asked for a definition of "state capitalism". Instead of providing a sufficient definition or explanation or anything that could resemble a positive contribution, you gave us a quote claiming that "state capitalism" is explained really well...which doesn't help anyone.

We know you can CLAIM "state capitalism" to be a well defined and argued theory, but we want actual arguments.

And on edit: Zurdito, I doubt anyone will give you a satisfactory definition of "state capitalism", because the truth is they don't even know what it means, either.

Devrim

5th October 2007, 08:37

Originally posted by manic expression+October 05, 2007 03:14 am--> (manic expression @ October 05, 2007 03:14 am)
Originally posted by devrimankara+October 05, 2007 01:37 am--> (devrimankara @ October 05, 2007 01:37 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 01:24 am
what does "state capitalist" actually mean?
From earlier in the thread:

Marmot
Um, state-capitalism is very lucidly explained by a lot of left communist theorists. According to left communists, it is a world wide tendency manifested not only in the "socialist" countries but in almost all countries, obviously in differing degrees. [/b]
That gives us nothing. You were asked for a definition of "state capitalism". Instead of providing a sufficient definition or explanation or anything that could resemble a positive contribution, you gave us a quote claiming that "state capitalism" is explained really well...which doesn't help anyone.

We know you can CLAIM "state capitalism" to be a well defined and argued theory, but we want actual arguments.

And on edit: Zurdito, I doubt anyone will give you a satisfactory definition of "state capitalism", because the truth is they don't even know what it means, either. [/b]
As I said before, I really can't be bother to have serious arguments here about the nature of economies with people who think that Cuba is socialist. It is just, so far removed from reality that I am not even sure where to start.

I like the idea of rubbishing political ideas, by cliaming that nobody knows what they mean. That is quite original.

Devrim

Hiero

5th October 2007, 08:40

Devrim, you can't explain it.

synthesis

5th October 2007, 09:17

Why get all caught up in semantics? The obvious implication of the phrase "state-capitalism" is that the state has control of the means of production and is using it for its own ends. If Fidel - head of state - has a tennis court, and no one else does, then it's not socialism. Sorry.

That doesn't mean you can't support the gains that were made in the revolution, but as a direct precedent to communism it is not going to be sustainable, and the Castro government will never bring about socialism - merely a new ruling class in Cuba's industrial progress. I'll bet anyone a hundred dollars that Cuba will visibly start the same route as Russia and China into authoritarian capitalism within five years.

Vargha Poralli

5th October 2007, 10:27

I'll bet anyone a hundred dollars that Cuba will visibly start the same route as Russia and China into authoritarian capitalism within five years.

Well everyone has said that in one wy or the other for aout 17 years from the fll of Soviet Union.

Lets see you can send me a 100 dollars after 5 years :P

Zurdito

5th October 2007, 10:56

Why get all caught up in semantics? The obvious implication of the phrase "state-capitalism" is that the state has control of the means of production and is using it for its own ends. If Fidel - head of state - has a tennis court, and no one else does, then it's not socialism. Sorry.

So because something isn't socialist it must be capitalist? This reduces our definition of capitalism to any system where anyone is richer than anyone else. It's un-dialectical. In that case then, "capitalism" could last forever, if it can operate without the drive to increased profits and imperialism.

synthesis

5th October 2007, 12:57

It's not reducing anything to anything. It's referring to the group that controls the means of production. If it's not the workers, and if the people controlling the means of production are benefiting from their labor, then it is not socialism.

Zurdito

5th October 2007, 13:55

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@October 05, 2007 11:57 am
It's not reducing anything to anything. It's referring to the group that controls the means of production. If it's not the workers, and if the people controlling the means of production are benefiting from their labor, then it is not socialism.
but it's not capitalism.

spartan

5th October 2007, 14:22

Zurdito:
but it's not capitalism.
And it sure as shit aint Socialism either! Nor is it progressive in any sense of the word.

Cuba is just a glorified welfare State Capitalist state where the people dont own anything let alone the means of production (Which would be an indication of Socialism).

Bosses and managers still exist in Cuba but they are even worse than you're normal self made boss or manager in a Capitalist society as Cuba's bosses and managers are a bunch of Government appointed (Not elected by the people) Bureaucrats who only get their positions of power out of loyalty to the "boss" Fidel Castro.

A shining example of Socialism Cuba is definately not!

Robespierre2.0

5th October 2007, 15:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:22 pm

Bosses and managers still exist in Cuba but they are even worse than you're normal self made boss or manager in a Capitalist society as Cuba's bosses and managers are a bunch of Government appointed (Not elected by the people) Bureaucrats who only get their positions of power out of loyalty to the "boss" Fidel Castro.

Not according to what I've read. The communist party of Cuba does not interfere in elections. Also, I can't say for sure, but I'm leaning towards dismissing the claims of Cuban officials living in luxury. First, it comes from a bourgeois source, which puts it on shaky ground to start with. Second, I don't see a problem with Fidel or members of the Cuban government having access to cars and helicopters. If their job is to govern, and governing means traveling long distances to meet with diplomats or respond to emergencies, then I see no problem with them having access to them. In a socialist society, if there were a shortage of fishing rods, we'd give what few we had to fishermen, right?

Anyways, despite all of this, we can argue about the nature of the Cuban state but NONE OF US have gone there. I think that will be the true test of it- hopefully I'll have the chance to see it for myself and come to a better conclusion.

As for what to believe for now, I have the choice of believing bourgeois or Cuban sources. Since I know the bourgeois lie about everything else, I know I can't trust anything they say. As for Cuba, I know socialists must be very skeptical of every socialist country, but Castro and the cubans appear to be very committed to socialism. I can expect anarchists and left-communists sling shit at any socialist experiment no matter what, so I can pretty much ignore them.

Karl Marx's Camel

5th October 2007, 15:21

The communist party of Cuba does not interfere in elections.

Have you asked the Cuban people what is really happening in Cuba or have you read Granma or what some pro-Fidelistas have written?

Yes yes, there are elections in Cuba. And perhaps "the Communist party" doesn't directly interfere in elections. But people who talk about the elections in Cuba are pretty much obsessed by legalism.

There are elections in the U.S. and there are elections in Saudi Arabia and practically every nation on earth, and these elctions do not mean shit. Remember, the Cuban regime wants to portray itself as democratic. Every regime do!

And Cubans, since they live under the system in Cuba, know that it isn't true. But it is easy to fool non-Cubans since they don't live in Cuba.

The Democrats don't interfere in U.S. elections either, and the different mechanisms don't matter, just like the different mechanisms in Cuba's elections are not of great importance to us. We know for a fact that the U.S. is undemocratic, that the U.S. is ruled by the ruling class, even though it has plenty of mechanisms that looks okay on the surface. Whether the U.S. is "democratic" or not is not up for discussion, because it is self-explanatory.

And likewise we shouldn't be too focused on the legalist merits of the Cuban regime. What matters is how much power the people acutally wield. And the people of Cuba don't hold power on this island nation. The Cuban people have some influence, especially on local levels, that is true. But it pretty much ends there.

but Castro and the cubans appear to be very committed to socialism.

Exactly, it is all about Castro.

And what is "socialism" according to Castro? He described the USSR and the other eastern european capitalist states as "socialist", didn't he?

So if state capitalist states are "socialist" according to Fidel and Fidel claims Cuba is "socialist", would it not be logical to assume that Cuba is likely to be state capitalist, too?

we can argue about the nature of the Cuban state but NONE OF US have gone there.

There are several people here who have gone to Cuba. But there is a difference between traveling to Cuba living in hotels and sunbathing and staying on regime-tours, and actually experiencing Cuban life without any tourist or governmental bias.

As for what to believe for now, I have the choice of believing bourgeois or Cuban sources.

No.

You can live in Cuba if you want to, and find it out for yourself.

Or easier, you can visit a Cuban traveler forum where people who have stayed in Cuba for extended periods of time and where Cubans living on the island too post messages. You can talk to them and you get a much better picture than you will from bourgeois or the sources of the Fidelists, who both are lying.

The best way and the most correct way of doing it is actually moving to Cuba. But you'll get a pretty (though not entirely) accurate view of talking to Cubans and people who have stayed in Cuba for long periods of time.

spartan

5th October 2007, 15:32

MR:
Not according to what I've read. The communist party of Cuba does not interfere in elections.
"Those who cast the vote decide nothing, those who count the vote decide everything" Stalin.

Also, I can't say for sure, but I'm leaning towards dismissing the claims of Cuban officials living in luxury. First, it comes from a bourgeois source, which puts it on shaky ground to start with. Second, I don't see a problem with Fidel or members of the Cuban government having access to cars and helicopters. If their job is to govern, and governing means traveling long distances to meet with diplomats or respond to emergencies, then I see no problem with them having access to them. In a socialist society, if there were a shortage of fishing rods, we'd give what few we had to fishermen, right?
For the most part you are right but why does Castro need an outdoor Basketball and Tennis court and swimming pool? How does this help him in his job of leadership? Why cant the majority of Cubans have these things as well? Also in a perfect society there would be no leadership in the classical sense rather it would be direct Democracy with people all working together for the common and greater good of all society.

Remember leadership means a seperate class which means a hierarchy which ultimately means oppression by that hierarchy on the lower class for which the hierarchy relies for it's survival.

I can expect anarchists and left-communists sling shit at any socialist experiment no matter what, so I can pretty much ignore them.
But this is'nt a Socialist experiment is it? And god help us if it was because i would not want their system as a model to follow!

black magick hustla

5th October 2007, 15:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:40 am
Devrim, you can't explain it.
I don't understand what is so unclear about the bourgeosie being merged to the state and bureacrats acting as the board of directors of a huge company (the state) where workers are extracted surplus value?

Seriously what is so "unclear" and wishy washy about this?

I am in no way saying Cuba is state-capitalist but "state-capitalism" is not more vague than trotsky's "degenerate workers' state")

Her is Panneoken explaining it in his State-capitalism and dictatorship:

The term “State Capitalism” is frequently used in two different ways: first, as an economic form in which the state performs the role of the capitalist employer, exploiting the workers in the interest of the state. The federal mail system or a state-owned railway are examples of this kind of state capitalism. In Russia, this form of state capitalism predominates in industry : the work is planned, financed and managed by the state; the directors of industry are appointed by the state and profits are considered the income of the state. Second, we find that a condition is defined as state capitalism (or state socialism) under which capitalist enterprises are controlled by the state. This definition is misleading, however, as there still exists under these conditions capitalism in the form of private ownership, although the owner of an enterprise is no longer the sole master, his power being restricted so long as some sort of social insurance system for the workers is accepted.

Here for example, he mentions that state owned industries around the world are also "state capitalism". In this sense, state capitalism is a tendency manifested throughout the world.

Karl Marx's Camel

5th October 2007, 15:53

We should also ask ourselves what kind of system was in place before the elections took place. As far as I can recall elections started in 1976 and the electoral system was reformed somewhat in 1991 or so.

According to the Fidelistas, what kind of workers power existed before 1991, or 1976? To those I have talked to, they say that the regime "served" "in the interest" of the people. So basically the people had no way of electing or recalling the politicians, and the people, that is the peasants and workers of Cuba, were asked (or even ordered!) to just "assume" that the almighty leaders did "what was best for them".

Doesn't sound like the dictatorship of the proletariat, does it?

If the elections were launched by the regime, we can also assume that the elections are there to benefit the regime, and that the regime made the rules on how the elections "should look like", that the regime made elections happen on their conditions.

manic expression

5th October 2007, 16:49

Devrimankara

As I said before, I really can't be bother to have serious arguments here about the nature of economies with people who think that Cuba is socialist. It is just, so far removed from reality that I am not even sure where to start.

I like the idea of rubbishing political ideas, by cliaming that nobody knows what they mean. That is quite original.

Just as I thought, you can't offer any sort of definition or explanation, because you really don't know what it means (like everyone else). Let me know when you're ready to make an argument.

spartan

And it sure as shit aint Socialism either! Nor is it progressive in any sense of the word.

Cuba is just a glorified welfare State Capitalist state where the people dont own anything let alone the means of production (Which would be an indication of Socialism).

Bosses and managers still exist in Cuba but they are even worse than you're normal self made boss or manager in a Capitalist society as Cuba's bosses and managers are a bunch of Government appointed (Not elected by the people) Bureaucrats who only get their positions of power out of loyalty to the "boss" Fidel Castro.

I'll ask you the same question: what is "state capitalism"? While you're answering that, let me address your completely insane claims. If you actually look at the property relations and mode of production of Cuba, you'd see that it IS socialist. The "bosses" (by which I assume you mean administrators and the like) are accountable to the workers:

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

Furthermore, the people do own the means of production, as they control the worker state through the political process:

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

Notice the link cites primary research to back up its claims (something you won't see from the puritan ultra-leftists).

Karl Marx's Camel

Have you asked the Cuban people what is really happening in Cuba or have you read Granma or what some pro-Fidelistas have written?

Yes yes, there are elections in Cuba. And perhaps "the Communist party" doesn't directly interfere in elections. But people who talk about the elections in Cuba are pretty much obsessed by legalism.

There are elections in the U.S. and there are elections in Saudi Arabia and practically every nation on earth, and these elctions do not mean shit. Remember, the Cuban regime wants to portray itself as democratic. Every regime do!

And Cubans, since they live under the system in Cuba, know that it isn't true. But it is easy to fool non-Cubans since they don't live in Cuba.

The Democrats don't interfere in U.S. elections either, and the different mechanisms don't matter, just like the different mechanisms in Cuba's elections are not of great importance to us. We know for a fact that the U.S. is undemocratic, that the U.S. is ruled by the ruling class, even though it has plenty of mechanisms that looks okay on the surface. Whether the U.S. is "democratic" or not is not up for discussion, because it is self-explanatory.

And likewise we shouldn't be too focused on the legalist merits of the Cuban regime. What matters is how much power the people acutally wield. And the people of Cuba don't hold power on this island nation. The Cuban people have some influence, especially on local levels, that is true. But it pretty much ends there.

Don't make me laugh. The Cubans you talk to don't even take part in the political process, and yet you use them as perfect sources on that very issue? All the research into the Cuban political system reveals what Monosaurus Rex says: the party does not interfere in the elections, the workers find their voices very potent indeed:

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

And, again, the link uses credible research. What do you use? Right. The fact is that the political process in Cuba gives the Cuban workers tremendous power in terms of governmental policies and control over society. And guess what? They support the socialist direction of their country.

Exactly, it is all about Castro.

And what is "socialism" according to Castro? He described the USSR and the other eastern european capitalist states as "socialist", didn't he?

So if state capitalist states are "socialist" according to Fidel and Fidel claims Cuba is "socialist", would it not be logical to assume that Cuba is likely to be state capitalist, too?

Yes, he does define the USSR as socialist, like anyone else who can recognize property relations. What do you define it as? "State capitalist"? We're still waiting for this myth to be defined in the first place. The property relations of the USSR are proof enough for any Marxist (unless you want to claim that x mode of production can give y property relations, which is just illogical).

There are several people here who have gone to Cuba. But there is a difference between traveling to Cuba living in hotels and sunbathing and staying on regime-tours, and actually experiencing Cuban life without any tourist or governmental bias.

That's rich. My comrades went over independent of "regime-tours", and their perceptions reflect the view that Cuba is socialist. Furthermore, most Americans who go to Cuba do so by circumventing US preventions (as in going through Canada), which allows them far more freedom than you admit.

No.

You can live in Cuba if you want to, and find it out for yourself.

Not a very viable option. The choice here is between reliable research AND the experiences of people who have spent time on the island; the perceptions of some selected people who spend some time on the island; and bourgeois sources. I'll take the first.

spartan

For the most part you are right but why does Castro need an outdoor Basketball and Tennis court and swimming pool? How does this help him in his job of leadership? Why cant the majority of Cubans have these things as well? Also in a perfect society there would be no leadership in the classical sense rather it would be direct Democracy with people all working together for the common and greater good of all society.

Castro has those things because a lot of visitors spend time at his quarters, many of them young relatives who want something to do (like any other kid who's visiting family). As you might expect, Castro has modest security for a head of state who's been targeted by multiple assassination attempts, so a bit of isolation comes with this; subsequently, his visitors cannot go to the public park when visiting Castro. Those are some of the reasons for the courts and pool. On your other question, Cubans can play basketball and tennis and swim in excellent facilities throughout the country, there is no obstacle between them and these activities (baseball is really popular, their team is one of the very best in the world). We're not looking for a "perfect" society, we're looking for a socialist society, and Cuba is definitely one BECAUSE people own property collectively and do not make profit.

Marmot

Yes, there are attempts to define "state capitalism", but they fall flat on their face because they are inherently contradictory (hence "satisfactory definition"). Are you really suggesting that a society with progressive property relations can utilize a capitalist mode of production? Such is the fallacy of the "state capitalist" myth.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/19...ch09.htm#ch09-1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm#ch09-1)

"The bureaucracy has neither stocks nor bonds. It is recruited, supplemented and renewed in the manner of an administrative hierarchy, independently of any special property relations of its own. The individual bureaucrat cannot transmit to his heirs his rights in the exploitation of the state apparatus. The bureaucracy enjoys its privileges under the form of an abuse of power It conceals its income; it pretends that as a special social group it does not even exist." -Leon Trotsky

I'll get to more of this later, but that should do for now.

Karl Marx's Camel

We should also ask ourselves what kind of system was in place before the elections took place. As far as I can recall elections started in 1976 and the electoral system was reformed somewhat in 1991 or so.

The first revolutionary constitution was finalized in 1976, yes. This was after the socialist gains had been solidified and put on solid footing. Before this time, the Cuban workers supported the revolutionary government, as evidenced by the defeat of the imperialist forces at the Bay of Pigs and the counterrevolutionary forces during the War Against the Bandits (the counterrevolutionary guerrillas lacked the support of the peasants). Also, IIRC, the Declarations of Havana were overwhelmingly supported by the millions who attended. That sure sounds like the legitimate consolidation of a socialist revolution.

Connolly

5th October 2007, 17:09

Here are some very interesting links that pro-castro supporters should take time to watch and listen to....

MP3 - Mike Gonzalez - Cuba, the last socialist society?

HERE! (http://stlimc.org/resistancemp3/cuba-the-last-socialist-society.mp3)

MP3 - Mike Gonzalez - on Cuba

HERE! (http://stlimc.org/resistancemp3/cuba-mike-gonzalez.mp3)

I would love to know what part of this analysis people disagree with.

Also, here is an interesting video to see pure propaganda from Gadaffi's Libya - a great socialist paradise, with workers control over society. Get ordering your green flags for the next demo !!!

Gaddafi the Great:

HERE!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZQ2yp8BWc8)

Sound familiar?

Edit: sorry for the boring part at the beginning, but it gets good :D

Robespierre2.0

5th October 2007, 17:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:32 pm
Remember leadership means a seperate class which means a hierarchy which ultimately means oppression by that hierarchy on the lower class for which the hierarchy relies for it's survival.

Leadership means a seperate class? Are you saying that no matter what, whenever someone takes a position of leadership in a revolutionary movement, they are evelating themselves above the masses and becoming a seperate class?

Of course, I'd love for the masses to just emancipate themselves on the own, but do you really think that's possibly unless you have dedicated leaders to spread class consciousness? Socialism needs leadership, or else it is easily crushed by reactionaries. Also don't suddenly lose their status as a proletarian when they become a leader- they're still doing work- and are as important a piece of the puzzle as any farmer.

As fun as rabid anti-authoritarianism is, we have to be realistic, as the odds have and always will be stacked against us.

Karl Marx's Camel

6th October 2007, 10:51

the party does not interfere in the elections, the workers find their voices very potent indeed:

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

"The workers find their voicese very potent indeed", and then you go on to quote some western pro-Fidelist page on Cuba? How about talking to Cuban workers for a change?

They support the socialist direction of their country.

If it had been a dictatorship of the proletariat, the people wouldn't just "support" the policy of the regime, they would have fucking controlled the direction of that country!

The fact is that the political process in Cuba gives the Cuban workers tremendous power in terms of governmental policies and control over society.

Evidence? You say it is a fact. But you cannot prove this, can you?

Yes, he does define the USSR as socialist, like anyone else who can recognize property relations.

Lol, so the USSR was socialist. If that is your definition of socialism, yeah I agree, Cuba is (ahem) "socialist". I'm glad we worked that out.

The property relations of the USSR are proof enough for any Marxist

How about proof that the workers and peasants actually ruled the country? :rolleyes:

But of course leninists would like to ignore such trivial things.

Devrim

6th October 2007, 12:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:40 am
Devrim, you can't explain it.
I can't explain what, Heiro? State capitalism?

Actually I can. Also, as a current, we have explained it many times since 1918. I just can't be bothered to take time to explain it to people here who have so little idea of socialism as to think that Cuba is socialist.

Devrim

Axel1917

6th October 2007, 22:35

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 01, 2007 07:13 pm
Why should the treatment of such a monster in this state capitalist regime surprise us?
What is even worse is that people like you don't even bother to defend the nationalized planned economy of Cuba and just end up aiding capitalist reaction.

Cuba is not ultra-totalitarian like a traditional Stalinist regime. In fact, I believe that transforming Cuba into a healthy workers' state can be done by means of reform and not of armed insurrection.

If Cuba were to fall and become another Haiti, how much do you want to bet that a good deal of "revolutionaries" at this site would rejoice about the falling living standards and "the fall of the evil dictator?" Sadly, quite a few.

And how can there be state capitalism? It really makes no sense. To say that state capitalism exists is the same thing as stating that you can have capitalism without capitalists! When you expropriate the bourgeoisie, you get a change - you go from having social production with an individual form appropriation to having social production and state appropriation. In other words, the resulting system cannot be capitalism, as a central contradiction of capitalism, the social character of production and the individual form of appropriation, has been abolished.

The ultra-lefts cannot answer this question. They will flop about like a fish out of water and spew out all kinds of nonsense in an attempt to make things nebulous to prevent one from getting to the real answer, the refutation of their ideology, the revolutionary defense of proletarian property forms, the potency of Marxist theory and the superiority of Marxist theory over ultra-leftist babble.

In fact, whether the workers' state is healthy or deformed, you have social production and state appropriation either way. The only difference between the two essentially consists of whether or not the proletariat possesses political power.

I am not a Stalinist, but I will defend what I would term a deformed workers' state to the death against the imperialists and their ultra-left agents. Does it really take the most highly skilled of Marxist theoreticians to figure out if Castro's Cuba is better than Batista's Cuba and Haiti, to determine whether the toiling masses were better off living in Hoxha's Albania or today's capitalist Albania, to determine whether the workers and peasants were better off in Maoist China instead of capitalist China (do the numerous peasant uprisings and workers' disputes in China today mean nothing to these ultra-lefts?), to determine whether the Russians had better living standards during the Stalinist regime or today's Russia of capitalism, skin head fascist scum, and virtual third world living conditions?

Karl Marx's Camel

6th October 2007, 23:20

Rawthentic

7th October 2007, 00:02

"We" Marxists? No, you are not a Marxist.

You're a dogmatic "anti-authoritarian(lol)" of some kind.

Karl Marx's Camel

7th October 2007, 11:04

I would have probably ignored it if you had contributed something along the way, but all you did was to launch a petty personal attack. Where is your contribution to the discussion?

Zurdito

7th October 2007, 13:52

Does it really take the most highly skilled of Marxist theoreticians to figure out if Castro's Cuba is better than Batista's Cuba and Haiti, to determine whether the toiling masses were better off living in Hoxha's Albania or today's capitalist Albania, to determine whether the workers and peasants were better off in Maoist China instead of capitalist China (do the numerous peasant uprisings and workers' disputes in China today mean nothing to these ultra-lefts?), to determine whether the Russians had better living standards during the Stalinist regime or today's Russia of capitalism, skin head fascist scum, and virtual third world living conditions?

as marxists we believe that one persons power over another is the result of a social relationship, and therefore inherently artificial. We believe in power to the people, we don't believe that Albanians or Koreans have to bow down to some kind of neo-feudal lord who "protects" them and "feeds" them with the surplus of their own labour in return for loyalty and admiration. THAT is not what we fight for.

Zurdito

7th October 2007, 13:53

double post.

platano2988

7th October 2007, 15:49

If castro's aim was to become rich be would certaintly not have put the power in the hands of the working class. For example leo I am sure that you are not going to deny that cuba's children are not entitiled to a free education. This is not a good way to make yourself a rich bourgeois. Or what about giving them free world class healthcare that despite of being strangled by the imperialist blockade, it still manages to best the american life average. wow.If you want to control a people, keep them ignorant, and demoralized. If you are a corrupt leader, and you want to line your pocket than creating an exemplary socialist state is not a good way to go. Castro does not live like you say. This is a man who has devoted his entire life to the causes of the worker and the poor. And for you to go around saying that he lives like this is something that i or practically nobody can take seriously.If I was corrupt I would not side with the soviet union. I would do it with the imperialist U.S. It simply makes sense.

Ismail

7th October 2007, 19:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:52 am
as marxists we believe that one persons power over another is the result of a social relationship, and therefore inherently artificial. We believe in power to the people, we don't believe that Albanians or Koreans have to bow down to some kind of neo-feudal lord who "protects" them and "feeds" them with the surplus of their own labour in return for loyalty and admiration. THAT is not what we fight for.
Explain to me how Hoxha was in any way a "neo-Feudal lord" considering that he modernized his nation, suppressed the actual feudal lords who stripped women of all their rights among other things, downplayed the role of religion (only about 40% of Albanians practice religion today) and stepped down when the time was right for him to do so as I pretty much believe that Hoxha lost about 3/5ths of his power by 1981 and from 1978-84 was pretty much finishing his 71 volumes of books while the rest of the party did most other things, especially since Hoxha was suffering from increasing senility and diabetes later on in life. (plus he had about two heart attacks at this point too)

Go ahead, I'll wait. I also consider calling the Korean leadership "neo-feudal" is ridiculous too, but it makes slightly more sense.

spartan

7th October 2007, 19:56

Mrdie:
Go ahead, I'll wait. I also consider calling the Korean leadership "neo-feudal" is ridiculous too, but it makes slightly more sense.
I think they mean neo-Feudal in the sense of how the leaders used to run their respective countries what with the personallity cults and the stupid almost Religious worship of the leaders image as well as silly expressions such as "Thanks to comrade Stalin we have a good harvest this year!".

I dont think they meant Feudal in the sense of how the economy is run or how peoples rights were bettered etc.

Also the leaderships of these Stalinist states were Feudal like in the sense of how their leaderships worked. Say if you were to call Mao Zedong say Emperor Mao Zedong well their would be no real difference between him and other past Emperors as he held as much if not more power as past Emperors.

Wanted Man

7th October 2007, 19:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:56 pm
"Thanks to comrade Stalin we have a good harvest this year!".
You've put that between quotation marks, so I'll assume that you have a source of someone who said this.

spartan

7th October 2007, 20:03

DD:
You've put that between quotation marks, so I'll assume that you have a source of someone who said this.
I cant find an exact source for this specific expression but it definately existed from what i have researched.

Besides any basic research of such expressions will give you shitloads of examples because that is how pathetic these Bureaucratic State Capitalist states actually were! Venerating stupid Dictators who hid behind terms such as Communist, Marxist and Socialist how much more pathetic can you get! (Well leftists still following these stupid Dictators versions of "Socialism" is quite pathetic in my opinion as well).

Also if you go to Mao Zedong's biography on Wiki (Not just Wiki mind you) you will find that a term usually reserved for past Chinese Emperors was applied to Mao.

I think it was something like "The Emperor will live for ten thousand years" which was changed to "Chairman Mao will live for ten thousand years".

Authoritarian Communists are so sad :lol:

Ismail

7th October 2007, 21:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:56 pm
I think they mean neo-Feudal in the sense of how the leaders used to run their respective countries what with the personallity cults and the stupid almost Religious worship of the leaders image as well as silly expressions such as "Thanks to comrade Stalin we have a good harvest this year!".

I dont think they meant Feudal in the sense of how the economy is run or how peoples rights were bettered etc.

Also the leaderships of these Stalinist states were Feudal like in the sense of how their leaderships worked. Say if you were to call Mao Zedong say Emperor Mao Zedong well their would be no real difference between him and other past Emperors as he held as much if not more power as past Emperors.
1. Hoxha did have a bit of a problem with people praising him, especially later on in the 1970s. However, in the 1960s he implemented more Maoist policies and asked people to rely less on government and to rely move on themselves. This changed when China cut off aid and other nations mostly refused to trade with Hoxha, so he encouraged self-sufficiency to make up for this.

2. Mao did not have the same power as an Emperor, and in no way did he hold even more. There was democratic centralism and was the main Chairman, but with about four others directly under him.

Zurdito

7th October 2007, 21:41

Originally posted by Mrdie+October 07, 2007 06:06 pm--> (Mrdie @ October 07, 2007 06:06 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 07:52 am
as marxists we believe that one persons power over another is the result of a social relationship, and therefore inherently artificial. We believe in power to the people, we don't believe that Albanians or Koreans have to bow down to some kind of neo-feudal lord who "protects" them and "feeds" them with the surplus of their own labour in return for loyalty and admiration. THAT is not what we fight for.
Explain to me how Hoxha was in any way a "neo-Feudal lord" considering that he modernized his nation, suppressed the actual feudal lords who stripped women of all their rights among other things, downplayed the role of religion (only about 40% of Albanians practice religion today) and stepped down when the time was right for him to do so as I pretty much believe that Hoxha lost about 3/5ths of his power by 1981 and from 1978-84 was pretty much finishing his 71 volumes of books while the rest of the party did most other things, especially since Hoxha was suffering from increasing senility and diabetes later on in life. (plus he had about two heart attacks at this point too)

Go ahead, I'll wait. I also consider calling the Korean leadership "neo-feudal" is ridiculous too, but it makes slightly more sense. [/b]
you're right that "neo-feudal" was a bad term to use, I got carried away in the moment. I now edited it before you replied, if you check, as it doesn't fit with Marxist analysis, and fair enough for calling me on it. However they are self-interest bureaucrats who monopolise (not own) the means of production, and use this to blackmail the people into obedience.

Karl Marx's Camel

8th October 2007, 14:58

1. Hoxha did have a bit of a problem with people praising him, especially later on in the 1970s. However, in the 1960s he implemented more Maoist policies and asked people to rely less on government and to rely move on themselves.

Exactly.

It was he who implemented these policies. Not the working class and peasantry.

Ismail

8th October 2007, 19:41

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 08, 2007 08:58 am
Exactly.

It was he who implemented these policies. Not the working class and peasantry.
Considering both the US and USSR attempted to overthrow him (and Yugoslavia wanted to make it a Yugoslav state, as well as Greece wanting the south) I doubt that the Albanian people would of been able to resist imperialism without a state. You don't go from "We can't read and women can't hold paying jobs" in the 1940s where Communism was only known by intellectuals then suddenly in 30 years "We can resist 90% of the world without a state! (composed of imperialist nations and their puppets)"

Yeah, "he" implemented it. He didn't literally declare something and it was immediately done. He signed it into law I'm sure, but there were obviously debates and votes on things like this.

I know you want Communism now, but it simply can't happen. The newly-formed proletariat (and of course peasants) simply could not of adapted to a collectivist and classless society while opposing the imperialist nations at the same time. Only when imperialism has been fought back and is on the decline can people start moving towards a communist society from Socialism.

Karl Marx's Camel

8th October 2007, 20:07

Considering both the US and USSR attempted to overthrow him (and Yugoslavia wanted to make it a Yugoslav state, as well as Greece wanting the south) I doubt that the Albanian people would of been able to resist imperialism without a state.

Never said "without a state". There is a difference between "having a state" controlled by the proletariat and the peasantry (that is us) for our purposes, and "having a state" that is controlled by one man.

You don't go from "We can't read and women can't hold paying jobs" in the 1940s where Communism was only known by intellectuals then suddenly in 30 years "We can resist 90% of the world without a state! (composed of imperialist nations and their puppets)"

If a people cannot rule themselves in a so-called people's revolution, then the revolution wasn't genuine, wasn't meant to be because the conditions were not right. If that is right, then it was imposed on the people.

Yeah, "he" implemented it. He didn't literally declare something and it was immediately done. He signed it into law I'm sure

Who gives a shit if he signed into law? The EU is signing lots of anti-workers stuff as all mighty laws.

The newly-formed proletariat (and of course peasants) simply could not of adapted to a collectivist and classless society while opposing the imperialist nations at the same time.

Maybe conditions aren't right yet. But you assume someone has to rule over the proletariat, instead of the proletariat ruling over themselves. That is NOT socialism!

Only when imperialism has been fought back and is on the decline can people start moving towards a communist society from Socialism.

That's an assertion.

And even so, there wasn't even socialism in Albania. Just like there isn't socialism in Cuba.

manic expression

8th October 2007, 20:42

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 06, 2007 09:51 am
"The workers find their voicese very potent indeed", and then you go on to quote some western pro-Fidelist page on Cuba? How about talking to Cuban workers for a change?
It's called a reliable source (notice the citations). If you have a legitimate complaint about the link, I'm all ears, but right now it seems you just don't like what it says (and proves).

If it had been a dictatorship of the proletariat, the people wouldn't just "support" the policy of the regime, they would have fucking controlled the direction of that country!

They did when they a.) overwhelmingly supported the Declarations of Havana and b.) have driven the political process for decades.

Evidence? You say it is a fact. But you cannot prove this, can you?

Yes, I provided evidence. See the link and the sources it cites.

Lol, so the USSR was socialist. If that is your definition of socialism, yeah I agree, Cuba is (ahem) "socialist". I'm glad we worked that out.

If you're too ignorant to recognize property relations for what they are, that's no one's problem but yours. The USSR had socialistic property relations and saw no capitalist mode of production; the bureaucratic deformities did nothing to change this.

How about proof that the workers and peasants actually ruled the country?

But of course leninists would like to ignore such trivial things.

Watch the videos of the workers of Havana raising their hands in support of the Cuban revolution. Look at the fact that the workers of Cuba have undeniably continued the course of the revolution they made.

Once again:

http://www.themilitant.com/2007/7112/711250.html

Ismail

8th October 2007, 20:43

If a people cannot rule themselves in a so-called people's revolution, then the revolution wasn't genuine, wasn't meant to be because the conditions were not right. If that is right, then it was imposed on the people.Hoxha was elected to his position by the people. If I recall correctly, they actually used traits instead of names on the ballot boxes so people wouldn't vote based on "Oh, I heard of this man..." and such.

Who gives a shit if he signed into law? The EU is signing lots of anti-workers stuff as all mighty laws.Because you're acting like Hoxha was Lord of Albania who had no opposition at all nor allowed any form of debate before initiatives were passed. He signed the laws, but before that they were debated and voted on.

Maybe conditions aren't right yet. But you assume someone has to rule over the proletariat, instead of the proletariat ruling over themselves.Incorrect. The vanguard party leads the revolution. People who lead the party are the ones focused on building up Socialism and so on during transition. As you can probably guess, this transition won't be an easy one and quite a bit will need to be changed during this process. It is the job of the party to show the masses what to do, etc until they fully understand and are ready. Obviously during this time the people need to interact with the party in an active manner. This process of course is hindered due to imperialist threats, which both Albania and North Korea faced. (in North Korea's case, still faces)

That's an assertion.Explain to us how people can move into a Communist society without first fighting imperialism.

spartan

8th October 2007, 21:30

Mrdie:
Incorrect. The vanguard party leads the revolution.
Uh oh here we go with the all supreme "vanguard" which has the "best intrets" of all the people at heart :lol:

The trouble with vanguards are that every single one of them adopt Bureaucratic State Capitalism and thus have Government appointed Bureaucrats running the economy for the party.

So the Proletariat does not own nor control the means of the production under this system.

Instead you have the all powerful "vanguard" with it's unelected appointed Bureaucrats controling the means of productions.

And please do not say that the "vanguard" is doing things in the people's intrest or that they have the people's best intrests in mind because that is bullshit as the leaders of the various vanguard movements in history seemed to like to indulge in extravagence in their various mansions and palaces as well as having access to all the best that there is to offer (Like the Pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm) whilst all the normal working people of which the party has the best intrests at heart :lol: have to put up with a sub standard level (At best) of life in small houses and with barely any possesions.

Did'nt Hoxha ban the use of telephones and cars in Albania? If yes then i am sure he had a perfectly good reason for this right Mrdie? :lol: What a stupid delusionel Stalinist.

Vanguard's are hierarchies that eventually evolve into a new ruling class so they should not be used as a basis during any revolutionary workers movement.

History proves me right on this as all Stalinist type states are no longer in existence.

Karl Marx's Camel

8th October 2007, 21:32

It's called a reliable source (notice the citations). If you have a legitimate complaint about the link, I'm all ears, but right now it seems you just don't like what it says (and proves).

The complaint was raised as trying to compare Western pro-Fidelistas with Cuban workers.

They did when they a.) overwhelmingly supported the Declarations of Havana and

Exactly. Support.

The majority of U.S. citizens support U.S. policy. That does not mean the U.S. is ruled by the people.

have driven the political process for decades.

That's an assertion. And what do you mean more spesific than "decades"? Give us a date, please.

Also, where is the evidence?

If you're too ignorant to recognize property relations for what they are, that's no one's problem but yours. The USSR had socialistic property relations and saw no capitalist mode of production; the bureaucratic deformities did nothing to change this.
The state owned the means of productions.
Also. If the people don't rule the country, it is not socialism.

Watch the videos of the workers of Havana raising their hands in support of the Cuban revolution. Look at the fact that the workers of Cuba have undeniably continued the course of the revolution they made.

There are various from indirect pressure from the government to go to those demonstrations. You think they are spontanious or something? They are as far as I know declared by the government, and if you don't want to get blacklisted or you want to get a better job in your workplace, you should go.

Ismail

8th October 2007, 22:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:30 pm
Did'nt Hoxha ban the use of telephones and cars in Albania?

History proves me right on this as all Stalinist type states are no longer in existence.
1. No. This proves that you don't know shit about Hoxha. Telephone use was limited, but this was due to resource issues; priority was given to industrial areas. As for cars, Albanians had to learn how to modify cars and pretty much take them apart and put them back again in order to own one. Yes, there was only about 4,000 or so cars, but that clearly doesn't mean that he banned them. The guy modernized his nation, and any odd bannings he did (saxophones among other things according to what I hear) were when he was increasingly senile and his influence on Albania was being reduced due to this. Also, you're the one whose first reaction to a lot of things is "THEY SHOULD DIE!" so shut the fuck up about how evil "Stalinist" states are.

2. Maybe it's because the capitalists and revisionists wanted them gone? Using that logic, anarchism is a complete and utter failure because it never got anywhere in the 20th century. Look at Spain, even that wasn't a purely anarchistic society since the syndicalists had to form a popular front with center-left types, "Stalinists" etc.

Also, name one single modern anti-colonial movement that didn't have a vanguard party. Just an example of how effective and important vanguard parties are.

manic expression

8th October 2007, 23:34

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 08, 2007 08:32 pm
The complaint was raised as trying to compare Western pro-Fidelistas with Cuban workers.
The claims are backed by primary research from multiple sources. Your complaints about it being "Western pro-Fidelista" is irrelevant, it's a reliable source that you're discounting because you don't like what it proves.

Exactly. Support.

The majority of U.S. citizens support U.S. policy. That does not mean the U.S. is ruled by the people.

They voted on those declarations. Watch the videos. Stop taking shortcuts.

That's an assertion. And what do you mean more spesific than "decades"? Give us a date, please.

Also, where is the evidence?

After the Cuban Constitution was first ratified and put into effect in 1976. That's been 30 years of the workers continuing the direction of the socialist revolution.

The state owned the means of productions.
Also. If the people don't rule the country, it is not socialism.

Yes, and the workers drove the state AND the process of nationalization. See the second link I posted.

There are various from indirect pressure from the government to go to those demonstrations. You think they are spontanious or something? They are as far as I know declared by the government, and if you don't want to get blacklisted or you want to get a better job in your workplace, you should go.

Now you're just making stuff up. People went because they believed in the revolutionary cause, just watching the videos will give you that impression (unless you think everyone in Cuba was a proficient actor). Those declarations in the beginning of the revolution were key to defining it as socialist...and the workers made it happen. Again, see the second link I posted.

spartan

8th October 2007, 23:38

Mrdie:
Also, name one single modern anti-colonial movement that didn't have a vanguard party. Just an example of how effective and important vanguard parties are.
Anti-Colonialism does not always imply that the anti-Colonialist movement is Socialist!

Name one vanguard movement that successfully implemented true Socialism where the workers, not unelected Government appointed Bureaucrats, owned or controlled the means of production?

NOTE: Bureaucratic State Capitalist nations do not count as vanguard movements that implemented true Socialism.

Ismail

9th October 2007, 01:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:38 pm
Anti-Colonialism does not always imply that the anti-Colonialist movement is Socialist!

Name one vanguard movement that successfully implemented true Socialism where the workers, not unelected Government appointed Bureaucrats, owned or controlled the means of production?
1. That isn't my point. Once again, I'm showing the importance of vanguard parties.

2. Name a successful implementation of Anarcho-Syndicalism, or whatever the hell your ideology is. Pretty much never got off the ground. See? I just proved that your ideology has failed. Faulty logic? Of course, but that doesn't stop you.

spartan

9th October 2007, 14:15

Correct me if i am wrong but is'nt the stated aim of vanguard movements to be the vanguard of the working people who will implement true Socialism?

If so then your ideology of vanguardism has been a complete failiure as no vanguard movement has ever implemented any form of Socialism only Authoritarian Bureaucratic State Capitalism.

Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg

9th October 2007, 15:13

why cant we appreciate that Cuba is a socialst state, and it may not be run 100% as some want, but its wifley supported in Cuba and a fuck load better than any bourguoise state, and better than most other "communist" states.

Karl Marx's Camel

9th October 2007, 19:33

The guy modernized his nation, and any odd bannings he did (saxophones among other things according to what I hear) were when he was increasingly senile and his influence on Albania was being reduced due to this.

Exactly. It was all his doing. Not the workers.

why cant we appreciate that Cuba is a socialst state

Why can't we just appreciate China as a socialist state? Let's not be picky.

All the members here want to see revolutionary societies. That's not the issue here. However things in Cuba are not as it should be in a revolutionary society, and some criterias are put in doubt.

They voted on those declarations.

"Iranians" voted for Mahmoud, Iraqis "voted" for Saddam. And apparently Muammar al-Gaddafi, ruler of "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab", is apparently "elected" and "chosen" by the people.

After the Cuban Constitution was first ratified and put into effect in 1976.

Hold your horses!

So the regime suddenly just "gave" power to the people?

In other words, power was given to the workers. That sounds a bit fishy.
I thought, being the silly leftist that I am, that the dictatorship of the proletariat entailed the people taking power, and not just having it given to them or taken away from them as the government feel it suits them.

Yes, and the workers drove the state AND the process of nationalization.

I have seen the video clips of workers cheering by the nationalizations of United Fruit and so on. I haven't contested that.

Now you're just making stuff up.
Really?
How would you know?

I have talked to Cubans and even relatively pro-Fidel Cubans have said this.

People went because they believed in the revolutionary cause, just watching the videos will give you that impression (unless you think everyone in Cuba was a proficient actor).

I don't need to see videos. I have been in demonstrations and rallies in Cuba myself.

Everyone knows in Cuba about the possible consequenses (like I said, not getting a better job where you work, and possibly being blacklisted).

I say possible because the law in Cuba is not strictly enforced. That is, sometimes you do something and you might receive negative sanctions, sometimes you will not.

Going to a demonstration in Cuba has negative and positive consequenses.

The negative consequenses have been outlined, and the positive exists too. You will easier climb up the ladder in life, you might be awarded some sort of commodities, and besides like on December 2 there were organized parties and there was free beer. For the youths it seemed like the most important thing was dancing and beer (not speaking negatively of beer or dancing). And IIRC correctly (this one I will check up on to see if it was entirely correct), those who go to demonstrations get the rest of the day free. They don't need to work.

And yeah, I'm sure some people feel it is a good thing to go on the demonstraions. In fact I know I few who go also because they want to. But like I said there are carrots and sticks to make people go to demonstrations.

Rosa Lichtenstein

9th October 2007, 19:51

In reply to Marxosaurus Rex, check these out:

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/cuba/80-cucas.htm

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/cuba/reply.htm

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/cuba/83-cupop.htm

manic expression

9th October 2007, 20:07

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 09, 2007 06:33 pm
"Iranians" voted for Mahmoud, Iraqis "voted" for Saddam. And apparently Muammar al-Gaddafi, ruler of "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab", is apparently "elected" and "chosen" by the people.
You failed to make a single point here. The only thing you showed was that you're incapable of seeing the difference between leaders being elected and workers coming together to create a socialist state.

Hold your horses!

So the regime suddenly just "gave" power to the people?

In other words, power was given to the workers. That sounds a bit fishy.
I thought, being the silly leftist that I am, that the dictatorship of the proletariat entailed the people taking power, and not just having it given to them or taken away from them as the government feel it suits them.

Are you trying to misunderstand me, or do you just know nothing about the history of Cuba? As I've illustrated countless times (see the second link "How the Cuban toilers made the worker state"), the Cuban workers were the driving force of the revolution. The Constitution was passed after the socialist direction of Cuba was solidified BY the workers. So the ratification of the Constitution was just the continuation of the socialist revolution by the workers. Try looking at the actual events instead of passing mistaken judgment.

I have seen the video clips of workers cheering by the nationalizations of United Fruit and so on. I haven't contested that.

You have contested their clear significance. The nationalization of these companies constituted the establishment of socialism; the workers now controlled the means of production through the state.

Really?
How would you know?

I have talked to Cubans and even relatively pro-Fidel Cubans have said this.

We were talking about the first declarations of Havana, and then you start talking about present-day rallies (of which there is minimal pressure, and even then they are a lot like street festivals anyway). Your arguments were not analogous to the subject at hand (aka you're making stuff up).

I don't need to see videos. I have been in demonstrations and rallies in Cuba myself.

Everyone knows in Cuba about the possible consequenses (like I said, not getting a better job where you work, and possibly being blacklisted).

I say possible because the law in Cuba is not strictly enforced. That is, sometimes you do something and you might receive negative sanctions, sometimes you will not.

Going to a demonstration in Cuba has negative and positive consequenses.

The negative consequenses have been outlined, and the positive exists too. You will easier climb up the ladder in life, you might be awarded some sort of commodities, and besides like on December 2 there were organized parties and there was free beer. For the youths it seemed like the most important thing was dancing and beer (not speaking negatively of beer or dancing). And IIRC correctly (this one I will check up on to see if it was entirely correct), those who go to demonstrations get the rest of the day free. They don't need to work.

And yeah, I'm sure some people feel it is a good thing to go on the demonstraions. In fact I know I few who go also because they want to. But like I said there are carrots and sticks to make people go to demonstrations.

Yes, this has been discussed on this forum before. However, this is almost a strawman because I was talking about the Declarations of Havana in the 60's, not the expectations for attending rallies today. This is an entirely separate point from what you were responding to. Nevertheless, there is very little I can object to in your description. Free beer and dancing for youths? A day off for workers? Going out and having fun with neighbors? I wish I could take part. On the negative consequences, they are pretty lenient. The consequences are reasonable, people who refuse to take part in communal events should not get off scot-free.

Ismail

9th October 2007, 21:31

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 09, 2007 01:33 pm
Exactly. It was all his doing. Not the workers.
Yeah, I remember reading how strongly opposed the workers were to better living conditions and literacy and how Hoxha built the entire nation up again from the ashes of the war with his bare hands. :rolleyes:

Zurdito

10th October 2007, 01:23

Originally posted by Mrdie+October 09, 2007 08:31 pm--> (Mrdie @ October 09, 2007 08:31 pm)
Karl Marx's [email protected]October 09, 2007 01:33 pm
Exactly. It was all his doing. Not the workers.
Yeah, I remember reading how strongly opposed the workers were to better living conditions and literacy and how Hoxha built the entire nation up again from the ashes of the war with his bare hands. :rolleyes: [/b]
No, it was the Albanian workers who did that. If all value is the product of human labour, then why this sudden cult of personality for the man who oversees it?

Comrade Rage

10th October 2007, 01:39

Originally posted by Zurdito
No, it was the Albanian workers who did that. If all value is the product of human labour, then why this sudden cult of personality for the man who oversees it?

Maybe because if Hoxha had not worked so hard, people in Albania would still be stiff-arming the fash.

|Hoxha led the resistance in Albania.|

Zurdito

10th October 2007, 10:10

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+October 10, 2007 12:39 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ October 10, 2007 12:39 am)
Zurdito
No, it was the Albanian workers who did that. If all value is the product of human labour, then why this sudden cult of personality for the man who oversees it?

Maybe because if Hoxha had not worked so hard, people in Albania would still be stiff-arming the fash.

|Hoxha led the resistance in Albania.| [/b]
I think you're wilfully confusing the point. We're talking about the labour done in Albania after the war whilst Hoxha was Prime Minister.

Ismail

10th October 2007, 17:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:23 pm
No, it was the Albanian workers who did that. If all value is the product of human labour, then why this sudden cult of personality for the man who oversees it?
They viewed Hoxha as a national hero and a person who truly believed in Socialism so much that he was willing to stand up to the highest powers to preserve it (and for the nationalists, replace "Socialism" with "Albania"), so it is somewhat understandable that he'd have a bit of a problem with people praising him. It isn't like they stopped working to praise him for eight hours of anything, nor was he ever called "Great Leader" and treated as a semi-God (such as in North Korea).

To prove this, when he died, everyone pretty much agreed that he was dead. :P

Enver Hoxha dies, people cry. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=CIZi72kHcxU)
Kim Il Sung dies, everyone shits their pants and a guy is driven to the point where if the whole world collapsed he wouldn't be able to believe it. (?) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KbM8Iu-547k&mode=related&search=)

spartan

10th October 2007, 18:51

Those were great links Mrdie thanx!

Karl Marx's Camel

11th October 2007, 11:44

Hoxha built the entire nation up again from the ashes of the war with his bare hands.

Hoxha must have been very proficient with his hands! :lol:

And your argument is so reactionary and silly it is the equevalant of saying "Donald Trump built the Trump Tower with his bare hands!"

Ismail

11th October 2007, 16:46

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 11, 2007 05:44 am

Hoxha built the entire nation up again from the ashes of the war with his bare hands.

Hoxha must have been very proficient with his hands! :lol:

And your argument is so reactionary and silly it is the equevalant of saying "Donald Trump built the Trump Tower with his bare hands!"
Today we learn what this means: :rolleyes:

This means sarcasm. Sarcasm is defined as so:

sar·casm /ˈsɑrkæzəm/ [sahr-kaz-uhm] –noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

It was a response to what you wrote, which is what I consider silly and reactionary:

Exactly. It was all his doing. Not the workers. I tried to explain that the workers had the vital role in building up the economy. (You know, by actually constructing things and replacing old, broken down things from the 18th and 19th centuries) but then you said what I just quoted. So I retorted with sarcasm just as you did to me.

Karl Marx's Camel

18th October 2007, 16:03

The guy modernized his nation, and any odd bannings he did (saxophones among other things according to what I hear) were when he was increasingly senile and his influence on Albania was being reduced due to this.

In a socialist society it is not "a guy" who modernize a nation, and it is not "a guy" who decides something. And just because a representative is fucking senile should have no influence on what happens in a socialist country. But in Albania it did, because the people didn't rule, but Hoxha did.

The nationalization of these companies constituted the establishment of socialism

Nationalization does not, despite the moaning of leninists, equal socialism.

And this happened like 50 years ago. Times have changed. The situation in Cuba has changed.

manic expression

18th October 2007, 16:59

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 18, 2007 03:03 pm
Nationalization does not, despite the moaning of leninists, equal socialism.

And this happened like 50 years ago. Times have changed. The situation in Cuba has changed.
Not just nationalization, but control of industries through worker democracy. The nationalizations placed those industries in the hands of the workers, who still control them today. That whole worker control thing is what socialism is about; Cuba has it.

Care to show HOW Cuba has changed instead of vaguely asserting things without any sort of support?

spartan

18th October 2007, 17:23

me:
Not just nationalization, but control of industries through worker democracy. The nationalizations placed those industries in the hands of the workers, who still control them today.
Actually the workers do not own nor control the means of productions.

Rather the Government owns the means of production whilst Government appointed Bureaucrats control them in the name of and for the Government who claim to be the "representatives" of the workers :lol:

It is called State Capitalism.

That whole worker control thing is what socialism is about
You are right!

Cuba has it.
No it does not!

manic expression

18th October 2007, 17:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:23 pm
Actually the workers do not own nor control the means of productions.

Rather the Government owns the means of production whilst Government appointed Bureaucrats control them in the name of and for the Government who claim to be the "representatives" of the workers :lol:
Your opinions stand in the shadow of facts:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html
(notice how the above link uses research and reliable sources to back up its statements)

http://www.themilitant.com/2007/7112/711250.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPlnGiS488s

It is called State Capitalism.

Tell me: what is "state capitalism"? Can you even provide a sufficient definition for this term?

No it does not [have socialism]!

See above answer.

spartan

18th October 2007, 19:03

me:
Your opinions stand in the shadow of facts:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html
(notice how the above link uses research and reliable sources to back up its statements)

http://www.themilitant.com/2007/7112/711250.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPlnGiS488s
All biased sources.

Tell me: what is "state capitalism"? Can you even provide a sufficient definition for this term?
I actually provided the answer in my last post but seeing how you seem to have purposely ignored or forgot it i will provide it again:

Actually the workers do not own nor control the means of productions.

Rather the Government owns the means of production whilst Government appointed Bureaucrats control them in the name of and for the Government who claim to be the "representatives" of the workers :lol:

It is called State Capitalism.
So as you can see in a State Capitalist economic model for society the workers do not actually own nor control the means of production.

The workers are mearly told that they own and control the means of production by the people who do actually own and control the means of production namely the Government.

There is your answer.

Ismail

18th October 2007, 19:22

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 18, 2007 10:03 am
In a socialist society it is not "a guy" who modernize a nation, and it is not "a guy" who decides something. And just because a representative is fucking senile should have no influence on what happens in a socialist country. But in Albania it did, because the people didn't rule, but Hoxha did.
When Hoxha went senile, he ruled it for a little bit longer until the party decided he had to stop ruling that much, so they took away most of his powers and he accepted that.

Also, I'm pretty sure that if Hoxha and co were not around, Albania would still be a shithole (as in, medieval living conditions) like it was pre-1944. Yeah, he didn't modernize the nation all by himself, the workers did. But who directed them? Who secured funds from other Socialist nations? Who gave them materials and organized them? Who taught them Marxist-Leninism? The party did. Without the party, the Albanian workers (well, those that were around in 1944 anyway, which were very, very little) wouldn't of accomplished much of anything as:

A. Imperialists would of easily taken it over due to no central authority;
B. Albania lacked even basic communications support, so in a time of crisis there would be big issues with getting information at places in time
C. Communism was an imported doctrine, only intellectuals knew of it
D. Xenophobia was a problem for a lot of Albanians. When most Albanians knew that Hoxha was getting help from Yugoslavia (not that much help as is presented in history, but still) they shit their pants and feared that he was a traitor to "greater Albania" and such.
E. There were very little actual workers. A classless society based on peasants?

LuÃs Henrique

18th October 2007, 20:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:23 pm
Rather the Government owns the means of production whilst Government appointed Bureaucrats control them in the name of and for the Government who claim to be the "representatives" of the workers :lol:

It is called State Capitalism.

Does the government "own" the means of production?

I very much doubt it.

If the government effectively owned the means of production, why would the "State owned" companies need to buy and sell commodities between them?

A "State Capitalist" economy would be a planned economy - ie, not capitalist at all. But the Cuban economy isn't planned - it relies in the market to alocate goods; the State just tries to correct the oddities caused by the market malfunctions (and fails, and most probably only renders the market even less efficient than it would be on its own).

The alternative?

A bloodbath to eliminate Cuban people's resistance and reinstate the Cuban landowners and their comprador regime.

Or is there any sign that the Cuban working class is organising to take power in society as a whole and in the workplaces in general?

Luís Henrique

manic expression

18th October 2007, 21:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:03 pm
All biased sources.
How? Because they don't agree with you? They use legitimate sources. Sorry if you don't like it, but facts are facts.

I actually provided the answer in my last post but seeing how you seem to have purposely ignored or forgot it i will provide it again:

Actually the workers do not own nor control the means of productions.

Rather the Government owns the means of production whilst Government appointed Bureaucrats control them in the name of and for the Government who claim to be the "representatives" of the workers :lol:

So, state capitalism is when the state owns the means of production? Yes or no?

So as you can see in a State Capitalist economic model for society the workers do not actually own nor control the means of production.

The workers are mearly told that they own and control the means of production by the people who do actually own and control the means of production namely the Government.

There is your answer.

Why don't they control the means of production? Because you said so? Look at the links, they describe how the Cuban political system ACTUALLY WORKS (with reliable sources), where the Cuban workers decisively control the government and its policies. Your argument goes against the facts yet again.

black magick hustla

18th October 2007, 22:59

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 18, 2007 07:12 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ October 18, 2007 07:12 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 04:23 pm
Rather the Government owns the means of production whilst Government appointed Bureaucrats control them in the name of and for the Government who claim to be the "representatives" of the workers :lol:

It is called State Capitalism.

Does the government "own" the means of production?

I very much doubt it.

If the government effectively owned the means of production, why would the "State owned" companies need to buy and sell commodities between them?

A "State Capitalist" economy would be a planned economy - ie, not capitalist at all. But the Cuban economy isn't planned - it relies in the market to alocate goods; the State just tries to correct the oddities caused by the market malfunctions (and fails, and most probably only renders the market even less efficient than it would be on its own).

The alternative?

A bloodbath to eliminate Cuban people's resistance and reinstate the Cuban landowners and their comprador regime.

Or is there any sign that the Cuban working class is organising to take power in society as a whole and in the workplaces in general?

Luís Henrique [/b]
So fascism isn't "capitalism"?

Fascism used planned economy, but it was different than Soviet planned economy. Fascism produced commodities according to market fluctuations, while the soviets, atleast under stalin, produced things (I won't call them commodities because I haven't made up my mind if the USSR was state-capitalistic or not) because they were needed to develop inner infrastructure.

Ramachandra

19th October 2007, 20:39

May i please know how many of you have been there in cuba?Many of you people lead a good life in europe or US and talks about castros mansions.Bullshit.All the sources are biased.But a logical mind can get an idea of what happening through examining the sources carefully.I have personally read many of articles ,pro and anti castro.I have closely gone through his interviews.As i feel he is one of the most dedicated and deceplined socialist leaders.Throwing mud is easy and was done all around the revolutionery history.Even marx lenin faced so.What else should we expect from imperialists?The irony is many "communists"in this forum get information from fucking imperialist media(the same which said that there was mass murdering weapons in iraq) and trust them in an unbelivable faith.To see the luxurious lives of politicians come and visit our countries(Sri lanka,india etc).There are pics of che working with the labourers in mines.Castro attnding massive anti US public rallies by a trishaw.Pics won't lie.Just don't get misleaded by fucking imperialist propaganda.

spartan

20th October 2007, 14:58

If Socialism means that the Government owns the means of production and controls the means of production, via Government appointed (Not elected by the workers) Bureaucrats (Not workers councils), then Cuba is a Socialist state as Cuba follows all of what i have just described and this classic basic model of "Socialism" laid down by the USSR for "Socialist" states to follow.

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

The way i see it is this: If the workers operate the means of production then why should they not also own and control the means of production as well and share any profit made between the people who actually worked to make that profit namely the people who operate the means of production the workers?

This is obviously not what is happening in Cuba at the moment and never has been happening in Cuba ever!

My God if Che was still alive he would have pistol whipped Fidel to death by now for making the same old mistakes as all the other historical "Socialist" states have made!

Karl Marx's Camel

21st October 2007, 12:17

Rather the Government owns the means of production whilst Government appointed Bureaucrats control them in the name of and for the Government who claim to be the "representatives" of the workers

Correct.

Not just nationalization, but control of industries through worker democracy. The nationalizations placed those industries in the hands of the workers, who still control them today.

And where is the proof?

When Hoxha went senile, he ruled it for a little bit longer until the party decided he had to stop ruling that much, so they took away most of his powers and he accepted that.

Exactly. It was Hoxha who ruled. Not the people.

Also, I'm pretty sure that if Hoxha and co were not around, Albania would still be a shithole (as in, medieval living conditions) like it was pre-1944.

Don't know about you, but most people on this board are not welfare-ists so if Albania would be shit or not is largely irrelevant. We are in this discussion inside a larger discussion, discussing wether Albania were socialist, something that country obviously were not.

But of course leninists have a tendency to think that half the world was socialist just a few years ago, and now they desperately cling on to a few "leftover-states" whose methods and paradigm has proven to fail. Dramatically.

Ismail

21st October 2007, 14:28

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 21, 2007 06:17 am

When Hoxha went senile, he ruled it for a little bit longer until the party decided he had to stop ruling that much, so they took away most of his powers and he accepted that.

Exactly. It was Hoxha who ruled. Not the people.

Also, I'm pretty sure that if Hoxha and co were not around, Albania would still be a shithole (as in, medieval living conditions) like it was pre-1944.

Don't know about you, but most people on this board are not welfare-ists so if Albania would be shit or not is largely irrelevant. We are in this discussion inside a larger discussion, discussing wether Albania were socialist, something that country obviously were not.

But of course leninists have a tendency to think that half the world was socialist just a few years ago, and now they desperately cling on to a few "leftover-states" whose methods and paradigm has proven to fail. Dramatically.
Hoxha didn't rule, the party did. This is why they were able to get rid of him so quickly, you see.

My comment about Albania remaining a shithole was that a force is needed to drive the proletariat. In this case, it was Hoxha (and then Alia), backed by the party, which was backed (and heavily involved until 80's) with the proletariat. The people by themselves would of not helped Albania. They were poor, uneducated, and most held reactionary and ultra-nationalistic thoughts. This isn't their fault, but rather the ruling class before the vanguard party smashed it. There is also a difference between welfare and making sure Socialism is a favorable system that works. Going from horrible living conditions with a life expectancy of 38 to tolerable ones (life expectancy of 70) on a national scale is not welfare. If people are living like shit without good reason under a system, what motivation do they have to go any further into what is supposed to be the final version of it? Or to even keep the current system?

Albania is one success story out of quite a few on how much progress can be made in such a short timespan using a Socialist system. The only reason it declined was simple, a nation cannot live without trade unless it has all that is necessary to support it in modern life already in their nation in near-unlimited amounts, which no country has. Regardless, Hoxha did not put isolation upon his nation, nations put isolation upon his. (Same as in North Korea)

This idea that people can easily go from capitalism to Communism because "it sounds totally neato" without seeing at least some benefits from a transitioning stage (Socialism) or an example of Communism working on a large scale (which I, and most other Marxist-Leninists believe must be first preceded by Socialism) is rather idealistic. People will usually want to move to new systems if they know that they will be better for them or if the current system isn't working for them. You can, of course, move to a new system without previous examples of it, but it should be common sense that success stories in other areas will lessen the difficulty in trying a new system somewhere else.

Welfare is an attempt by bourgeois governments to increase revenue. The goal of welfare is to get people working regardless of what class status they're in with pretty much no focus on class status. In short, if you work, welfare has been achieved. Welfare isn't about building hundreds of new schools, modernizing an entire nation, crushing the ruling class and actually forcing what bosses were in Albania (simply because removing bosses so soon would of hurt the country more than help it) to work on a farm or such every month or so in order to help them keep in touch with the working class. This is not welfare. Collectivizing farms is not welfare. Persecuting those who gave women lower-than-human treatment is not welfare.

Explain how Socialism (or if you have an "anarcho-" suffix on your version of Communism, Communism) should of been achieved in Albania.

Karl Marx's Camel

21st October 2007, 15:35

Hoxha didn't rule, the party did.

Dictatorship of the party instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat, then.

Welfare is an attempt by bourgeois governments to increase revenue.

It is an attempt to preserve the revenue of the capitalist class. Giving some power away in exchange for stability.

Explain how Socialism (or if you have an "anarcho-" suffix on your version of Communism, Communism) should of been achieved in Albania.

Socialism (and you may say unfortunately) cannot be achieved by some sort of intellectual elite.

It cannot be achieved other than by the direct effort of the people. Socialism must neccesarily be created from the bottom, the power has to be in the hands of the people.

That is, people's power must be real, it must be material, and not a rhetorical excuse like in Cuba, the USSR, Lybia or Albania (where "people's power" has merely been a slogan), but through the proletariat and the peasantry actually handling the actual power.

Ismail

21st October 2007, 23:22

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 21, 2007 09:35 am

Hoxha didn't rule, the party did.

Dictatorship of the party instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat, then.

Welfare is an attempt by bourgeois governments to increase revenue.

It is an attempt to preserve the revenue of the capitalist class. Giving some power away in exchange for stability.

Explain how Socialism (or if you have an "anarcho-" suffix on your version of Communism, Communism) should of been achieved in Albania.

Socialism (and you may say unfortunately) cannot be achieved by some sort of intellectual elite.

It cannot be achieved other than by the direct effort of the people. Socialism must neccesarily be created from the bottom, the power has to be in the hands of the people.

That is, people's power must be real, it must be material, and not a rhetorical excuse like in Cuba, the USSR, Lybia or Albania (where "people's power" has merely been a slogan), but through the proletariat and the peasantry actually handling the actual power.
1. The party guides the proletariat while making sure it remains popular with the them. (Or else it can't be a representative of the proletariat, obviously)

If you want to claim that some aspects of the vanguard parties during the Cold War had problems, I can agree with that. But that is the result of an untried idea being tried for the first time.

2. This is correct.

3. The thing is, the party does appear after those from the bottom rise up to the top after a revolution. The party then keeps the presence of a state in order to defend the area against imperialism and continue to teach the people, etc until both imperialism and insufficient education about Socialism (and Communism) are both put into the past. Don't forget a lot of areas in the world need basic education, making this task harder.

You didn't exactly answer my question in regards to how Albania should of progressed without a vanguard party. Was it simply "not ready" to become Socialist?

manic expression

22nd October 2007, 17:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:58 pm
If Socialism means that the Government owns the means of production and controls the means of production, via Government appointed (Not elected by the workers) Bureaucrats (Not workers councils), then Cuba is a Socialist state as Cuba follows all of what i have just described and this classic basic model of "Socialism" laid down by the USSR for "Socialist" states to follow.

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

The way i see it is this: If the workers operate the means of production then why should they not also own and control the means of production as well and share any profit made between the people who actually worked to make that profit namely the people who operate the means of production the workers?

This is obviously not what is happening in Cuba at the moment and never has been happening in Cuba ever!

My God if Che was still alive he would have pistol whipped Fidel to death by now for making the same old mistakes as all the other historical "Socialist" states have made!
Spartan, you have failed to answer a single of the sources I have posted here. Did you even attempt to read them or are you intent on continuing your blind belief in debunked fallacies? Deal with the facts, don't hide from them.

Karl Marx's Camel

And where is the proof?

It's posted on this very thread. You have persisted in ignoring it.

Karl Marx's Camel

22nd October 2007, 17:48

So manic expression's "evidence" of Cuba being socialist is:

1. Some peasants waving machetes half a century ago

2. Interview by Fidel's older brother Ramon.

3. Fidel being overcome with emotions not being able to speak

4. And then nationalization of U.S. industries

That is not evidence of Cuba being run by workers.

In other words, it is not proof that Cuba is socialist.

manic expression

22nd October 2007, 19:32

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 22, 2007 04:48 pm
So manic expression's "evidence" of Cuba being socialist is:

1. Some peasants waving machetes half a century ago

2. Interview by Fidel's older brother Ramon.

3. Fidel being overcome with emotions not being able to speak

4. And then nationalization of U.S. industries

That is not evidence of Cuba being run by workers.

In other words, it is not proof that Cuba is socialist.
Misrepresentation seems to be your stronghold, but it won't help you here.

The video shows how the revolution, with the full support and involvement of the working classes, put the nation's industries into worker control. Those "peasants waving machetes have a century ago", as you condescendingly put it, was part of a process that ended capitalist ownership on the island.

What, then, was put in place after this?

When misrepresentation isn't enough for you, you switch to blatant ignorance as a defense. Again, it won't help you. You missed my other sources, which included a comprehensive overview of the Cuban political system (with reliable citations) and an article on working class mobilization and activity during the early period of the revolution. That is precisely what the revolution established: worker democracy and worker control. Conveniently enough, you neglected these sources, but that's par for the course at this point.

VukBZ2005

23rd October 2007, 12:57

Karl Marx's Camel is correct; what you are insinuating does not provide proof that Cuba is really Socialist. Nationalization does not automatically imply "Nationalization under working class control". I think that the Union of "Socialist" "Soviet" Republics proves that.

Everybody, if you want proof that Cuba is Socialist, please look at its Constitution of 1976 (with the 2002 reform) and then compare that constitution with both the social reality of Cuba and whatever documented evidence exists of how it government actually functions.

Surprisingly, after looking over the Cuban Constitution several times and comparing it to both the social reality of Cuba and the documented evidence of how its government is functioning on a day to day basis, I personally have been sort of convinced that it may actually be more in the direction of Socialism.

However, that does not mean that I am totally convinced, I have to do some more research before I get a definite answer.

Davie zepeda

23rd October 2007, 17:12

can i state one thing if Fidel was such a rich and powerful man would he be almost dieing right now or would he you who are against Fidel are reason che died you help kill so many it sickness me i much rather live Cuba then in Salvador or other central America country's where there is no equality at all . i agree with Fidel 100% he has he's right to defend himself he has to live alone at some point's as now and to protect himself one thing i learn so far once you become a revloutinaire there's only the love of your troops and the warmth of a gun for in every corner there is an enemy who wishes death apoun you even if you are loved you must watch your back.

so many claim that he is so bad but i wonder how you would feel after living his life
do not be so quick to judge but learn before sending nonsense to the net trying to destroy the only hope for Latin America !

spartan

23rd October 2007, 17:21

can i state one thing if Fidel was such a rich and powerful man would he be almost dieing right now
No matter how rich or powerful you are the fact remains that old age will eventually takes it's toll on everyone regardless of the life you have lived and major illnesses are very hard to avoid whilst death of course can never be avoided.

so many claim that he is so bad but i wonder how you would feel after living his life
You mean the life where he gets things that your normal Cuban would never get such as your very own big mansion with an outdoor Basketball and Tennis court and swimming pool?

Great example of equality there :lol:

do not be so quick to judge but learn before sending nonsense to the net trying to destroy the only hope for Latin America !
One could say that your message was nonsense but i will refrain from such an accusation in the intrests of State Capitalist... sorry Socialist unity :rolleyes:

manic expression

23rd October 2007, 18:10

Originally posted by Communist [email protected] 23, 2007 11:57 am
Karl Marx's Camel is correct; what you are insinuating does not provide proof that Cuba is really Socialist. Nationalization does not automatically imply "Nationalization under working class control". I think that the Union of "Socialist" "Soviet" Republics proves that.
Nationalization isn't my only evidence, but Karl Marx's Camel conveniently ignored this.

Did anyone read the link to the Cuban political system? Anyone? Bueller?

That shows that power is in the hands of the workers, as it is worker democracy.

The whole part about worker control is ESSENTIAL to my argument. I provided evidence for it, it's just that people seem unwilling to read it.

Just in case:

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

Davie zepeda

24th October 2007, 20:20

lol rich and powerful people as we all know have there ways of cheating death no matter how close death is there is a way to cheat it .

it is for his own safety 21 assassination attempts is more than enough to corrupt you in staying home safe plus we all know in the end death will only take your wealth so there is no point in having wealth if in the end it will go no where with you.
i don't know if Fidel has it or not i say he deserver it. He has been the imagine of the revolution for Latin American for so long it is time for him to step from his horse and let the young new revolutionaries to step in to the light of this immoral world.

lol one might say my message was nonsense but it has some truth to it even if you don't think so other's have different view's this is something ill disagree with alot of people so i leave it alone because it int that important in the first place but to the real issues lol capitalistic using my word against me ha! what truth have they ever said probably that they've hit the highest point on the stock market lol .

stevensen

27th October 2007, 20:09

will always trust rosa to start such a topic... the most muddle headed individual i have come acrros in my life...and leo too..moderators ahem ..they may warn me!!! i am shivering...like they tolerate all the abusive language by rosa and let any one dare oppose her and hey that person is warned! such moderators including rosa are the autocratic shit out here....and they have hte balls to talk about democracy...neither rosa nor leo have been in the sierra maestra mountains living from day to day like el che or castro and they pass judgement on thse figues...u in your eoropean homes dont know the shit these guysb have faced....dont comment about it..go and live in a village deep in remote africa or india before commentong ....hypocrisy has reached new limits and these moderators have found a new cartel....rosa, my pititable ani dialectic lunatic and leo my so powerful moderator...
you are not even worth castro's shoes for you have not faced the hard life he had ...all those eyears in the sierra maestra mountains...dont dare comment on it from your cushioned homes!!! the nerve!! live like that first and then yell!!! you cant ever give up this life u lead, can you? imagine rosa and leo in the sierra maestra mountains!!! you have never faced it so dont be a pope passing judgement about it

long live the cuban revolution!! long live che!!! long live fidel!!!
history will remember no rosa or leo for all your shit....go to sleep

spartan

27th October 2007, 23:25

Just because they were poor, and did not live as comfortably as your average European or North American, does not mean that they, nor what they fought for, was right!

And what the hell have the Mods ever done to you to warrant an attack of that nature by yourself?

Karl Marx's Camel

29th October 2007, 17:10

Libya's electoral system looks very democratic, too. Yet we all know it isn't.

A lot of ordinary Cubans say Cuba is not democratic, that the power they have is severely limited. It is easy for westerners to point fingers at Cuba, both in terms of condemning the nationalist revolution and praising it as if Cuba was a democratic paradise.

Cubans generally disagree with both those who bash the nationalist revolution and those who eagerly support it in the West. The truth is very different from what the two non-Cuban blocs would like to paint Cuba as. Talk to Cubans. Not just one, but several. If you talk to many of them long enough, you'll probably get a relatively good picture of how things are in Cuba.

manic expression

30th October 2007, 00:31

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 29, 2007 04:10 pm
Libya's electoral system looks very democratic, too. Yet we all know it isn't.
If you want to make a comparison, do so by all means. What you shouldn't do, however, is make vague, general statements and try to pass them as valid comparisons. Cite evidence about Libya and then we can compare and contrast their economic and political systems.

A lot of ordinary Cubans say Cuba is not democratic, that the power they have is severely limited. It is easy for westerners to point fingers at Cuba, both in terms of condemning the nationalist revolution and praising it as if Cuba was a democratic paradise.

Please, Karl Marx's Camel, the "ordinary Cubans" you are using as a source a.) live most of their lives outside of Cuba and b.) do not participate in the Cuban political system. And you expect us to take these word-of-mouth testimonies? You're going to have to do better than that.

The Cuban workers don't have their power "severely limited", that much is false. The workers drove the revolution (see the article I posted) and are the center of the political system today (see the FAQ I posted). It is easy to ignore facts, indeed.

Cubans generally disagree with both those who bash the nationalist revolution and those who eagerly support it in the West. The truth is very different from what the two non-Cuban blocs would like to paint Cuba as. Talk to Cubans. Not just one, but several. If you talk to many of them long enough, you'll probably get a relatively good picture of how things are in Cuba.

I'm glad you consider yourself a spokesperson for Cubans in general. However, it comes down to the basic facts, and so far, you've given nothing but anecdotal evidence at best. I would love to see some concrete support for your argument, but we haven't seen any so far.

Since you're playing the "I talked to someone who was there" game, allow me to do the same. I've met many people, from all walks of life and many positions on the political spectrum, who have gone to Cuba and would generally agree with my words here. Students, professors, researchers, comrades and others have gone to Cuba and shared their experiences with me. They talked to many Cubans in many situations and personally observed the political processes described in the links, and their impressions support my claims.

The Author

2nd November 2007, 04:12

Oh wow. Another topic on state-capitalism. Like we haven't done this to death enough times already.

99.9% of what the ultra-left "theorists" of state-capitalism push as "evidence" is complete and total horseshit. A socialist country such as Cuba is not state-capitalist. See, socialism and communism arise out of the remains of capitalism. Marx proved this to be so in Critique of the Gotha Programme, a pamphlet either consistently ignored or misinterpreted by the ultra-leftists. I quote:

Background

Critique of the Gotha Programme is a critique of the draft programme of the United Workers' Party of Germany. In this document Marx address the dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition from capitalism to communism, the two phases of communist society, the production and distribution of the social goods, proletarian internationalism, and the party of the working class.

Lenin later wrote:

The great significance of Marx's explanation is, that here too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism. Instead of scholastically invented, 'concocted' definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?), Marx gives analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism.

...

What are the "proceeds of labor"? The product of labor, or its value? And in the latter case, is it the total value of the product, or only that part of the value which labor has newly added to the value of the means of production consumed?

"Proceeds of labor" is a loose notion which Lassalle has put in the place of definite economic conceptions.

What is "a fair distribution"?

Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?

To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase "fair distribution", we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."

"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?

But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion -- namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

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

Spartakus1919

10th November 2007, 17:12

Did anyone read the link to the Cuban political system? Anyone? Bueller?

That shows that power is in the hands of the workers, as it is worker democracy.

The whole part about worker control is ESSENTIAL to my argument. I provided evidence for it, it's just that people seem unwilling to read it.

Just in case:

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

Hum, I am from Cuba and on top of it a Marxist. Where have you seen "worker's democracy" in Cuba? I am clueless. Therefore, in order to learn from you what I did not learn myself in Cuba, I read your "Cuba FAQ" (actually a copy-paste of the official government propaganda) :

The role of the U.S. in Latin America and elsewhere
The Unforgivable Revolution, by William Blum
The U.S. propaganda machine
This is always the same (it is getting boring). Cubans are supposed to put up with Castro because the Americans are such meanies...
Most people in Cuba don't buy this, specially the youth. We are not going to keep exploiting by the Cuban nomenclatura so that "revolutionaries" like you can have an idol that stands up to Uncle Sam

I am not saying that the American interestes have done, and keep doing harm, to Latin American (just like the bourgeoisies in other countries). I agree with this but it can not justify the Castrist tyranny.

As for the American propaganda, I don't have to comment on it : of course a lot is bullshit, just like the Cuban one. I will present here another version.

n April 2001, World Bank President, James Wolfensohn, was reported to have enthused on the remarkable achievements in health care and education, besting his own organization at its stated aim of improving the lives of the poor. His remarks followed the publication of the Bank's 2001 edition of 'World Development Indicators' (WDI), which showed Cuba as topping virtually all other poor countries in health and education statistics.
Hmmm... Education and health are free in Cuba, indeed. But how do they get financed? That is the real question.

The average monthly wage in Cuba is about 15 dollars. While you do have some State owned stores ("bodegas") in which you can buy very little (for example 7 eggs for one person for a whole month, 3 pounds of rice, 3 pounds of black beans for also one month and not much else...) for quite cheap, the only alternative is the "Shopy" stores in which you pay more or less the same as you pay in rich countries.

Can one live like this with just 15 dollars? Of course not. The first national income source is the remittances sent by cuban expatriates (about 30 % of people from Cuba live abroad the "Socialist Paradise") to their relatives in Cuba. Without this, the State would certainly crumble.

Moreover, in the so-called "joint" companies (owned by the State and private companies - yes sir Cuba has privatised a lot in the past 20 years) the State hires the cuban workers, pay them about 15 dollars and then invoices much more the private companies.

So this is how the Education and the Health system is financed. It is not thanks to the living God Castro but to the population. Thus, you can not defend the cuban dictatorship based on this.

Also, let me remind you (I have been in cuban schools and hospitals so I do know) that it is not like what you have in developped countries. I am not expecting better from a third world country, certainly, but stop dreaming.

Very often, there is one book for every two or five student, the hygiene in the hospital is very bad (very often you catch something once cured) and the medications are rare (the pharmacies are always pretty much empty).

But at the same time, you have some hospitals and pharmacies (where cubans are not allowed to go) reserved for Tourists and militaries (CIMEQ for example). There you can have all the pills, all the doctors... you may dream of... But it is not for the average Cuban Joe, it is for "special folks" (how is that for equality!).

As for the education : let me tell you that even if it is for free a lot of young people do not get to finish High School. Once you pass secondary education (the "educacion secundaria") you are most likele sent to the countryside in High schools specialised for you to become a Teacher (even if you do not wish to). There, a lot of teachers are missing (and let's not talk about the materials), you work in the farm half the day... in reality you end up fighting with other people and quite school (and therefore never reach university).

There are other alternatives : military high school (and after you graduate from the army's university you got to serve the army 25 years!) adn specialised schools in Havana for "sick students" (people that can't study in the country side, in reality many of them have "connections" and enter without being sick, in Havana you have the "Marcelo").

I have many graduated friends. They got their diplomas and you know what they do now? They clean foreigners ' houses, they escaped the country to be a cleaning person outside of cuba and therefore live poorly. Today, even if you have a doctor degree it is better to live off the black market.

What harm has the embargo done to the Cuban people?
Is the US embargo a form of genocide?
It does not harm the elite, the government or the nomenclatura. It gives them a good excuse. They live well off, you should not have worries for them.

However, the Cubans do suffer from it (it is not a genocide, the Americans are not killing Cubans beacause of their ethnic group).

Do the dissidents support the embargo?
I am a dissident and I fight it. It is an attempt to remplace Castro's priviledged by Bush's elite.

But, when you talk about dissidents you don't mean people like me, revolutionaries. You mean right wing or social-liberals... it is easier to attack them.

You deny the fact that there may be leftist opponents. I already imagine your response : "he is paid off by the American government", "he is not from Cuba..." I have even been, once, accused of owning a mansion!

Cuba, America and Democracy
Again, the lack of genuine democracy in America does not justify the Cuban dictatorship.

An Overview of the Cuban Electoral System
Do you really think that the people that are elected in Cuba (municipal and national parlaments only) have power? Can anyone be so blind?

Do you know that the national parlament only meets TWICE a year? How can they control the government? How can they propose bills? (parlamentary bourgeois democracy).

I do not advocate western "democracy" nor the cuban "democracy" (actually both the same) : they give you a piece of paper in which you put somebody's name but the power lies, not in them but within the system (economic power : private companies in rich countries and nomencaltura in cuba).

One thing you do not seem to mention (sorry I have better things to do than read the entire copy-paste from the official websites) is that the Cuban law allows people to present a referendum ifa petition holds more than 11 000 signatures.

One Christian opponent (with whom I disagree of course, even though you might claim the contrary) presented a petition with about 13 000 signatures demanding a referendum for "democracy and private onwership". This is the "Varela Project". Was there the referendum? Did the media talk about that?

No, the governement made a different one where the question was : "Do you want Cuba to remain a Socialist country for eternity" (these are not the exact words).

Unfortunately, I have no time now to read all the propaganda links on the site. I am writing a booklet on Cuba in which I oppose both the Western and Cuban propaganda bullshits.

Please let me discuss other topics raised here :

will always trust rosa to start such a topic... the most muddle headed individual i have come acrros in my life...and leo too..moderators ahem ..they may warn me!!! i am shivering...like they tolerate all the abusive language by rosa and let any one dare oppose her and hey that person is warned! such moderators including rosa are the autocratic shit out here....and they have hte balls to talk about democracy...neither rosa nor leo have been in the sierra maestra mountains living from day to day like el che or castro and they pass judgement on thse

This is quite interesting. While you are expressing how oppressed you are in this forum by the moderators, the Cuban people says the exact same thing about the real "autocratic" in Cuba : Castrists.

So just because Castro fought in the mountains of Sierra Maestra, we can't oppose his government? Is that democracy?

Just a little anecdote : in another mountain, there was a guerrilla that also opposed itself to the dictatorship (before Castro). When Castro took power, he arrested its leaders, tortured them and kicked these folks that lived "from day to day like el che or castro".

Just because they were poor, and did not live as comfortably as your average European or North American, does not mean that they, nor what they fought for, was right!
Castro was not poor! He still lives well off...

Cubans generally disagree with both those who bash the nationalist revolution and those who eagerly support it in the West. The truth is very different from what the two non-Cuban blocs would like to paint Cuba as. Talk to Cubans. Not just one, but several. If you talk to many of them long enough, you'll probably get a relatively good picture of how things are in Cuba.

Very good comment!

I am so tired of seeing these Western tourist coming to Cuba pretending they reach heaven on earth, telling people how lucky they are and then leaving back to their confortable lifes with a Che t-shirt.

Please, Karl Marx's Camel, the "ordinary Cubans" you are using as a source a.) live most of their lives outside of Cuba and b.) do not participate in the Cuban political system. And you expect us to take these word-of-mouth testimonies?

Just an idea : if the Internet (and the right to oppose the State) was legalised in Cuba then you may have many views from people inside of Cuba...

bootleg42

10th November 2007, 18:58

Just an idea : if the Internet (and the right to oppose the State) was legalised in Cuba then you may have many views from people inside of Cuba...

About that.....it's really expensive for the island to get internet connection for everyone so they can't do it plus I don't think priority should be giving everyone internet connection over getting everyone food, etc.

But the thing about food on the island.....is a legit criticism. Every Cuban I've talked too (BOTH anti-communist AND pro-communist) have complained about the food. If the embargo was lifted, that food situation would probably be solved.

I'll hopefully be going to Cuba this July/August from Bolivia so I'll check that all out.

manic expression

10th November 2007, 19:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:12 pm
Hum, I am from Cuba and on top of it a Marxist. Where have you seen "worker's democracy" in Cuba? I am clueless. Therefore, in order to learn from you what I did not learn myself in Cuba, I read your "Cuba FAQ" (actually a copy-paste of the official government propaganda)
Here we go again.

Where have I seen "worker's democracy" in Cuba? In its own system.

The FAQ is backed up by multiple sources, few of which are "copy-pastes of official government propaganda".

This is always the same (it is getting boring). Cubans are supposed to put up with Castro because the Americans are such meanies...
Most people in Cuba don't buy this, specially the youth. We are not going to keep exploiting by the Cuban nomenclatura so that "revolutionaries" like you can have an idol that stands up to Uncle Sam

I am not saying that the American interestes have done, and keep doing harm, to Latin American (just like the bourgeoisies in other countries). I agree with this but it can not justify the Castrist tyranny.

As for the American propaganda, I don't have to comment on it : of course a lot is bullshit, just like the Cuban one. I will present here another version.

Holy crap. Talk about the issue here. If you want to respond to my claims, do so, but DON'T go on an incredibly tangential rant. This portion has precious little to do with what I said.

Hmmm... Education and health are free in Cuba, indeed. But how do they get financed? That is the real question.

The average monthly wage in Cuba is about 15 dollars. While you do have some State owned stores ("bodegas") in which you can buy very little (for example 7 eggs for one person for a whole month, 3 pounds of rice, 3 pounds of black beans for also one month and not much else...) for quite cheap, the only alternative is the "Shopy" stores in which you pay more or less the same as you pay in rich countries.

Can one live like this with just 15 dollars? Of course not. The first national income source is the remittances sent by cuban expatriates (about 30 % of people from Cuba live abroad the "Socialist Paradise") to their relatives in Cuba. Without this, the State would certainly crumble.

Moreover, in the so-called "joint" companies (owned by the State and private companies - yes sir Cuba has privatised a lot in the past 20 years) the State hires the cuban workers, pay them about 15 dollars and then invoices much more the private companies.

So you're claiming that Cubans cannot live within the present system without handouts from exiles? I'd love to see some evidence of this claim. I'll even make it easier for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cuba+gdp

So this is how the Education and the Health system is financed. It is not thanks to the living God Castro but to the population. Thus, you can not defend the cuban dictatorship based on this.

Was this directed at me? If so, you are completely lost. Did I ever claim that Saint Fidel was the source of the Holy Cuban System? No, I did not. I have ALWAYS claimed that the Cuban workers directly built their socialist society themselves. Don't feel bad, you're not the first person to put words in my mouth, and you probably won't be the last.

Also, let me remind you (I have been in cuban schools and hospitals so I do know) that it is not like what you have in developped countries. I am not expecting better from a third world country, certainly, but stop dreaming.

Come to working class schools in my country and we'll compare notes. Furthermore, ever been to a hospital and the US when you're not sure if you have enough money? If you haven't, consider the situation, then talk.

Very often, there is one book for every two or five student, the hygiene in the hospital is very bad (very often you catch something once cured) and the medications are rare (the pharmacies are always pretty much empty).

a.) Yes, shortages, it happens WHEN A COUNTRY IS UNDER SIEGE. Tell me, when the Cuban government had taken the exile army of Kennedy prisoner, what did they ask for in return?
b.) Catching sicknesses in hospitals is always a possibility, which is why they try to get you out of there as fast as possible. If you think this is exclusive to Cuba, that's just comical.

But at the same time, you have some hospitals and pharmacies (where cubans are not allowed to go) reserved for Tourists and militaries (CIMEQ for example). There you can have all the pills, all the doctors... you may dream of... But it is not for the average Cuban Joe, it is for "special folks" (how is that for equality!).

If you are trying to disparage the quality of Cuban healthcare, that is ridiculous. When you take into account the challenges put in place by the US siege, Cuban healthcare is unrivalled. Your perspective is JUST as pathetically lacking as other Castrophobes on this forum.

As for the education : let me tell you that even if it is for free a lot of young people do not get to finish High School. Once you pass secondary education (the "educacion secundaria") you are most likele sent to the countryside in High schools specialised for you to become a Teacher (even if you do not wish to). There, a lot of teachers are missing (and let's not talk about the materials), you work in the farm half the day... in reality you end up fighting with other people and quite school (and therefore never reach university).

Sure, there are issues, what's your point? Don't condemn an entire system for these sorts of small problems, it just smacks of puritanism.

There are other alternatives : military high school (and after you graduate from the army's university you got to serve the army 25 years!) adn specialised schools in Havana for "sick students" (people that can't study in the country side, in reality many of them have "connections" and enter without being sick, in Havana you have the "Marcelo").

Again, I don't see too much wrong here. Sure, having "connections" is a bad thing, but corruption has been dealt with before by the socialist government, and it will again.

I have many graduated friends. They got their diplomas and you know what they do now? They clean foreigners ' houses, they escaped the country to be a cleaning person outside of cuba and therefore live poorly. Today, even if you have a doctor degree it is better to live off the black market.

No way, they're WORKERS? Perish the thought!

If I may sum up your arguments:
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

What harm has the embargo done to the Cuban people?
Is the US embargo a form of genocide?
It does not harm the elite, the government or the nomenclatura. It gives them a good excuse. They live well off, you should not have worries for them.

More lunacy. Are you really saying that the embargo has NO economic impact? Are you really that dumb? OF COURSE it makes it difficult to get necessities and other products, any fool can tell you that much. Apparently, you can't.

However, the Cubans do suffer from it (it is not a genocide, the Americans are not killing Cubans beacause of their ethnic group).

Oh, great, it's not a genocide. I guess it doesn't have any effects at all, then!

You really are completely delusional.

Do the dissidents support the embargo?
I am a dissident and I fight it. It is an attempt to remplace Castro's priviledged by Bush's elite.

Thanks for sharing.

But, when you talk about dissidents you don't mean people like me, revolutionaries. You mean right wing or social-liberals... it is easier to attack them.

I usually mean people who oppose the revolutionary course of Cuba.

You deny the fact that there may be leftist opponents. I already imagine your response : "he is paid off by the American government", "he is not from Cuba..." I have even been, once, accused of owning a mansion!

Of course not all dissidents are paid off by the US. Many are. They get thrown in jail, as they should be.

Do you really think that the people that are elected in Cuba (municipal and national parlaments only) have power? Can anyone be so blind?

Do you know that the national parlament only meets TWICE a year? How can they control the government? How can they propose bills? (parlamentary bourgeois democracy).

So the National Assembly has no role in the Cuban government? Be clear: yes or no answer.

I do not advocate western "democracy" nor the cuban "democracy" (actually both the same) : they give you a piece of paper in which you put somebody's name but the power lies, not in them but within the system (economic power : private companies in rich countries and nomencaltura in cuba).

No, you simply can't discern the obvious differences between capitalism and socialism.

One Christian opponent (with whom I disagree of course, even though you might claim the contrary) presented a petition with about 13 000 signatures demanding a referendum for "democracy and private onwership". This is the "Varela Project". Was there the referendum? Did the media talk about that?

You mean Oswaldo Paya's petition? Give me a break. Sure, he got some signatures, but if you think Paya represents ANY sort of significant part of the island, you are even crazier than I thought.

Unfortunately, I have no time now to read all the propaganda links on the site. I am writing a booklet on Cuba in which I oppose both the Western and Cuban propaganda bullshits.

You do have time to spread your propaganda, however. Interesting.

Nothing Human Is Alien

10th November 2007, 19:32

I haven't weighed in on this thread so far because I've grown tired of making the same arguments over and over. There are literally dozens of threads on this question. You can look in the ""Frequent topics of discussion" thread, which is stickied at the top of this forum, for links.

If Socialism means that the Government owns the means of production and controls the means of production, via Government appointed (Not elected by the workers) Bureaucrats (Not workers councils), then Cuba is a Socialist state as Cuba follows all of what i have just described and this classic basic model of "Socialism" laid down by the USSR for "Socialist" states to follow.

This is not a class based analysis."The government" is not a class.

The question isn't what form has the rule of this or that class taken, but rather, which class rules?

If you're going to say the capitalists rule in Cuba, you're going to confuse a lot of rich folks in Miami.

If you're going to say a "new capitalist class" has emerged and rules Cuba, you're going to have explain why they are the most generous capitalists ever, in the human history. You'll have to explain why the product of the labor of the workers in Cuba is given back to them (in the form of wages, but also in developing free healthcare, education, etc.). You'll have to explain why, even by the imperialist mouthpieces' own admission, the most "privileged" person in Cuba has little more than the average Cuban.

The truth is, Cuba is a genuinely socialist country, dealing with some of the worst conditions any such country has ever faced (strong imperialist power in history 90 miles away, imperialist encirclement, forced isolation, blockade, etc.). Working people control the means of production in Cuba, and use them to meet the needs of the Cuban people. Representatives at all levels of the state and other bodies are recallable at all times.

Cuba has also never abandoned the world revolution either, understanding that the only way forward for it lies in the victory of the working class internationally.

And bootleg, the food is sometimes a problem (e.g. you'll have a lot of rice but little meat). But it's better to have the wrong food, than say, to be in Haiti and have no food.

* * *

Finally, about the internet.. this has been discussed so many times here, but there is internet access in Cuba -- and its not censored!

Resources are limited, because of the blockade, and connections can be very slow (because the U.S. won't let Cuba stretch the cable they need across to Miami.. in fact now Cuba is going to connect such a cable to Venezuela to get around this problem..), but people have internet access. I talk to people from Cuba online all the time. Usually, people in Cuba can only get on a computer through school, one of the many computer clubs around the country (which allow equal use of computers, since there aren't enough to go around), or at their job (if it requires computer use).

Of course 90% of the world doesn't have internet access, so to raise this against Cuba as a valid criticism is pretty ridiculous.

It should also be noticed that the U.S. blocked Cuba's internet access outright until 1994.

Here are two previous threads in which internet access in Cuba is discussed in full: thread 1 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58391), thread 2 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35695&st=40).

Nothing Human Is Alien

10th November 2007, 19:44

All biased sources.

There is no "neutral" source, especially on a question like this. Everyone writing on Cuba is going to have a certain outlook, see things through the lenses of a certain class, etc.

What we have to do is seek out as many reliable sources as we can, compare and contrast, use communist tools, etc., to get to the bottom of things.

Once we do that, we see that Cuba is controlled by the working class.

Or is there any sign that the Cuban working class is organising to take power in society as a whole and in the workplaces in general?

The fact that all representatives are accountable to them at all times (for example, representatives of People's Power in Havana have been recalled numerous time over the last few years), that they determine wages, production, distribution, etc., are "signs" that the CUban working class has already taken power "in society as a whole and in the workplaces in general."

Spartakus1919

13th November 2007, 23:12

There is no "neutral" source, especially on a question like this. Everyone writing on Cuba is going to have a certain outlook, see things through the lenses of a certain class, etc.

What we have to do is seek out as many reliable sources as we can, compare and contrast, use communist tools, etc., to get to the bottom of things.

Once we do that, we see that Cuba is controlled by the working class.

So what is new in this discussion? Just arguments like "Cuba is revolutionnary because if you look at the truth then Cuba is a bliss". Well, now I am convinced of how wrong my experience is!

For example : "Internet is not censored because it just isn't". Why isn't there an Indymedia for Cuba, even though they are leftists dissidents (anarchists, marxists...)? All sites hosted in Cuba back up the government, surprising?

Other than this, full of ridiculous ad hominem "arguments" :

Holy crap. Talk about the issue here. If you want to respond to my claims, do so, but DON'T go on an tangential rant.

...

If I may sum up your arguments:
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Very clever...

Just two things worth discussing :

This is not a class based analysis."The government" is not a class.

The question isn't what form has the rule of this or that class taken, but rather, which class rules?

I never said the government or the state is a social class. It is a tool of social oppression like in any other country. You claim the State is controlled by the workers, so explain this :

- What type of workers' council meet and when do they, I have never seen any but the national assembly, twice a year.

- How come Cubans accept to get paid 15 dollars (media monthly income) when this is clearly below the cost of living? Have they decided that for themselves?

- How come two hikjackers were sentenced to death by Castro himself (in an interview he explained that he (and therefore not a Tribunal) took that decision to persuade other young people from doing the same (ie : take a plane to escape the socialist paradise)?

it's really expensive for the island to get internet connection for everyone so they can't do it plus I don't think priority should be giving everyone internet connection over getting everyone food, etc.

I never said that the Internet problem in Cuba is that it is too expensive (it is indeed a problem). The real problem is that it is illegal just like cable TV, no matter what some western "revolutionaries" might claim, even if you have the money.

What people do in Cuba, please check if you go there, is to buy a modem from the black market (people steal them from work in order to resale them, a way to get by in life). Same for satelites (you'll never see satelites dishes in people's houses).

So you're claiming that Cubans cannot live within the present system without handouts from exiles? I'd love to see some evidence of this claim. I'll even make it easier for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cuba+gdp
I never said that. Before you complain about me "putting words in your mouth", don't apply the same medicine to your opponents...

What has GDP (a country's national income) to do with the cuban people income (wages and social welfare)? The point of my argument is that in Cuba the national income is not well distributed and the State keeps a lot away from the workers whereas a small cast lives well off.

Further more, what I said is that the first income source of Cuba is the foreign remittances sent by Cubans living abroad (about 30% of all Cubans, what is that for freedom and economic prosperity?) This is not computed in the GDP because it is not produced by companies.

Better grab an economics book next time...

More lunacy. Are you really saying that the embargo has NO economic impact? Are you really that dumb? OF COURSE it makes it difficult to get necessities and other products, any fool can tell you that much. Apparently, you can't.
I am sure any fool (I won't insult you back, I am not so childish) would have understood that I DO think it has an impact when I said "However, the Cubans do suffer from it". Or is it that you only quote my arguments so that they can be taken out of the context? Hmm, how clever...

Unlike, the Castrists in this debate, I do not claim to have the full truth about Cuba. If one know the least thing of Cuba he will see that things are very complicated.

I have proposed a revolutionary criticism of Castro and his State (yes he owns it) based on my personal past. I just hope it opens peoples' eyes : just be overly critical of everything, it is not because one claims to be revolutionary and democratic that makes it true.

It is very sad to see so many have complete lack of criticism towards Cuba just because Castro claims to be "revolutionnary".

For your information, he always claimed that he was anti-communist before he got in trouble with the Americans and used the help of the stalinists. He is a left nationalist and reformists like Jose Marti (he never gave up that symbol).

These currents are often confused as "marxism" but it is not. It never push for workers' power nor anti-capitalism untill Castro proclaimed that Cuba was communist.

The main problem with you guys' arguments is that you think that just because a guerrilla took power in Cuba, later on (you never bother to see when Cuba "became" socialist ie 1961 and not 1959, year of the Revolution) nationalising the industry.

This is not marxism.

If nationalisation was socialism, then Hitler was a socialist (yes he said he was national-socialist but he was not, he attacked the workers' movement). Furthermore, after the 1930 the most developped countries started nationalizing the main industries. Were they "socialists"?

Socialism is about giving the means of production to the workers themselves instead of the bourgeoisie or the State. This means that they run everything via the councils (soviets in Russian). This system gives a new form to the power : direct democracy or, if you are marxist, proleterian dictatorship.

This never happened in Cuba. Castro took the power, together with many other forces going from the right to the left. He was not the only one, there were other armed groups and peacefull organization that made the Revolution.

However, there was no council, no general strike, no workers' self-defence etc as it happened before. It was mainly a nationalist, political revolution. Castro and his friends saw the need for Cuba to own the means of production instead of America. Cuba, not the workers, ie : nationalisation and private means of production (read his defence speech "History will absolve me").

This program was in opposition with foreign companies but not against America itself. One of the first thing he did was to visit America... He wanted a peaceful relation with them. Unfortunately, the Americans could not let Cuba nationaliser parts of its economy. Therefore the Russians came in....

Anyways, I am also "tired" like you to repeat the same arguments. I am not trying to convince you, so manic expression stop taking everything personal, but to bring a point of view of a person that knows this country, not as a tourist, to others so that the dictatorship in Cuba can not be repeated elsewhere.

The biggest argument will be when you will see the crumbling of this so-called Revolution in the near future. All this fairy-stories of Cuba ruled by the workers will vanish as a bad very bad joke.

PS : for those that would like to see what kind of fate the castrist government (it is not a class I never claimed such a thing) prepared for revolutionaries :

1857-1970s :Cuba - The Anarchists and Liberty (http://raforum.info/article.php3?id_article=3060)

1865-2001: Cuban Anarchism: The history of a movement (http://libcom.org/library/cuba-anarchism-history-of-movement-fernandez)

Cuban Trotskyism (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net)

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba)
"Notwithstanding the communist's insistance on clinging onto power, there were numerous popular uprisings in the early 1990s, the most notable of which was the "Maleconazo" of 1994 The government says it was counter-revolutionnary, anti-social, vandalism...http://www.cubaencuentro.com/es/layout/set/simple/encuentro-en-la-red/cuba/fotogaleria/testigos-del-maleconazo

Finally, for those that planned to go to Cuba and that would like to know if every cuban has a decent housing, something claimed by the government, ask the Cubans about "El Fanguito" (Havana). Ask yourselves if the officials live this way too... Just one example of counter-propaganda...

manic expression

16th November 2007, 17:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:12 pm
So what is new in this discussion? Just arguments like "Cuba is revolutionnary because if you look at the truth then Cuba is a bliss". Well, now I am convinced of how wrong my experience is!

For example : "Internet is not censored because it just isn't". Why isn't there an Indymedia for Cuba, even though they are leftists dissidents (anarchists, marxists...)? All sites hosted in Cuba back up the government, surprising?
You're missing the point, again. Go back and respond to what was actually said. Here's a clue: no source on Cuba is without bias. That's what was said. Are you trying to deny that?

Your own experience supports our argument. If the Cuban government was as you say, then how are you communicating to us right now? Again, your presence on this board disproves your claims.

Very clever...

And as I suspected, you're too thick to address the point. You didn't respond to my arguments the first time, and so it's not surprising that you couldn't do so the second time.

To sum up your arguments yet again:

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

I never said the government or the state is a social class. It is a tool of social oppression like in any other country. You claim the State is controlled by the workers, so explain this :

- What type of workers' council meet and when do they, I have never seen any but the national assembly, twice a year.

- How come Cubans accept to get paid 15 dollars (media monthly income) when this is clearly below the cost of living? Have they decided that for themselves?

- How come two hikjackers were sentenced to death by Castro himself (in an interview he explained that he (and therefore not a Tribunal) took that decision to persuade other young people from doing the same (ie : take a plane to escape the socialist paradise)?

More crap. Your willfull ignorance does not count as a reliable source. Post something substantial that one could analyze and work with.

If they get paid "clearly below the cost of living", then it seems a miracle that anyone lives long at all in Cuba. The fact, however, is that Cubans live about as long as Americans (with lower infant mortality rates, etc.). The facts prove you wrong.

Those hijackers got what was coming to them. Enough said.

I never said that the Internet problem in Cuba is that it is too expensive (it is indeed a problem). The real problem is that it is illegal just like cable TV, no matter what some western "revolutionaries" might claim, even if you have the money.

What people do in Cuba, please check if you go there, is to buy a modem from the black market (people steal them from work in order to resale them, a way to get by in life). Same for satelites (you'll never see satelites dishes in people's houses).

The internet is illegal in Cuba? Be precise in your claims.

Internet access is oftentimes done through means that are not illegal.

I never said that. Before you complain about me "putting words in your mouth", don't apply the same medicine to your opponents...

What has GDP (a country's national income) to do with the cuban people income (wages and social welfare)? The point of my argument is that in Cuba the national income is not well distributed and the State keeps a lot away from the workers whereas a small cast lives well off.

Further more, what I said is that the first income source of Cuba is the foreign remittances sent by Cubans living abroad (about 30% of all Cubans, what is that for freedom and economic prosperity?) This is not computed in the GDP because it is not produced by companies.

Better grab an economics book next time...

No, you DID say that, and I asked you to produce a source for your claims.

GDP has to do with what Cuba produces. What Cuba produces, what Cuba lives on, does not significantly include handouts from exiles. Prove me wrong.

GDP computes anything produced within the geographic boundaries of Cuba. This includes what Cubans live off of. Try to connect the dots next time.

Oh, and the bottom line? YOU STILL DON'T HAVE A SOURCE.

I am sure any fool (I won't insult you back, I am not so childish) would have understood that I DO think it has an impact when I said "However, the Cubans do suffer from it". Or is it that you only quote my arguments so that they can be taken out of the context? Hmm, how clever...

Your arguments are self-contradictory. That's not my fault. First you claim that the embargo has no impact, and then that it does have an impact. Make up your mind.

The fact is that the blockade has a HUGE impact, and none of your slander can change this.

Unlike, the Castrists in this debate, I do not claim to have the full truth about Cuba. If one know the least thing of Cuba he will see that things are very complicated.

But you do. You've claimed that, through your own experiences only, you can disprove the multitude of reputable sources posted throughout this thread.

I have proposed a revolutionary criticism of Castro and his State (yes he owns it) based on my personal past. I just hope it opens peoples' eyes : just be overly critical of everything, it is not because one claims to be revolutionary and democratic that makes it true.

No, your position is ultraleftist and infantile. To even think that Castro "owns" the state is contrary to HOW THE GOVERNMENT WORKS and the class dynamics of Cuba. More importantly, it is contrary to Marxism itself. Owning a state? Don't make me laugh.

Cuba doesn't just claim to be revolutionary and democratic; it is. The facts support this, and anyone who seriously reads what has been posted will agree.

It is very sad to see so many have complete lack of criticism towards Cuba just because Castro claims to be "revolutionnary".

It is sad to see "revolutionaries" slander a worker state in puritan delusion.

For your information, he always claimed that he was anti-communist before he got in trouble with the Americans and used the help of the stalinists. He is a left nationalist and reformists like Jose Marti (he never gave up that symbol).

That's laughable. The July 26th Movement had many flagrant communists in its ranks even before Granma (Che and Raul, to name a few). Yes, the Cuban revolutionaries looked to Marti; the Bolsheviks looked to the Jacobins. Your utter lack of perspective is to be expected.

These currents are often confused as "marxism" but it is not. It never push for workers' power nor anti-capitalism untill Castro proclaimed that Cuba was communist.

Castro never claimed that Cuba was communist. He claimed to BE a communist.

Again, you betray your anti-Marxist perspective.

Furthermore, the revolution was always moving toward expropriation of capitalist property. Tell me, how long did it take before the agrarian reforms, and who lost property to those agriarian reforms?

The main problem with you guys' arguments is that you think that just because a guerrilla took power in Cuba, later on (you never bother to see when Cuba "became" socialist ie 1961 and not 1959, year of the Revolution) nationalising the industry.

It's not just because there was a political change in Cuba, it's because there was a social revolution. When the workers of Cuba took control of the means of production (through the reforms which expropriated capitalist property), they established socialism and abolished capitalism. That is what we support, and that is what you evidently oppose.

This is not marxism.

You're telling me?

If nationalisation was socialism, then Hitler was a socialist (yes he said he was national-socialist but he was not, he attacked the workers' movement). Furthermore, after the 1930 the most developped countries started nationalizing the main industries. Were they "socialists"?

And here comes the last refuge of the counterrevolutionary. Compare Castro to Hitler! First of all, private corporations thrived in Nazi Germany (Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, BMW all benefited from Nazi policies). Secondly, which American industries are nationalized? Meatpacking? Mining? Textiles? Tell me, which one?

Socialism is about giving the means of production to the workers themselves instead of the bourgeoisie or the State. This means that they run everything via the councils (soviets in Russian). This system gives a new form to the power : direct democracy or, if you are marxist, proleterian dictatorship.

If you had been paying attention, you would've seen the examples that I posted that showed the Cuban working classes taking control of the means of production. The workers DID establish socialism through this process. Furthermore, worker democracy (dictatorship of the proletariat) is alive and well in Cuba. The facts show this.

This never happened in Cuba. Castro took the power, together with many other forces going from the right to the left. He was not the only one, there were other armed groups and peacefull organization that made the Revolution.

Yes, the revolutionaries took power. This, alone, does nothing to prove your point.

However, there was no council, no general strike, no workers' self-defence etc as it happened before. It was mainly a nationalist, political revolution. Castro and his friends saw the need for Cuba to own the means of production instead of America. Cuba, not the workers, ie : nationalisation and private means of production (read his defence speech "History will absolve me").

Wrong.

http://www.themilitant.com/2007/7112/711250.html

The Cuban workers control the means of production presently through the worker state. Read the link above.

This program was in opposition with foreign companies but not against America itself. One of the first thing he did was to visit America... He wanted a peaceful relation with them. Unfortunately, the Americans could not let Cuba nationaliser parts of its economy. Therefore the Russians came in....

Castro didn't go on a business trip to America. First of all, when he came back, he openly mocked the American leaders (the US president did not meet with Castro and played golf instead; back in Cuba, Fidel and Che jockingly played golf in front of the whole press corps). He wanted to establish good relations with the majority of Americans, the American working class. Any self-respecting revolutionary would do the same. Of course, ultraleftists do not fall in this catagory.

Anyways, I am also "tired" like you to repeat the same arguments. I am not trying to convince you, so manic expression stop taking everything personal, but to bring a point of view of a person that knows this country, not as a tourist, to others so that the dictatorship in Cuba can not be repeated elsewhere.

Perhaps I do take it strongly, but that is because of what I see in Cuba. It is like hearing someone disparage the Paris Commune, and I will not stand for it. My apologies for my vigor, but these are not things I take lightly.

It is not personal, it is only important.

The biggest argument will be when you will see the crumbling of this so-called Revolution in the near future. All this fairy-stories of Cuba ruled by the workers will vanish as a bad very bad joke.

They've been saying that for about a half-century. I'm still waiting.