Fidel being greedy?

[SocialistMilitant]

Shouldn't he had made way for a new generation a long time ago? The guy is barely holding on to his life yet he's still holding on politically.

Castro spoke many times about the greed of capitalists. But what about his greed for power? It's sickening.

[Asoka89]

Yes Castro shouldve made room for a younger protege that would further the revolution.

For now though Cuba is merely state-capitalist, but the social safety net need to be protected and we certainly dont want a capitalist restoration in Cuba; Cuba needs to use the help of the New Left in Latin America to further it's revolution and provide for greater worker management and decentralization while still somehow preventing counter-revolution, its quite a task.

[Tatarin]

Castro has apparently spoken of resignation again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7163672.stm

I've also heard that his brother Raul is considering "economic reform", but I'm not sure. Could this be another China?

[Asoka89]

Read the article on NewPol about this:
http://newpol.org/

(Raul's reforms and movements within the Cuban leadership recently)

I want to add that Chavez might be saving Cuban socialism, his support and the support of other New Left leaders in Latin America is helping replace the loss of USSR help and may help keep the Cuban system in place

[Ismail]

Why should Fidel step aside when he is popular with his citizens? I could see if he was unpopular and was just holding onto power for the fuck of it, but Fidel has up until now (health) had no good reason to step down. I haven't seen any attempts at him solidifying his grasp on power.

Granted, I don't think Cuba is a Socialist state, but yeah.

[SouthernBelle82]

I think so too. Too bad they couldn't hold elections. He should enjoy retirement and time with family and do whatever maybe travel or something. It would be great to see someone new and have some changes be made in Cuba for the better. I think everyone deserves it.

[Xiao Banfa]

Too bad they couldn't hold elections.

They have been holding them since 1975, and they are far more democratic processes than the sham elections in the US.


Isaac Saney, an academic and author of Revolution in Motion, a major analysis of the Cuban Revolution, explains unique Cuba’s democracy

Cuba is almost invariably portrayed as a totalitarian regime, a veritable "gulag" guided and controlled by one man: Fidel Castro. However, this position cannot be sustained once the reality of Cuba is assessed on its own merits. Extensive democratic popular participation in decision-making is at the centre of the Cuban model of governance.
The official organs of government in Cuba are the municipal, provincial and national assemblies of the Poder Popular (People’s Power) structures. The National Assembly is the sole body with legislative authority, with delegates — as in the provincial and municipal assemblies — directly elected by the Cuban electorate. The National Assembly chooses from amongst its members the Council of State, which is accountable to the National Assembly and carries out its duties and responsibilities, such as the passage and implementation of decrees, when the Assembly is not in session.
The Council’s decisions and decrees must be ratified at subsequent sittings of the National Assembly. The Council of State also determines the composition of the Council of Ministers, and both bodies together constitute the executive arm and cabinet of the government. The President of the Council of State serves as head of both the government and state.
In surveying the Cuban electoral system several striking points emerge:

1. The system responds to the people’s demands

First, Cubans are not preoccupied with a mere mechanical implementation of a rigid, unchanging model. Contrary to dominant misconceptions, the Cuban political system is not a static entity. Cubans are involved in an intense learning process whose hallmark has been experimentation and willingness to correct mistakes and missteps by periodic renovation of their democratic project. Thus, the system responds to popular demands for adjustment.

Thus, in 1992, the Constitution and electoral laws were modified to require the direct popular election of all members of the national and provincial assemblies. Previously, only the municipal assemblies were directly elected, with the make-up of the provincial assemblies determined by a vote of municipal delegates and, in turn, the National Assembly composition established by provincial representatives. Also, the creation of the popular councils in the early 1990s was directly aimed at increasing the power of local government and reducing the impact of bureaucracy.

2. The Communist Party takes no part

Second, the function of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) is significantly circumscribed, as it does not operate as an electoral party. It is proscribed by law from playing any role in the nomination of candidates. At the municipal level, the nominations occur at street meetings, where it is the constituents who directly participate in and control the selection. Each municipality is divided into several circumscriptions, or districts, comprised of a few hundred people. Each circumscription nominates candidates and elects a delegate who serves in the local municipal assembly. There is a high degree of popular participation in the selection of candidates, marked by active and uncorked citizen interaction and involvement.

The elections at the municipal level are competitive and the casting of ballots is secret. By law, there must be at least two candidates and a maximum of eight. For example, in the 2002 municipal elections there were14,946 circumscriptions, with 13,563 municipality delegates elected out of a total of 32,585 candidates If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote, then a run-off election is held between the two who obtained the most votes. Consequently, in order to complete the 2002 local government elections, a second round was held in 1,383 constituencies. At the provincial and national levels, candidacy commissions select and sift through thousands of people. The commissions are comprised of representatives from the various mass and grassroots organizations and are presided over by workers’ representatives chosen by the unions. The PCC is prohibited from participation in the work of the commissions.

Thus, it is the norm for ordinary working people to be both nominated and elected. The commissions’ recommendations are then presented to the municipal assemblies for final approval. For example, on December 1, 2002, in preparation for the 2003 national elections, the municipal assemblies approved 1,199 candidates for the provincial assemblies and 609 for the National Assembly. Thus, it is the Cuban citizenry that both selects and elects its representatives. By law, up to 50 percent of National Assembly deputies can be municipal assembly delegates. In the 1998–2003 National Assembly, 46.3 percent of the delegates were from the municipal assemblies. The other members of the National Assembly are persons from every sphere of Cuban society: the arts, sports, science, religion etc. The selection process ensures a broad representation of society.
Each member of the National Assembly, including Fidel Castro, is directly elected and must receive more than 50 percent of the vote in her or his constituency. In Cuban municipal, provincial and national elections, the turnout is very high, usually in the ninetieth percentile. The vote is by secret ballot. Also, although a single national delegate list is put to the electorate, not all candidates receive the same number of votes as Cubans exercise their discretion in a very serious, deliberate and definite fashion. There is no formal campaigning, which curtails the role of money in Cuban elections. Instead, a month before the election, a biography of each candidate is displayed in various public places, where they can be perused at the convenience of the entire electorate.

The objective of circumscribing formal campaigning is avoid the development of professional politicking in which money and backroom deals become the driving force of the political system. Elections in Cuba are free of the commercial advertising that dominates and has come to denote the political system in capitalist countries. Professional politicking and politicians are viewed as symbolic of the corrupt past and marginalization of the citizenry that characterized pre-revolutionary Cuba. Consequently, the sons and daughters of workers and peasants comprise virtually all the delegates of the national, provincial and municipal assemblies.

3. The delegates are answerable to their constituents

Third, a rare closeness exists between the elected municipal delegates and the people they serve. Each delegate must live in the electoral district (usually comprising a maximum of two thousand people). Each municipal assembly meets four times a year and elects from its membership a president, vice president and a secretary. These are the only full-time, paid positions in Cuban local government; all other members of the municipal assemblies are unpaid and continue in the jobs they had before they were elected. Delegates have a high degree of familiarity with their constituency and are constantly on call. Every six months, there is a formal accountability session at which complaints, suggestions and other community interests (planteamientos) are raised with the delegates.

The delegate must then attempt to resolve the matter or provide an explanation at the following accountability session. In short, the delegate must account for her or his work carried out since the previous session. Each planteamiento is carefully recorded, and approximately 70 percent are resolved. These planteamiento sessions have resulted in local issues being taken to the national level where they are examined and discussed, thus ensuring popular input into government policy. If constituents are dissatisfied with the performance of their representative, then she or he can be recalled or voted out in the next round of elections. In the 2002, for instance, municipal elections, only 47.87 percent were re-elected.

4. Consensus and unity rather than contest and division is the basis of the system

Fourth, the Cuban system eschews the adversarial approach that dominates the western political processes. In the work and meetings of the provincial assemblies and the National Assembly, the goal of achieving unity and consensus is central. The unanimous votes that occur are not indicative of a rubberstamp mentality but a consensus that is arrived at through extensive and intensive discussion, dialog and debate that precedes the final vote in the National Assembly: the end-point of a long, conscientious and sometimes arduous process.

The National Assembly has ten permanent commissions. At the end of 2002, for example, it met from December 16th to 20th to discuss more than forty topics, including the fishing industry, the environment, the restructuring of the sugar sector, the production of medicine and links between Cuba and the European Union, particularly Cuba’s decision to apply to join the Cotonou Agreement, an economic accord between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific states.

5. Civil society is engaged in the process

Fifth, the Cuba political system is augmented by a very active and vibrant civil society. A critical aspect of the Cuban political system is the integration of a variety of mass organizations into political activity. No new policy or legislation can be adopted or contemplated until the appropriate organization or association representing the sector of society that would be directly affected has been consulted. These organizations have very specific functions and responsibilities. In addition to the Communist Party, the Young Communist League and the Confederation of Cuban Workers, there are the Cuban Federation of Women, the Committees to Defend the Revolution, the National Association of Small Farmers and the Federation of University Students.

The mass organizations are supplemented by numerous professional and other associations that represent the specific interests of other sectors, including for example, lawyers, economists, journalists, writers and artists, the physically challenged and stamp collectors. In short, As Ricardo Aaron, president of Cuba's National Assembly underscores, "these associations and organizations embrace practically the entire universe of activities, interests and problems of all Cubans." Mass organizations, unlike the Communist Party, are granted through Article 88 © of the Constitution the right to propose legislation in the areas that fall under their jurisdiction.

Hence, these organizations have a dynamic existence, and Cuba is replete with almost daily assemblies, meetings and gatherings of various organizations to discuss and examine particular issues, in conjunction with the participation of government officials. This daily engagement of the citizenry with government is the essence of the Cuban political process.

[kromando33]

You're stance is politically incorrect comrade, the central party in Cuba must ensure a stringent succession for when Castro passes on, it happened after the death of Stalin, Mao and Hoxha, and Castro too must set up his succession so that revisionist and bourgeois forces cannot take over. These forces would most likely be disguised as Trots or 'democratic' socialists as they usually are.

[Xiao Banfa]

These forces would most likely be disguised as Trots or 'democratic' socialists as they usually are.

It is invariably stalinists who have led the restoration of capitalism.

[Asoka89]

Stalin's replacement by Khrushchev forces was welcomed, they freed millions of political prisoners and brought to light the excesses and disaster that truly represented Stalinist society

At the end of Hoxha's rule Albania, for all its advances in education and health care compared to 1940s Albania had the LOWEST standards of living in Europe. If Progressive Capitalism (social democracy) yielded higher standards across Europe and even USSR-style state-capitalism yielded higher levels in the Eastern Bloc, why should Hoxha's autokry be remembered fondly?

Read the article and you'll know the situation, the people in Castro's circle, including his brother may be closer to "revisionist" than the people in the actual party.

What about the poets, writers imprisoned by Castro and Amnesty International reports of almost a hundred proven to be detained to this day merely for political reasons? Authoritarian socialism is no socialism at all; I'm a Castro supporter but the people of Cuba need greater worker management they need real socialism not State-Capitalism or Free-Market Capitalism.

[kromando33]

Political prisoners? I assume you mean the criminals, socially-dangerous elements, White guards, Trots and other bourgeois elements?

Socialism is the fundamental aggravation of the class struggle under socialism, Stalin was fighting a war against the kulaks who were killing commissars and loyal socialists, threatening to starve the nation and supporting counter-revolutionaries and bourgeois parasites. Socialism is removing all contradiction in society, it's a process towards communism. All idealism is fundamentally against Marxist-Leninist science and a practical building of socialism, as opposed to the naive teenage utopianism of the new 'left'.

Please read this. (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html)

[Asoka89]

Stalinists were kicked out of Cuba by the way by Castroites.

Stalin was the gravedigger of 20th century socialism; history wouldve been different if the Left Opposition succeeded and was able to empower the working class. Stalinism murdered million of good people, working-people, working-class intellectuals. I can't argue for someone who supports of genocide and a mass-murderer

Stalin was a traitor to Socialism who wasn't nearly as competent as Lenin or Trtosky; he destroyed human life and sullied the name of Socialism.

There is no need for Stalinist "revolutionaries" in the struggle for human gain in the 21st century.

[manic expression]

Let us be clear: this conversation is not about Stalin, it's about Castro and Cuba. Castro had every reason to keep his position in the revolutionary government, why should we deny a revolutionary the right to continue the fight for socialism? Castro is one of the most able and intelligent leaders of the past few generations (not to mention successful), his presence is a boon to our movement and a blow to capitalist imperialism.

Also, people here act like younger communists have been made to cool their heels for decades, when in fact Castro and the PCC has been encouraging the development of young revolutionaries for some time.

As for Stalinism in Cuba, the PSP, which has been part of the PCC, could fall under that camp. It has some influence, but not much; the Cuban revolution isn't about sectarianism as much as it is about establishing socialism.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I want to add that Chavez might be saving Cuban socialism

If Cuba really was "socialist", it could not be established by one man, or rescued by one man.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:59 am
he destroyed human life and sullied the name of Socialism.
From Molotov Remembers, 1993:


Dzerzhinksy was a radiant, spotless personality. Yagoda was a filthy nobody who wormed his way into the party and was only caught in 1937. We had to work with reptiles like that, but there were no others. No one! Now you understand why so many mistakes were made. They deceived us, and innocent people were sometimes incriminated. Obviously one or two out of ten were wrongly sentenced, but the rest got their just desserts.

1-9-1981, page 257

Otherwise, who did he kill? Assuming for a moment that Stalin held God-like power over the Soviet Union and the party would let him kill anything.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Karl Marx's [email protected] 29, 2007 10:55 am

I want to add that Chavez might be saving Cuban socialism

If Cuba really was "socialist", it could not be established by one man, or rescued by one man.
That's not really the point. While Chavez is not "saving" Cuban socialism, trade with Venezuela has been very helpful for Cuba. That is undeniable.


Otherwise, who did he kill? Assuming for a moment that Stalin held God-like power over the Soviet Union and the party would let him kill anything.

What does this have to do with Castro? We've already listed the multiple revolutionaries Stalin and his allies had executed.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 29, 2007 10:07 am
What does this have to do with Castro? We've already listed the multiple revolutionaries Stalin and his allies had executed.
Yeah, I'm sure the party executed pseudo-revolutionaries for no reason.

In any case, we shouldn't try and take this into a discussion on Stalin, I agree.

[Herman]

Originally posted by Xiao [email protected] 29, 2007 08:21 am

Too bad they couldn't hold elections.

They have been holding them since 1975, and they are far more democratic processes than the sham elections in the US.


Isaac Saney, an academic and author of Revolution in Motion, a major analysis of the Cuban Revolution, explains unique Cuba’s democracy

Cuba is almost invariably portrayed as a totalitarian regime, a veritable "gulag" guided and controlled by one man: Fidel Castro. However, this position cannot be sustained once the reality of Cuba is assessed on its own merits. Extensive democratic popular participation in decision-making is at the centre of the Cuban model of governance.
The official organs of government in Cuba are the municipal, provincial and national assemblies of the Poder Popular (People’s Power) structures. The National Assembly is the sole body with legislative authority, with delegates — as in the provincial and municipal assemblies — directly elected by the Cuban electorate. The National Assembly chooses from amongst its members the Council of State, which is accountable to the National Assembly and carries out its duties and responsibilities, such as the passage and implementation of decrees, when the Assembly is not in session.
The Council’s decisions and decrees must be ratified at subsequent sittings of the National Assembly. The Council of State also determines the composition of the Council of Ministers, and both bodies together constitute the executive arm and cabinet of the government. The President of the Council of State serves as head of both the government and state.
In surveying the Cuban electoral system several striking points emerge:

1. The system responds to the people’s demands

First, Cubans are not preoccupied with a mere mechanical implementation of a rigid, unchanging model. Contrary to dominant misconceptions, the Cuban political system is not a static entity. Cubans are involved in an intense learning process whose hallmark has been experimentation and willingness to correct mistakes and missteps by periodic renovation of their democratic project. Thus, the system responds to popular demands for adjustment.

Thus, in 1992, the Constitution and electoral laws were modified to require the direct popular election of all members of the national and provincial assemblies. Previously, only the municipal assemblies were directly elected, with the make-up of the provincial assemblies determined by a vote of municipal delegates and, in turn, the National Assembly composition established by provincial representatives. Also, the creation of the popular councils in the early 1990s was directly aimed at increasing the power of local government and reducing the impact of bureaucracy.

2. The Communist Party takes no part

Second, the function of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) is significantly circumscribed, as it does not operate as an electoral party. It is proscribed by law from playing any role in the nomination of candidates. At the municipal level, the nominations occur at street meetings, where it is the constituents who directly participate in and control the selection. Each municipality is divided into several circumscriptions, or districts, comprised of a few hundred people. Each circumscription nominates candidates and elects a delegate who serves in the local municipal assembly. There is a high degree of popular participation in the selection of candidates, marked by active and uncorked citizen interaction and involvement.

The elections at the municipal level are competitive and the casting of ballots is secret. By law, there must be at least two candidates and a maximum of eight. For example, in the 2002 municipal elections there were14,946 circumscriptions, with 13,563 municipality delegates elected out of a total of 32,585 candidates If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote, then a run-off election is held between the two who obtained the most votes. Consequently, in order to complete the 2002 local government elections, a second round was held in 1,383 constituencies. At the provincial and national levels, candidacy commissions select and sift through thousands of people. The commissions are comprised of representatives from the various mass and grassroots organizations and are presided over by workers’ representatives chosen by the unions. The PCC is prohibited from participation in the work of the commissions.

Thus, it is the norm for ordinary working people to be both nominated and elected. The commissions’ recommendations are then presented to the municipal assemblies for final approval. For example, on December 1, 2002, in preparation for the 2003 national elections, the municipal assemblies approved 1,199 candidates for the provincial assemblies and 609 for the National Assembly. Thus, it is the Cuban citizenry that both selects and elects its representatives. By law, up to 50 percent of National Assembly deputies can be municipal assembly delegates. In the 1998–2003 National Assembly, 46.3 percent of the delegates were from the municipal assemblies. The other members of the National Assembly are persons from every sphere of Cuban society: the arts, sports, science, religion etc. The selection process ensures a broad representation of society.
Each member of the National Assembly, including Fidel Castro, is directly elected and must receive more than 50 percent of the vote in her or his constituency. In Cuban municipal, provincial and national elections, the turnout is very high, usually in the ninetieth percentile. The vote is by secret ballot. Also, although a single national delegate list is put to the electorate, not all candidates receive the same number of votes as Cubans exercise their discretion in a very serious, deliberate and definite fashion. There is no formal campaigning, which curtails the role of money in Cuban elections. Instead, a month before the election, a biography of each candidate is displayed in various public places, where they can be perused at the convenience of the entire electorate.

The objective of circumscribing formal campaigning is avoid the development of professional politicking in which money and backroom deals become the driving force of the political system. Elections in Cuba are free of the commercial advertising that dominates and has come to denote the political system in capitalist countries. Professional politicking and politicians are viewed as symbolic of the corrupt past and marginalization of the citizenry that characterized pre-revolutionary Cuba. Consequently, the sons and daughters of workers and peasants comprise virtually all the delegates of the national, provincial and municipal assemblies.

3. The delegates are answerable to their constituents

Third, a rare closeness exists between the elected municipal delegates and the people they serve. Each delegate must live in the electoral district (usually comprising a maximum of two thousand people). Each municipal assembly meets four times a year and elects from its membership a president, vice president and a secretary. These are the only full-time, paid positions in Cuban local government; all other members of the municipal assemblies are unpaid and continue in the jobs they had before they were elected. Delegates have a high degree of familiarity with their constituency and are constantly on call. Every six months, there is a formal accountability session at which complaints, suggestions and other community interests (planteamientos) are raised with the delegates.

The delegate must then attempt to resolve the matter or provide an explanation at the following accountability session. In short, the delegate must account for her or his work carried out since the previous session. Each planteamiento is carefully recorded, and approximately 70 percent are resolved. These planteamiento sessions have resulted in local issues being taken to the national level where they are examined and discussed, thus ensuring popular input into government policy. If constituents are dissatisfied with the performance of their representative, then she or he can be recalled or voted out in the next round of elections. In the 2002, for instance, municipal elections, only 47.87 percent were re-elected.

4. Consensus and unity rather than contest and division is the basis of the system

Fourth, the Cuban system eschews the adversarial approach that dominates the western political processes. In the work and meetings of the provincial assemblies and the National Assembly, the goal of achieving unity and consensus is central. The unanimous votes that occur are not indicative of a rubberstamp mentality but a consensus that is arrived at through extensive and intensive discussion, dialog and debate that precedes the final vote in the National Assembly: the end-point of a long, conscientious and sometimes arduous process.

The National Assembly has ten permanent commissions. At the end of 2002, for example, it met from December 16th to 20th to discuss more than forty topics, including the fishing industry, the environment, the restructuring of the sugar sector, the production of medicine and links between Cuba and the European Union, particularly Cuba’s decision to apply to join the Cotonou Agreement, an economic accord between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific states.

5. Civil society is engaged in the process

Fifth, the Cuba political system is augmented by a very active and vibrant civil society. A critical aspect of the Cuban political system is the integration of a variety of mass organizations into political activity. No new policy or legislation can be adopted or contemplated until the appropriate organization or association representing the sector of society that would be directly affected has been consulted. These organizations have very specific functions and responsibilities. In addition to the Communist Party, the Young Communist League and the Confederation of Cuban Workers, there are the Cuban Federation of Women, the Committees to Defend the Revolution, the National Association of Small Farmers and the Federation of University Students.

The mass organizations are supplemented by numerous professional and other associations that represent the specific interests of other sectors, including for example, lawyers, economists, journalists, writers and artists, the physically challenged and stamp collectors. In short, As Ricardo Aaron, president of Cuba's National Assembly underscores, "these associations and organizations embrace practically the entire universe of activities, interests and problems of all Cubans." Mass organizations, unlike the Communist Party, are granted through Article 88 © of the Constitution the right to propose legislation in the areas that fall under their jurisdiction.

Hence, these organizations have a dynamic existence, and Cuba is replete with almost daily assemblies, meetings and gatherings of various organizations to discuss and examine particular issues, in conjunction with the participation of government officials. This daily engagement of the citizenry with government is the essence of the Cuban political process.
I agree with him.

[kromando33]

I wouldn't worry about Asoka89, Trots and other revisionists love to criticize, hate to build.

[Asoka89]

What exactly are the building in Cuba; all I see is State-Capitalism with a strong health and educational system, what happened to worker-management, polity in the workplace is one of the keys of Marxism. I like a respect Fidel Castro, but his brother is fond of "market-socialism" of the Chinese, his brother is more repressive then him and his brother keeps ill company. How is it revionist to want a younger, left-radical to actual further a real socialist revolution.

[kromando33]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:28 am
What exactly are the building in Cuba; all I see is State-Capitalism with a strong health and educational system, what happened to worker-management, polity in the workplace is one of the keys of Marxism. I like a respect Fidel Castro, but his brother is fond of "market-socialism" of the Chinese, his brother is more repressive then him and his brother keeps ill company. How is it revionist to want a younger, left-radical to actual further a real socialist revolution.
Because idealism is a disease, and it distracts from practically building socialism by using material dialectics to analyze reality, not just going off some far-fetched naive ideal. Idealism in contradiction (socialism) always ends in reaction.

[Asoka89]

I read your alternative view of Stalin by the way, I would the perspective interesting to say the least, but Socialism is built around the idea of worker empowerment, about worker control, my brand of Socialism is radical democracy. I will support other efforts to defeat Capitalism, but the essence of Socialism is worker empowerment and the liberation of human kind through the working-class. I'll end our discourse on this note, but I encourage everyone to read more about the actual economic conditions in post Soviet Bloc- Cuba, the actual povery and suffering in Cuba and objectively think of ways to further revolution and continue to improve conditions in Cuba.

Certainly some change is needed, wouldnt you agree?

[Xiao Banfa]

I wouldn't worry about Asoka89, Trots and other revisionists love to criticize, hate to build.

Most of the mainstream trotskist movement has been supportive of Cuba and Venezuelas' moves towards socialism. They're "building".

The fourth international was extremely supportive of Cuba.

Stalinists have shown themselves to be wreckers just as much as trots.

[kromando33]

Originally posted by Xiao [email protected] 30, 2007 02:22 am

I wouldn't worry about Asoka89, Trots and other revisionists love to criticize, hate to build.

Most of the mainstream trotskist movement has been supportive of Cuba and Venezuelas' moves towards socialism. They're "building".

The fourth international was extremely supportive of Cuba.

Stalinists have shown themselves to be wreckers just as much as trots.
You obviously know very little, Stalin did the most of any leader to build socialism and destroy reactionary tendencies in society. The new 'left' of 'democratic socialists' are just a desperate attempt to conform to mainstream bourgeois politics and standards, and to look acceptable. In reality, just like the Krushevites and revisionists, they are scared of class struggle and Stalin's unflinching service to establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat and fighting the bourgeois forces attempting to destroy the movement.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:40 am
You obviously know very little, Stalin did the most of any leader to build socialism and destroy reactionary tendencies in society. The new 'left' of 'democratic socialists' are just a desperate attempt to conform to mainstream bourgeois politics and standards, and to look acceptable. In reality, just like the Krushevites and revisionists, they are scared of class struggle and Stalin's unflinching service to establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat and fighting the bourgeois forces attempting to destroy the movement.
kromando33, did you really have to make that statement in the first place? It was unnecessary to say the least. I wanted to keep this on-topic, but that's simply impossible at this point. Now allow me to address your incorrect assertions, regardless of how off-topic they are. Stalin reversed Lenin's course of internationalism and consolidated the power of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union. The working class was kept away from power, as evidenced by the ABOLITION of the Congress of the Soviets. Stalin did not help the working class, and the world's first worker state was allowed to sink deeper into deformities on his watch (and his bureaucratic clique). Stalin was what he was: a supporter of the bureaucracy; he did defend against some bourgeois efforts and he destroyed the kulaks, but he also rolled back worker control, which was terrible for our movement.

Secondly, Trotskyists have supported the Cuban Revolution from day one (I notice you started talking about democratic socialists and not Trotskyists, which wasn't the point). One of the strongest supporters of the Cuban Revolution in the US is the SWP and has been for some time. While Stalinists, in their incredible delusion, bewail Cuba's "revisionism" without looking at reality, Trotskyists have been mounting many efforts to defend the revolution (including the ongoing struggle to free the Cuban 5). Don't slander people who defend a socialist revolution because they are part of a different ideology, I expect more from my fellow communists and so should you.

Yes, that is a tangent, so let's keep it that way. We are basically in agreement when it comes to Castro and Cuba, which is far more important and pertinent to our movement today.


What exactly are the building in Cuba; all I see is State-Capitalism with a strong health and educational system, what happened to worker-management, polity in the workplace is one of the keys of Marxism. I like a respect Fidel Castro, but his brother is fond of "market-socialism" of the Chinese, his brother is more repressive then him and his brother keeps ill company. How is it revionist to want a younger, left-radical to actual further a real socialist revolution.

Please show us HOW Cuba has no "worker-managment". Your only argument here is to repeat fallacies and hope no one notices.

The workers of Cuba control the political process from start to finish. The basic unit of political power is neighborhood committees that nominate local workers to higher government bodies. This is a clear case of worker control, and it does not align with the fantasies in your head because you are looking for something that does not align with the realities of socialism. It's not about "radical democracy", it's about the working class forcefully overthrowing all existing social conditions, thus establishing socialism and worker control. This is exactly what happened in Cuba.

You want proof, do you? Good:

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

Lastly, Raul was one of the first established Marxists in the July 28th Movement (along with Che), and he's been instrumental in establishing socialism in Cuba. His leadership will be very effective in furthering the interests of the working class.

[Holden Caulfield]

Stalin destroyed reactionary forces as a by-product of destroying everything that posed a threat to his power,

you cannot make him out to be some kind of true socialist crusader, in the time before his accention to his throne he clearly showed he didnt stand for anything except the persuit of power, not the persuit a true socialist society

Stalinism is not something a modern informed left winger would even consider as a sysytem for government,

(sorry for the stalin comment)

[Zurdito]

there seems to be a lot of "personal loyalty" from certain posters towards certain leaders. I think this whole doctrine is a very petty-bourgeois one. It's the doctrine of military types, of religious types, of nationalists.

The Cuban working class does not owe any personal loyalty to Fidel. This emotionalism exists to obscure the fact that he and hisbureacratic class are priveliged, and to make an apology for said privelige. Totally anti-marxist.

To some extent it's convenient for Cuban workers to defend some of the gains they've made and defend the "safety net" against neo-liberal attacks. Fair enough. If Cuba was invaded tomorrow, every marxist in the world should raise the banner "victory to the resistance", and ally with the current government. We'd do this because to do so would be in the interests of the Cuban working class. That's the nature of a united front.

But at the same time, are we seriously to believe that without the bureacracy, that with control of their own workplaces, right to organise independently of the government, etc., the Cuban working class would be worse off? That's ridiculous! I'm sorry but I just cannot see the logic of such out and out cheerleaders for stalinist bureaucracies as we have on this site here. One thing is a united front against imperialism, another thing is putting aside your entire objectivity, putting aside any independent working class perspective.

It's entirely acceptable for the working class to enter into all sorts of alliances with bourgeois or bureaucratic forces at different times - with the intention of surpassing them. That's the key which the various different kinds of Stalinists (and I include Hoxhaists, Maosists, Castroists) have forgotten.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:33 pm
there seems to be a lot of "personal loyalty" from certain posters towards certain leaders. I think this whole doctrine is a very petty-bourgeois one. It's the doctrine of military types, of religious types, of nationalists.

The Cuban working class does not owe any personal loyalty to Fidel. This emotionalism exists to obscure the fact that he and hisbureacratic class are priveliged, and to make an apology for said privelige. Totally anti-marxist.

To some extent it's convenient for Cuban workers to defend some of the gains they've made and defend the "safety net" against neo-liberal attacks. Fair enough. If Cuba was invaded tomorrow, every marxist in the world should raise the banner "victory to the resistance", and ally with the current government. We'd do this because to do so would be in the interests of the Cuban working class. That's the nature of a united front.

But at the same time, are we seriously to believe that without the bureacracy, that with control of their own workplaces, right to organise independently of the government, etc., the Cuban working class would be worse off? That's ridiculous! I'm sorry but I just cannot see the logic of such out and out cheerleaders for stalinist bureaucracies as we have on this site here. One thing is a united front against imperialism, another thing is putting aside your entire objectivity, putting aside any independent working class perspective.

It's entirely acceptable for the working class to enter into all sorts of alliances with bourgeois or bureaucratic forces at different times - with the intention of surpassing them. That's the key which the various different kinds of Stalinists (and I include Hoxhaists, Maosists, Castroists) have forgotten.
Defending socialist leaders isn't petty-bourgeois. Sorry.

The Cuban people owe nothing to Castro, and yet they have been behind him and his policies for the vast majority of the time. It's not about Castro per se, but it IS about defending the leader of the communist movement in Cuba, which has led the working class in establishing socialism in that country.

Don't be so quick to jump to the ultra-leftist view that any defense of any leader is somehow bourgeois. It isn't.

Secondly, the bureaucracy does not control Cuba, and has largely been minimalized since the Rectification process. During the 80's, the PCC led an effort to remove Cuba's growing reliance on bureaucratic processes, and it was this reinforcement of socialist relations that helped the worker state withstand the crisis of the 90's and come out in one piece. See my previous post for more details on Cuba's worker democracy.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Xiao [email protected] 30, 2007 03:22 am
The fourth international was extremely supportive of Cuba.
Which 4th International would that be? Surely not the one that, in the late 80s, believed that the Tiananmen students and Gorbachev's clique would lead to "true socialism" in the eastern bloc? The one that, even after that turned out to be a mistake, continued to denounce "the Castro regime" and "Castrism"? The one that used the execution of general Ochoa and the crisis in 1994 to attack?

The one of Janet Habel, who demanded in "Inprecor" that the Cuban airwaves should be overflooded with "the existence of a radio broadcasting from Miami, giving the Cubans all the information that is denied to them by their press"? Who stated that "the old leader" should allow "student rebellions", who, "like in the German Democratic Republic and China, sing the Internationale and carry red flags" (that turned out so well!)?

Who continued to argue in Inprecor that the CPC should turn into "a party of the entire nation", as opposed to one of the working class, leading the class struggle (like Krushchev and Gorbachev)? Who wrote: "The return to private initiative and the expansion of the market seems inevitable"? That Havana should "improve" on the subject of "human rights", a deal from which "Havana could gain access to the European investment bank"? That borrowing money from them is necessary "to kickstart the Cuban economy" because "the central state economy cannot guarantee economic growth"?

Oh, and Habel of the 4th International is not done with us yet! In 1997, she encouraged the CPC to listen to the "Centre for American Studies", a 7-member group in the party whose pro-capitalist statements were fiercely rejected by the Central Committee. About Cuba, she states: "They should aim for the 'third position' (...) which is currently defended by some researchers and intellectuals, and even a few business corporations, but not at governmental level." Then: "There should be a total separation between the mass organizations and the party." "The several currents in the Communist Party should be allowed to express themselves in their own texts and platforms (fractionalism FTW)."

This, according to Habel, will get Cuba a long way, but it will still not be enough: "Firstly, the country will not get access to foreign finance. Secondly, the foreign investments have gone up, but remain insufficient to get the economy back on course, to get the factories and certain necessary sectors running." And: "The problem is that Cuba is currently not complying with the conditions set by Europe."

However: "Despite all these tensions, another scenario can be set up. Cuba will slowly get out of the economic crisis - that seems really fundamental to me - and there will be an improvement in the standards of life, coupled with more room for debate. Leading to a democratization of the institutions, without fundamentally changing the system. Economic restoration coupled with more room for participation, debate, discussion, disagreement. That way, stability can slowly rise. And room for thinking about a new, autonomous development of the island. With the help of Europe and Latin America."

By now, this is not surprising. Two years before, the 14th World Congress of the 4th International stated that Fidel is acting like a "Caudillo", that there should be "political pluralism". Just like the 4th International cheered for the "victory of democracy" when the Americans forced the Nicaraguan sandinistas into submission, and then out of office. With trotskyite comrades like that, Cuba certainly does not need any enemies.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Van Binsbergen+December 30, 2007 04:55 pm--> (Van Binsbergen @ December 30, 2007 04:55 pm)
Xiao [email protected] 30, 2007 03:22 am
The fourth international was extremely supportive of Cuba.
Which 4th International would that be? [/b]
Not sure, there have been so many I can't really keep them straight. What I do know is that the SWP has been very vocal and active in defending the Cuban Revolution for a long time. The Sparts, not so much, but no one really likes them anyway.

[Labor Shall Rule]

They didn't form 'people's power' until 1976, which was over seventeen years after Castro seized control. There is no 'democracy', because there is only a single party, candidates are barred from campaigning and can only pass out a political biography of themselves, and a “candidacy commission” head by leading party officials must first evaluate the candidates. For pete's sake, it wasn't until 1992 that they allowed full election of all members of the National Assembly, and up until then, only 55% of all delegates were democratically elected.

The unions act as a vehicle of speeding up productivity, and have been that way since Castro's troops overthrew Batista. The newspaper writer's and railway worker's unions were broken up, with its leadership jailed, beaten, or deported, and its rank-in-file forced to abide to draconian standards set by the new state which was bent on swift national development.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 30, 2007 06:20 pm
They didn't form 'people's power' until 1976, which was over seventeen years after Castro seized control. There is no 'democracy', because there is only a single party, candidates are barred from campaigning and can only pass out a political biography of themselves, and a “candidacy commission” head by leading party officials must first evaluate the candidates. For pete's sake, it wasn't until 1992 that they allowed full election of all members of the National Assembly, and up until then, only 55% of all delegates were democratically elected.

The unions act as a vehicle of speeding up productivity, and have been that way since Castro's troops overthrew Batista. The newspaper writer's and railway worker's unions were broken up, with its leadership jailed, beaten, or deported, and its rank-in-file forced to abide to draconian standards set by the new state which was bent on swift national development.
That was when they ratified the constitution by a country-wide referendum. It overwhelmingly passed. Until then, there was direct worker organization anyway:

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

At every step, the working class was intimately involved in the overturning of capitalism in Cuba.

The elections are not as you say. Anyone can run, and it costs $0.00 to do so. Candidates are not nominated by any party, but by open public meetings in each neighborhood. The PCC has no direct control over the democratic process. This has been the case since 1976.

On the unions, show us when and why these actions were done. You can rest assured that unions and other associations (women's and youth organizations, etc.) are a central part of Cuban society.

[Labor Shall Rule]

In The Cuban Revolution: Origins, Course, Legacy by Perez Stable, the character of their 'democracy' was made clear.


The Cuban Revolution: Origins, Course, Legacy, Perez Stable, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), page 124:

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

If you read Guevara's Against Bureaucratism in the Essential Works, you can read within the lines and clearly understand that he is discouraging worker's control, and calls for more centralized planning, arguing that the Central Planning Board "lacked sufficient authority over the other bodies" and that they needed the economic powers to "issue precise orders based on a single system and with adequate supervision."

As head of the Ministry of Industry, Guevara oversaw the set-up of technical advisory councils, which acted as managerial officials that were not even ratified by the workers themselves. Armando Hart, a member of the Politburo, noted that setting these bodies were “not a question of discussing all administrative decisions with the workers, but of obtaining their enthusiasm to support the principal measures of the administration.” And again, there is no union or worker association that is independent from the state - the right to strike and freely organize is also barred by law.

A new law in 1969 revealed the true initiative of the Cuban state when they mandated that:


Cuba in the Seventies: Pragmatism and Institutionalization by Carmelo Mesa-Lago, (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1974), page 80:

“everyone in the labor force carry an identification card listing his occupational and employment record, and making the maintenance of such records on their employees mandatory.”

The Trotskyists and anarchists of Cuba, which actually had quite the following with the urban working class, were repressed by Castro. As a 'Trotskyist', I thought you would be able to differentiate between a state-capitalist regime and a genuine worker's state.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 30, 2007 07:49 pm
In The Cuban Revolution: Origins, Course, Legacy by Perez Stable, the character of their 'democracy' was made clear.
Of what period in the revolution is this talking about? Conditions changed, so I need to know what time this is analyzing to make a response.


If you read Guevara's Against Bureaucratism in the Essential Works, you can read within the lines and clearly understand that he is discouraging worker's control, and calls for more centralized planning, arguing that the Central Planning Board "lacked sufficient authority over the other bodies" and that they needed the economic powers to "issue precise orders based on a single system and with adequate supervision."

Calling for centralized planning does not discourage worker control at all. As long as the working class democratically controls the centralized authority, there is no problem whatsoever. The worker state is a state, after all. So long as worker democracy holds sway over these bodies, there should be no objection from communists.

Since 1976, worker democracy has done so. Even before then, the working class was directly charting the course of society.


As head of the Ministry of Industry, Guevara oversaw the set-up of technical advisory councils, which acted as managerial officials that were not even ratified by the workers themselves. Armando Hart, a member of the Politburo, noted that setting these bodies were “not a question of discussing all administrative decisions with the workers, but of obtaining their enthusiasm to support the principal measures of the administration.” And again, there is no union or worker association that is independent from the state - the right to strike and freely organize is also barred by law.

That was basically the same as with the early Soviet Union. This doesn't go against Marxism-Leninism.


A new law in 1969 revealed the true initiative of the Cuban state when they mandated that:

“everyone in the labor force carry an identification card listing his occupational and employment record, and making the maintenance of such records on their employees mandatory.”

What does this show? That the Cuban worker state is deformed? How so?


The Trotskyists and anarchists of Cuba, which actually had quite the following with the urban working class, were repressed by Castro.

Give examples. The PCC was created from a variety of organizations with different ideologies. The July 26th Movement and the PSP, for example, differed in many areas, but they were both made part of the PCC. The Cuban communists have never put sectarianism before pragmatism.


As a 'Trotskyist', I thought you would be able to differentiate between a state-capitalist regime and a genuine worker's state.

I do think this is the first time we have actually disagreed. My basic view is that the Cuban worker state is devoid of the deformities visible in the USSR, PRC, DPRK and others. I don't think Trotskyists should be so quick to call a socialist society deformed. Do you find these conclusions incorrect?

Anyway, I will say that I enjoy reading your posts (this subject included). I'm still learning, comrade, and IMO the best way to learn is to argue.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Xiao [email protected] 29, 2007 08:29 am
It is invariably stalinists who have led the restoration of capitalism.
Ummm... No. See Krushchev (definitely not Stalinist) and Deng (a Dengist revisionist).

[Dros]

I don't think Trotskyists should be so quick to call a socialist society deformed.

Wait a minute. Cuba is only one country. I guess it is possible to have socialism in one country after all!

Stalin was right!

<Note: Cuba is not a socialist state. See a.) numerous other threads or b.) Cuba. But Stalin was right on this issue.>

[manoj8788]

Stop the non sense.Its not the greed on power.Its the long process to find a right leader to a great nation to fight with bravery against the devil AMERICA.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:03 pm

I don&#39;t think Trotskyists should be so quick to call a socialist society deformed.

Wait a minute. Cuba is only one country. I guess it is possible to have socialism in one country after all&#33;

Stalin was right&#33;

<Note: Cuba is not a socialist state. See a.) numerous other threads or b.) Cuba. But Stalin was right on this issue.>
Yes, Cuba is one country, but Cuba has followed the course of internationalism denied by Stalin and his clique. When Angola was invaded by pro-apartheid forces, Cuba responded; when countries where imperialism had ravaged the population and left them without healthcare or doctors, Cuba responded; when revolutions in Central America were in need of aid, Cuba responded. At every turn, Cuba sacrificed its own security for the wellbeing of the international working class. Stalinists could learn a thing or two from Cuba&#39;s internationalism.

And Cuba is socialist. Try explaining away the dearth of capitalist property relations and the capitalist mode of production, without abandoning Marxism. Have fun.


Ummm... No. See Krushchev (definitely not Stalinist) and Deng (a Dengist revisionist).

What you fail to realize is that Khrushchev and Deng were both the logical continuations of the policies of Stalin and Mao. They were bureaucrats, through and through, and were thus perfect products of the Stalinist structure.

[Asoka89]

Very well put Maniac, I was about to bring up a lot of the aid that Cuba gives and its support for movements around Latin America, that is really socialist and really internationalist.

I think that the relationship between the leadership and the Cuba people is still largely state-Capitalist; they&#39;ve also had to inject some capitalism to boost their economy in the 90s which is understandable.

They are a state-worth defending, which I think we all agree on. Deformed state or true socialist state, they must not fall to either Chinese model-"socialism" or to shock therapy.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I am refering to the period of heavy industrialization that aimed for the creation of a self-sufficient economy based on the Soviet-model, which was pursued in the early 1960s (right after the &#39;revolution&#39; happened). The technical advisory councils were set up and military-foremen would watchover production, with the aims of rapid accumulation. It continued into the late 1960s, and after that, more “market-oriented” measures were adopted - foreign investment was encouraged, the tourist industry was opened up, and curbing social programs to ward off their foreign debt.

In the Soviet Union, unions were independent from the state, and revolutionary opposition wasn&#39;t terminated while the Bolsheviks seized power. Oh yeah, and there were worker&#39;s organizations, unions, and factory assemblies, and a mass revolutionary worker&#39;s movement in the Russian Revolution.

Once again, the workers played no role.

The Cuban Trotskyists were thrown in prison during the 1960s for several years after their literature and printing press were seized by the government. Ariel Hidalgo was thrown in prison for "hostile propaganda", because she criticized the “prerogatives” enjoyed by managers but “denied to nearly the whole rank-and-file working population.”

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by manic expression
Secondly, Trotskyists have supported the Cuban Revolution from day one (I notice you started talking about democratic socialists and not Trotskyists, which wasn&#39;t the point). One of the strongest supporters of the Cuban Revolution in the US is the SWP and has been for some time. While Stalinists, in their incredible delusion, bewail Cuba&#39;s "revisionism" without looking at reality, Trotskyists have been mounting many efforts to defend the revolution (including the ongoing struggle to free the Cuban 5). Don&#39;t slander people who defend a socialist revolution because they are part of a different ideology, I expect more from my fellow communists and so should you.

Don&#39;t tar all of us with that same brush. The SWP has not been Trotskyist since the early eighties.

[Dros]

Originally posted by manic expression+December 31, 2007 11:25 am--> (manic expression @ December 31, 2007 11:25 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 11:03 pm

I don&#39;t think Trotskyists should be so quick to call a socialist society deformed.

Wait a minute. Cuba is only one country. I guess it is possible to have socialism in one country after all&#33;

Stalin was right&#33;

<Note: Cuba is not a socialist state. See a.) numerous other threads or b.) Cuba. But Stalin was right on this issue.>
Yes, Cuba is one country, but Cuba has followed the course of internationalism denied by Stalin and his clique. When Angola was invaded by pro-apartheid forces, Cuba responded; when countries where imperialism had ravaged the population and left them without healthcare or doctors, Cuba responded; when revolutions in Central America were in need of aid, Cuba responded. At every turn, Cuba sacrificed its own security for the wellbeing of the international working class. Stalinists could learn a thing or two from Cuba&#39;s internationalism.

And Cuba is socialist. Try explaining away the dearth of capitalist property relations and the capitalist mode of production, without abandoning Marxism. Have fun.


Ummm... No. See Krushchev (definitely not Stalinist) and Deng (a Dengist revisionist).

What you fail to realize is that Khrushchev and Deng were both the logical continuations of the policies of Stalin and Mao. They were bureaucrats, through and through, and were thus perfect products of the Stalinist structure. [/b]
We have had this argument before but I&#39;ll answer your argument with two words: STATE CAPITALISM&#33; Man that was easy. And I immerged with my Marxism intact. Few...

Again, we&#39;ve already been through this. If you have anything new I&#39;ll listen but if not than it&#39;s a wast of everybody&#39;s time for you to bring up the same (refuted) responses over and over again.

Can I ask you a question? Have you ever fucking been to Cuba? Go there and then tell me that the capitalist property relations aren&#39;t intact.

And your sill assertion about Deng and Krushchev is simply untrue. Mao denounced Deng as a capitalist roader by name and Krushchev deeply criticized Stalin so the continuity there is minimal. And as a side note, you pal Fidel was real tight with Krushchev and his Stalinist deformity ridden country.

Oh and whatever happened to opposing Stalin&#39;s and Bukarin&#39;s theory of Socialism in One country? Trotsky is furious with you&#33;

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 31, 2007 04:54 pm
I am refering to the period of heavy industrialization that aimed for the creation of a self-sufficient economy based on the Soviet-model, which was pursued in the early 1960s (right after the &#39;revolution&#39; happened). The technical advisory councils were set up and military-foremen would watchover production, with the aims of rapid accumulation. It continued into the late 1960s, and after that, more “market-oriented” measures were adopted - foreign investment was encouraged, the tourist industry was opened up, and curbing social programs to ward off their foreign debt.
Yes, Cuba had to industrialize and this is how they did it. Are you saying the revolutionary government should have not industrialized? How else should they have carried out this task?

The second part of your point is much later, in the 1990&#39;s. That was done to ward of complete collapse, and it did its job. Today, the special period policies have been almost fully rolled back and eliminated.


In the Soviet Union, unions were independent from the state, and revolutionary opposition wasn&#39;t terminated while the Bolsheviks seized power. Oh yeah, and there were worker&#39;s organizations, unions, and factory assemblies, and a mass revolutionary worker&#39;s movement in the Russian Revolution.

The same structures exist in Cuba. Associations, organizations, assemblies and other organs of working class organization are central to the Cuban government.


Once again, the workers played no role.

The Cuban Trotskyists were thrown in prison during the 1960s for several years after their literature and printing press were seized by the government. Ariel Hidalgo was thrown in prison for "hostile propaganda", because she criticized the “prerogatives” enjoyed by managers but “denied to nearly the whole rank-and-file working population.”

The workers played an instrumental role in the Cuban Revolution. The Cuban toilers gave the revolutionaries food and shelter during their most desperate days, the Cuban workers helped push out Batista and later capitalist companies, the Cuban workers are driving Cuba&#39;s direction.

On the Trotskyists, from what I understand, the PCC wasn&#39;t done by sectarian lines but in a way that would be most pragmatic. Are there any other instances of such actions? I want to look into the background.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 07:28 pm
We have had this argument before but I&#39;ll answer your argument with two words: STATE CAPITALISM&#33; Man that was easy. And I immerged with my Marxism intact. Few...

Again, we&#39;ve already been through this. If you have anything new I&#39;ll listen but if not than it&#39;s a wast of everybody&#39;s time for you to bring up the same (refuted) responses over and over again.

Can I ask you a question? Have you ever fucking been to Cuba? Go there and then tell me that the capitalist property relations aren&#39;t intact.

And your sill assertion about Deng and Krushchev is simply untrue. Mao denounced Deng as a capitalist roader by name and Krushchev deeply criticized Stalin so the continuity there is minimal. And as a side note, you pal Fidel was real tight with Krushchev and his Stalinist deformity ridden country.

Oh and whatever happened to opposing Stalin&#39;s and Bukarin&#39;s theory of Socialism in One country? Trotsky is furious with you&#33;
No, you really didn&#39;t, because such a stance is impossible if you thought about it.

Ever been to India? South Africa? El Salvador? Ni qu guo zhong guo ma? How do you know these countries have capitalist property relations? I thought so. Thanks for playing.

By the way, have you ever been to Cuba?

I look at the social structure of Cuba and make an analysis from this evidence. You, on the other hand, ignore these facts in favor of an illogical ultra-leftist fantasy. Go back and read the arguments that you haven&#39;t addressed.

Mao denounced Deng because he was losing power to another Stalinist bureaucrat. Simple as that. Khrushchev denounced Stalin because he felt it was politically safer to distance himself from Stalin than to be associated with his actions. Bureaucratic power plays on both counts, something Stalinist governments always seem to produce.

Castro was "close" with Khrushchev because the Cuban communists have always put the practical realities of building socialism above petty partisan polemics. The USSR was willing to back up Cuba against the US, why shouldn&#39;t Cuba have accepted their help?

What happened to "anything our enemies oppose, we must support, and anything our enemies support, we must oppose" (or something like that)?

As I said before (which you conveniently ignored), Cuba has always pursued an internationalist course, sacrificing its own safety for the good of the world revolution. Stalinists, on the other hand, have done the exact opposite. Like I said, Stalinists could learn a thing or two from the internationalism of the Cuban communists.

Hope Lies in the Proles

Don&#39;t tar all of us with that same brush. The SWP has not been Trotskyist since the early eighties.

That&#39;s quite a statement. The SWP has only recognized the importance of the Cuban Revolution, which has brought a genuine socialist society. That is not abandoning Trotskyism at all.

However, granted, the SWP is one party of many. Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I would submit that one could call the SWP "Trotskyist".

[kromando33]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 30, 2007 06:20 pm
They didn&#39;t form &#39;people&#39;s power&#39; until 1976, which was over seventeen years after Castro seized control. There is no &#39;democracy&#39;, because there is only a single party, candidates are barred from campaigning and can only pass out a political biography of themselves, and a “candidacy commission” head by leading party officials must first evaluate the candidates. For pete&#39;s sake, it wasn&#39;t until 1992 that they allowed full election of all members of the National Assembly, and up until then, only 55% of all delegates were democratically elected.

The unions act as a vehicle of speeding up productivity, and have been that way since Castro&#39;s troops overthrew Batista. The newspaper writer&#39;s and railway worker&#39;s unions were broken up, with its leadership jailed, beaten, or deported, and its rank-in-file forced to abide to draconian standards set by the new state which was bent on swift national development.
You want to allow the bourgeois to make their own parties, you obviously have no idea what class struggle and socialism is friend.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 02:39 am
You want to allow the bourgeois to make their own parties, you obviously have no idea what class struggle and socialism is friend.
Well buddy, the Cuban Communist Party was bourgeois. It was formerly known as the Popular Socialist Party, and it withdrawed its support for a general strike that toppled the Machado dictatorship in 1933, as well as openly supporting Batista from 1938 up until 1945, demanding for control over the Cuban Confederation of Workers and high positions in Batista&#39;s cabinet.

As for Manic Expression, Building Socialism in Cuba: Romantic versus Realistic Approach wrote that administrators are paid 3.5 times more than their fellow workers. The technical advisory councils, along with the methods of hurrying production and ensuring discipline by armed guards employed by the state, should prove that the workers had no say in determining who their administrators would be, who enjoyed a high income, housing, and other financial benefits. Cuba is, by far, more democratic than the United States would ever be, but it is by no means &#39;socialist&#39;.

[Random Precision]

That&#39;s quite a statement. The SWP has only recognized the importance of the Cuban Revolution, which has brought a genuine socialist society. That is not abandoning Trotskyism at all.

However, granted, the SWP is one party of many. Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I would submit that one could call the SWP "Trotskyist".

Well, only if you mean by "Trotskyist" that they still profit by selling Trotsky&#39;s works. They effectively abandoned that label in the eighties, as well as repudiating the theory of permanent revolution after realizing that it was clearly in contrast to their hard-on for the Cubans. I suggest you read Jack Barnes&#39; speech/book "Their Trotsky and Ours".

Oh, and the leadership also expelled all their cadre who favored the old line around that time.

[kromando33]

Also people don't fool yourselves into thinking that Raul is any less a revisionist than Castro. While Castro's Trotskyite-inspired international imperialism in Africa and early liberalism was very anti-ML, Raul himself has expressed 'interest' in a Chinese-styled state capitalist model. It's all about power for the Castro brothers, the ability to project power overseas and make Cuba powerful beyond it's borders, it's social-imperialism at it's lowest. For Castro it was demagogic populism and internationalism, but for Raul this has failed and he looks to capitalist China as a model for Cuban power overseas, none are even remotely interested in building socialism in their own country (as Che so often talked about), but instead are only interested in a narrow-minded nationalism.

I could honestly see Raul when in power turning the Cuban rural areas into capitalist 'export zones' for massive amounts of agricultural produce, similar to the United Fruit Company and the Batista days. The urban zones will also go back to the casino and whorehouse days of US hegemony. All these places of course, like China, would be staffed by a sprawl of low-paid labor slaves kept in check by a veracious private police force similar to China. This would allow Cuba to export vast amounts of consumer exports at low cost to the US, while virtually turning the people into slaves and the state into basically a capitalist investment firm with guns.

[FireFry]

Also people don't fool yourselves into thinking that Raul is any less a revisionist than Castro. While Castro's Trotskyite-inspired international imperialism in Africa and early liberalism was very anti-ML, Raul himself has expressed 'interest' in a Chinese-styled state capitalist model. It's all about power for the Castro brothers, the ability to project power overseas and make Cuba powerful beyond it's borders, it's social-imperialism at it's lowest

This is ridiculous. "social-imperialism" -- what the hell? Who cares, isn't it always in the best interests of any modern state-nation to have good foreign relations? I think you're out to confuse people on this forum.

And no, Fidel is not a "stalinist" -- hell, stalin is dead and NEVER even visited Cuba once (I think...). Fidel's brand of socialism is totally different than it exists anywhere else. It managed to modernize a state ruled by corrupt politicians and Batista rule under US imperialism, and bring forth at least a moderately socialist centralised economy. It certainly isn't communist, and it certainly isn't anarchist either, but at least it gives Cubans a better way of life than the surrounding imperialist owned shitholes like Peurto Rica, Jamaica and the Bahamas, etc.. etc...

All you know about Cuba is a trickle down of reports from media sources around the globe, you've never even been there. And you're accusations of stalinism are bizarre, as well as "trotskyite" imperialism.

By the way, most of these international military actions were probably designed to help people in these countries, and help them reject American capitalist imperialism -- as well as "western" capitalist imperialism from countries like Canada, UK, Australia, France, etc.. etc...

Besides, most Cubans arent used to living in a class society. It probably makes them boil with anger when they see resorts for rich westerners opening up in partnership with the state.

If Cuba ever wishes to hold on to it's socialist state, it probably needs to get more political allies from left-leaning south american countries and capitalise on the booming economies and socialised states there to further his vision of a better society -- not a shithole -- like Jamaica and Peurto Rico.

Fidel probably hasn't stepped down because, well, he's afraid to. He's idolized so much by the people of Cuba, he's afraid that if he dies, the revolution will die with him. Which is only human, right? And he's probably right, when he dies, this may be seen as a green light by the Bush administration or the Obama / new Clinton administration to go forward with "liberating" the cubans.. hahaha.

[kromando33]

This is ridiculous. "social-imperialism" -- what the hell? Who cares, isn't it always in the best interests of any modern state-nation to have good foreign relations? I think you're out to confuse people on this forum.

And no, Fidel is not a "stalinist" -- hell, stalin is dead and NEVER even visited Cuba once (I think...). Fidel's brand of socialism is totally different than it exists anywhere else. It managed to modernize a state ruled by corrupt politicians and Batista rule under US imperialism, and bring forth at least a moderately socialist centralised economy. It certainly isn't communist, and it certainly isn't anarchist either, but at least it gives Cubans a better way of life than the surrounding imperialist owned shitholes like Peurto Rica, Jamaica and the Bahamas, etc.. etc...

All you know about Cuba is a trickle down of reports from media sources around the globe, you've never even been there. And you're accusations of stalinism are bizarre, as well as "trotskyite" imperialism.

By the way, most of these international military actions were probably designed to help people in these countries, and help them reject American capitalist imperialism -- as well as "western" capitalist imperialism from countries like Canada, UK, Australia, France, etc.. etc...

Besides, most Cubans arent used to living in a class society. It probably makes them boil with anger when they see resorts for rich westerners opening up in partnership with the state.

If Cuba ever wishes to hold on to it's socialist state, it probably needs to get more political allies from left-leaning south american countries and capitalise on the booming economies and socialised states there to further his vision of a better society -- not a shithole -- like Jamaica and Peurto Rico.

Fidel probably hasn't stepped down because, well, he's afraid to. He's idolized so much by the people of Cuba, he's afraid that if he dies, the revolution will die with him. Which is only human, right? And he's probably right, when he dies, this may be seen as a green light by the Bush administration or the Obama / new Clinton administration to go forward with "liberating" the cubans.. hahaha.
Yes but what did Fidel's African adventurism produce? Nothing lasting, Angola is as capitalist as ever, not exactly what 5000 Cubans died for I expect. Also Cuba's record in Africa is not clean, using Ethiopia to try and repress the Eritrean independence movement being the main one. As Lenin said, every country must build socialism independently in their own country, because in contradiction internationalism always becomes no worst than the imperialism and interventionism of the bourgeois powers.

If you don't understand what I mean, think of it like this, at the current moment their are contradictions in society which prevent 'communistic' thinking, a big one being nationalism. Such a contradiction will only be gone once all contradictions in society are gone - that is communism is established and the class struggle (socialism) won by the dictatorship of the proletariat. 'Internationalism' in the 'Nationalist' period would be thus interpreted by the 'nationalistic', 'contradictive' populace as imperialism and foreign invasion, and not as 'proletarian internationalism'. Thus, 'nation' replaces 'class'. Imagine it like this, Stalin invades the US after WWII (hypothetically), the populace would not think about class struggle or socialism, they would think 'foreigners are invading' - the contradictive logic.

I am not saying the nation is a good thing, fundamentally it is an imperfect social institution, but EVERYTHING in socialism is imperfect - that's why socialism is a process, a transition to REMOVE these imperfect things from society. Nationalism is a disease, it's important for you and everyone to remember this, but while it's imperfect as Lenin describes it must be used 'utilitarianly' to build socialism in one country, as to not exacerbate the divisive effects of it with 'internationalism' which in contradiction becomes reactionary imperialism. Stalin was unflinching in putting down the nationalism in the Soviet republics, especially the Muslim ones, because as the conflicts that tore apart the USSR (after 91') proved - nationalism is socially-dangerous.

The best way is a strict isolationism, economic self-sufficiency and thus a total 'internalized' devotion to building socialism (aggravation of the class struggle) in one country.

For Fidel, projecting power abroad, via capitalist subsidies from the USSR, was a way to distract attention from building socialism at home, as it will always be. For the modern 'left', pyrotechnic, bombastic rhetoric against America replaces practical and scientific Marxism-Leninism, it's all symbolism and empty populism rather than pragmatic building of socialism as I have described. Fidel will always point abroad, to the US sanctions, as failures for the Cuban economy, but in reality it's because of his nationalistic mission to project power (and thus the reliance on the capitalist USSR to pay for such projection), even today he cannot and will not answer his failure to create a self-sufficient Cuban economy. Instead Fidel uses foreign doctors in opportunistic ways in the region to gather international support, and even now is becoming just as dependent on Venezuelan crude as he was previously on Soviet - the reason for this is just the same, the reactionary tendency to imperialist nationalism, as I have described.

[FireFry]

Fidel will always point abroad, to the US sanctions, as failures for the Cuban economy, but in reality it's because of his nationalistic mission to project power (and thus the reliance on the capitalist USSR to pay for such projection), even today he cannot and will not answer his failure to create a self-sufficient Cuban economy. Instead Fidel uses foreign doctors in opportunistic ways in the region to gather international support, and even now is becoming just as dependent on Venezuelan crude as he was previously on Soviet - the reason for this is just the same, the reactionary tendency to imperialist nationalism, as I have described.

Ok, what -- so you're saying that Cuba.. a nation traditionally dependent on foreigners -- to sell it's main sugar crop to, amongst other national produces, should be isolated..?

Isolated... like on an island.. like it always will be...?

Hahahah... The idea of nationalism historically has sprung from the existance of islands, that all the people on ONE island belong to the same ethnicity and have the same cultural heritage. And for the most part, that's true. Most people who live on an island through a family lineage do share similar cultural and ethnic traits (language, etc).

However, for nations who live integrated on a continent with real borders besides the shores, nationalism is a totally different concept.

Cuba will always need the help of the inland nations for resources, for crude oil (for their refineries and etc) -- even after any worldwide communism uprising in the next few centuries. Why? Because almost everybody knows that living stranded on an island, simply doesn't work pragmatically. Cuba has few natural resources that they are practically able to tap into with their existing level of development.

P.S. Your use of insider "educated" lingo only serves to alienate the actual working class. Since very few people understand what hte "proletariat" is and use it casually in every day language. So, go back to your local marxist-leninist party and try to run for office and support your party candidate.. hahaha.

[Ismail]

@Kro: Self-sufficiency is good, isolation in all walks of life isn't. Sure, Albania was isolated, but it still tried to spread the revolution by having relations with other Marxist-Leninist parties in nations like Canada, etc. "Socialism in One Country" isn't about being isolated, it's about building up socialism on a country-by-country basis. Hoxha's diplomatic isolation was mainly the result of every "Socialist" state more or less being revisionist and not giving a shit about upholding Marxist-Leninism anymore.


And no, Fidel is not a "stalinist" -- hell, stalin is dead and NEVER even visited Cuba once (I think...).Considering in his lifetime Cuba was run by a corrupt dictator whom Fidel later overthrew, I seriously doubt he'd give a shit about visiting Cuba. (plus Fidel was unknown then to boot)

[manic expression]

As for Manic Expression, Building Socialism in Cuba: Romantic versus Realistic Approach wrote that administrators are paid 3.5 times more than their fellow workers. The technical advisory councils, along with the methods of hurrying production and ensuring discipline by armed guards employed by the state, should prove that the workers had no say in determining who their administrators would be, who enjoyed a high income, housing, and other financial benefits. Cuba is, by far, more democratic than the United States would ever be, but it is by no means 'socialist'.

Labor Shall Rule, one of the most prominent leaders of the Cuban Revolution lives in a working class area in Havana (Roque, IIRC). The Cuban leadership is not isolated from the working class at all. Furthermore, the organs of worker democracy determine who leads what. These are all signs of a healthy worker state and of socialism.

Hope Lies in the Proles

Well, only if you mean by "Trotskyist" that they still profit by selling Trotsky's works. They effectively abandoned that label in the eighties, as well as repudiating the theory of permanent revolution after realizing that it was clearly in contrast to their hard-on for the Cubans. I suggest you read Jack Barnes' speech/book "Their Trotsky and Ours".

Oh, and the leadership also expelled all their cadre who favored the old line around that time.No, the SWP has not "abandoned" Trotskyism. They abandoned the "input" of those who refused to follow the turn to industry policy, but that is quite another matter. Trotsky's contributions to Marxism are very much taught and used. Jack Barnes' speech was about not being dogmatic and using a materialist analysis.

[Lenin II]

I’m seeing a great deal of flatly declarative statements on this thread with no arguments nor evidence being provided. I am also seeing the world “bureaucracy” dropped an awful lot. Someone please define for me EXACTLY WHAT THIS MEANS. Seems to me it is a meaningless party line dues ex machina buzzword that can be dropped whenever a trot or left wants to denounce certain people’s revolution. Give me a fully detailed analysis of the term and how you differentiate between a bureaucracy and a workers’ state and evidence to show that Cuba, the USSR and Venezuela have become this.



Shouldn't he had made way for a new generation a long time ago? Castro spoke many times about the greed of capitalists. But what about his greed for power? It's sickening.

A “new generation” of what? Raul’s market reforms? Castro is as dogmatic and as dedicated a Marxist who ever lived, why should he hand it over to a younger person? Simply because of his age? Furthermore, there is NO evidence he holds onto power simply for himself—most likely it a single-minded concern for the Cuban and Latin American revolution of which he is the lifeblood. He is the most experienced, most hardened and admired socialist in the Western hemisphere who has guarded the revolution for decades literally next door to the almighty imperialist power. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.


I think so too. Too bad they couldn't hold elections.

Well see, that’s how they get you. I would hope such election would involve the communist party and the communist party only. Otherwise they are tools for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to take over once again, easily, with the support of America driving it full force back to the Batista days.


It is invariably stalinists who have led the restoration of capitalism.

Correlation is not the same as causation.


Stalin's replacement by Khrushchev forces was welcomed, they freed millions of political prisoners and brought to light the excesses and disaster that truly represented Stalinist society

Hoo-ray, they restored the everlasting glory of capitalism and McRevolution to mother Russia by freeing reactionaries, kulaks and imperialist agents responsible for the deaths of millions of workers! Save us from the scary Stalinism, Mr. Gorbechov! All hail freedom and American democracy!


What about the poets, writers imprisoned by Castro and Amnesty International reports of almost a hundred proven to be detained to this day merely for political reasons?

It's very easy to try to invoke our sympathy by protraying prisoners as sensitive artistic victims of a big, oppressive state. Revolution isn’t all sunshine and roses. Do you have a source for this statement that shows he imprisons an excessive number of "artists?"


If Cuba really was "socialist", it could not be established by one man, or rescued by one man.

You don’t understand Marxism-Leninism. This is what has been said by many left communists about any revolutionary movement that doesn’t have the undying support of 100&#37; of the population.


Most of the mainstream trotskist movement has been supportive of Cuba and Venezuelas' moves towards socialism. They're "building". The fourth international was extremely supportive of Cuba. Stalinists have shown themselves to be wreckers just as much as trots.

Hmmm, doubt that. The Spartacist League is quite quick to label Chavez and Castro “bourgeoisie socialists” and their countries “deformed workers’ states. We only criticize Trots because they constantly criticize us. And what did Stalin “destroy?” Reactionaries? Kulaks? Bourgeoisie? I would have destroyed them all, too! They are human vermin.


What you fail to realize is that Khrushchev and Deng were both the logical continuations of the policies of Stalin and Mao. They were bureaucrats, through and through, and were thus perfect products of the Stalinist structure.

What you fail to realize is that you have no material evidence for this in any way.

[Random Precision]

No, the SWP has not "abandoned" Trotskyism. They abandoned the "input" of those who refused to follow the turn to industry policy, but that is quite another matter. Trotsky's contributions to Marxism are very much taught and used. Jack Barnes' speech was about not being dogmatic and using a materialist analysis.

But they've abandoned the permanent revolution, which is Trotsky's foremost contribution to Marxist theory. I don't see how you can call yourself a Trotskyist without accepting the permanent revolution.

[kromando33]

But they've abandoned the permanent revolution, which is Trotsky's foremost contribution to Marxist theory. I don't see how you can call yourself a Trotskyist without accepting the permanent revolution.

More like only contribution, if you can even call it a 'contribution'.

[Zurdito]

More like only contribution, if you can even call it a 'contribution'.

great contribution yourself. ;)

[Random Precision]

More like only contribution, if you can even call it a 'contribution'.

Haha, I think I'm onto your game. Have fun while it lasts, comrade.