Cuban Resorts

[victim77]

Note: The following questions are out of curiosity and not out of any ambition to visit a Cuban Resort. If at any time in my life I go to Cuba it will be to experience the genuine culture.


Any ways onto the questions:
1) Who owns the Cuban Resorts? Cuba or a Capitalist power
2) If the answer to #1 is a capitalist power, is the resort considered soil of the capitalist country?
3) Does Cuba profit from these Resorts

[Dros]

1) Who owns the Cuban Resorts? Cuba or a Capitalist power

Cuba is capitalist.

In regards to your question, I'm not certain but I imagine that the resorts are owned by different capitalist elements. However, those resorts are on Cuban land and are subject to Cuban law. I it is the case that Cuban resorts are owned by non-Cuban capitalists, they are still in the nation of Cuba. The only exception to this rule would be the very exclusive resort, the Gitmo Hotel and Spa (they specialize in very interesting types of aqua-therapy) which is incidentally run by the US. :lol:

[jake williams]

Cuba gets some income from tourism, I know that. I don't imagine they have capitalists owning the resorts, at least not all of them or completely. I don't know the details though.

[KurtFF8]

Cuba is capitalist.

I wouldn't say that Cuba is capitalist but they are certainly going to be on a path towards Market Socialism soon (well they kind of already are).

I would imagine the resorts are owned mostly by Cuba itself, but they certainly don't help reduce disparity between the working class and the well off of other nations.

[Vendetta]

Isn't the Cuban tourist sector racist or discriminative against native Cubans?

[RNK]

In a way. Regular Cubans can not afford to go anywhere near the resort districts. The tourist industry has also bred a plethora of black marketeers who profit from illegal sales and smuggling and so on and so forth, which has allowed them to get a lot more money than the rest of Cuban workers.

[BobKKKindle$]

Cubans employed in tourism are also given part, or all of their salary in dollars, which means that they have access to goods which are not available to Cubans employed in other sectors of the economy, such as manufacturing. This has led to a growth of income inequality within Cuba, and tourism employees now comprise a privileged stratum within Cuban society. Although this may seem negative, we should try and understand why the Cuban government has chosen to open up the economy, it is not because they want to abandon socialism, but rather because this is the only way they can generate foreign currency income and ensure that the economy does not stagnate. Hopefully, Cuba's new economic ties with Venezuela will allow the government to return to a more Socialist economic policy, and reverse the trend towards inequality.


Cuba is capitalistHow, exactly? When did Cuba become capitalist, in your opinion? How can Cuba be capitalist when the means of production are owned by the state?

Good joke though =D

[Red Rebel]

The Cuban government controls the resorts. "Profit is the unpaid labour expropriated from workers by a capitalist" (MIA), so call in profit.


Isn't the Cuban tourist sector racist or discriminative against native Cubans?


Correct, Cubans are not allowed to stay at resorts that are for foreigners since the early 1990s. I have a good artile about this, I'll post it when I get on my home computer.

[Magdalen]

The user that stated "Regular Cubans can not afford to go anywhere near the resort districts" is completely incorrect.

For example, in Varadero, Cuba's biggest resort town, it is perfectly normal for foreign tourists to be outnumbered by native Cubans on beaches which are yards away from tourist hotels.

The construction of modern tourist resorts in Cuba was made necessary by the Special Period. Cuba, bereft of any major foreign backers, was forced to open a limited number of jointly-owned hotels with foreign companies in order to secure the wider survival of its socialist system. If Cuba had not opened these hotels, then it would have undergone complete economic collapse, and would have become another poor, starving colony of the United States.

I'd also like to answer another question. "Why aren't ordinary Cubans allowed to stay at tourist resorts?" The answer to this is simple, and Fidel spoke extensively on the subject before his illness. For the price of a single night at a tourist hotel, an entire family of ordinary Cubans could be fed for a month. However, recent proposals in Cuba have suggested giving ordinary Cubans vacations in tourist resorts as a reward for hard work in their place of employment.

I'm not claiming that the current system is ideal, but it is necessary in order to ensure the survival of Cuban socialism, and the world class health and education systems that Cubans enjoy.

Finally I will echo the hope of "bobkindles". I believe that Cuba's economic ties with other socialist nations will allow it to remove these small elements of capitalism from its socialist system. Already, economic improvements have allowed Cuba to remove the US Dollar from circulation, and impose a special tax on its conversion into Cuban currency. Cuba remains in a period of transition, but this is not transition to false western democracy, or from Fidel to Raúl, this is a transition to socialism, and to communism.

[Severian]

1) Who owns the Cuban Resorts? Cuba or a Capitalist power

A lot of them are joint ventures, half owned by the Cuban government and half by a foreign company. Private companies cannot operate in Cuba except through these joint ventures. Direct employment of wage labor by a private entity is illegal in Cuba. Their operations are subject to other restrictions as well.

A couple articles about these joint ventures:
http://www.themilitant.com/1996/6024/6024_5.html

http://www.themilitant.com/2000/6447/644751.html

(scroll down)

2) If the answer to #1 is a capitalist power, is the resort considered soil of the capitalist country?

Of course not. Is this a joke? See above.


3) Does Cuba profit from these Resorts

Leaving aside whether "profit" is applicable, of course Cuba gains revenue, which the government and population badly need. There'd be no other reason to do it, since there are undeniable social problems including increased inequality as a result of tourism and allowing capitalist investment.

[Dros]

How, exactly?


[QUOTE]When did Cuba become capitalist, in your opinion?

It was never actually socialist. Instead of building a socialist economy, Castro turned Cuba into a satellite of the Soviet Union. What this meant in terms of practice is that Cuba continued to produce mass surplus of sugar for sale to the USSR in exchange for industry. This came at the expense of collectivisation, self sufficiancy and socialist economics. The bottom line is: the proletariat was never emancipated. Surplus value continues to be extracted from the proletariat and exploitation continues to occur.


How can Cuba be capitalist when the means of production are owned by the state?

State-capitalism. Marx and Lenin acknowledged the possibility that this could occur. In certain countries, the bourgeoisie (or some group that is effectively a bourgeoisie) owns the means of production through the state instead of directly. Ultimately, production relations are the same.


Good joke though =D

:D

[which doctor]

How, exactly? When did Cuba become capitalist, in your opinion? How can Cuba be capitalist when the means of production are owned by the state?

Good joke though =D
Are you not at all familiar with the concept of state capitalism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ It's or restricted, depending on the source or poster. The bourgeois media have a rather limited connotation of state capitalism (merely government favouring one company over others). The left-communists have a weird connotation (saying that the U$A is state-capitalist).

Some posters here, like myself, would argue that the whole Soviet era was one of state capitalism, and that the proper course for political development was revolutionary democracy and not bureaucracy (then again, the Depression killed the potential for the former :( ): as long as wage-slavery exists, even if there were full state monopoly and workers' control over the economy, that's still state capitalism.

[Devrim]

When did Cuba become capitalist, in your opinion? How can Cuba be capitalist when the means of production are owned by the state?

Bob, you are in the SWP. Your organisation thinks that Cuba is capitalist.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The left-communists have a weird connotation (saying that the U$A is state-capitalist).

We certainly don't write USA like that. We say that there was a global tendency towards state capitalism after WWI. The new deal in the USA was part of this.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

It was never actually socialist. Instead of building a socialist economy, Castro turned Cuba into a satellite of the Soviet Union. What this meant in terms of practice is that Cuba continued to produce mass surplus of sugar for sale to the USSR in exchange for industry. This came at the expense of collectivisation, self sufficiancy and socialist economics. The bottom line is: the proletariat was never emancipated. Surplus value continues to be extracted from the proletariat and exploitation continues to occur.I don't think that being reliant on another country means that a country can't be socialist; dependency is something we should try to avoid, because it can make a country vulnerable to a sudden loss of markets, but, at the same time, there's no reason to try and produce everything we need within the borders of one country, it makes sense that countries should specialize in what they are able to produce most efficiently, and trade with other countries so that people can enjoy the goods that can't be produced within national borders. Socialists don't reject international trade. This is especially true of a small country like Cuba, which does not have sufficient resources to make self-sufficiency a realistic objective. However, in response to the problems of the "special period" the Cuban government has actually tried to reduce dependency and make Cuba more self-sufficient in the production of certain goods, for example, through the promotion of organic farms, which don't need imported fertilizers and fuel.

As for the issue of surplus value, a country can still be socialist, even if production results in the accumulation of surplus value. If workers were payed the full value of their labour, it would not be possible to expand production or develop new sectors of the economy, and so in any socialist economy, especially in a country that lacks an industrial base, it is necessary to have some degree of surplus value accumulation. However, this is different from the system of accumulation which exists under capitalism, because workers are able to determine how surplus value is used, and surplus value does not finance the personal consumption of a capitalist class.


State-capitalism. Marx and Lenin acknowledged the possibility that this could occur. In certain countries, the bourgeoisie (or some group that is effectively a bourgeoisie) owns the means of production through the state instead of directly. Ultimately, production relations are the same.Marxists have written about state-capitalism, yes, but they have used the term to refer to a situation in which property is taken over by the state to try and support the rule of the bourgeoisie, or when the government intervenes in the economy to prevent the onset of depression. This is very different from what happened in Cuba, where bourgeois property (which was actually the property of foreign corporations) was expropriated - it was this that prompted the United States to take a more aggressive stance towards Cuba which, in turn, pushed Cuba closer towards the Soviet bloc.

Although, arguably, Cuba now has a privileged caste, they cannot be considered a class (and thus Cuba cannot be considered a class society) because they do not have ownership of the means of production, and so they do not have control of the products of workers labour, they cannot transmit assets to their children, they don't draw an income from the profit generated by the sale of products - essentially, this stratum does not have any of the characteristics of the bourgeoisie in a capitalist society.

Therefore, Cuba is not a "state-capitalist" society, it is a workers state.

[manic expression]

It was never actually socialist. Instead of building a socialist economy, Castro turned Cuba into a satellite of the Soviet Union. What this meant in terms of practice is that Cuba continued to produce mass surplus of sugar for sale to the USSR in exchange for industry. This came at the expense of collectivisation, self sufficiancy and socialist economics. The bottom line is: the proletariat was never emancipated. Surplus value continues to be extracted from the proletariat and exploitation continues to occur.

Wrong. The Cuban revolutionaries built a socialist society by abolishing private property, putting the means of production in the hands of the workers, confronting (and defeating) imperialism and collectivizing society. Capitalist property in Cuba was expropriated, capitalists in Cuba were politically defeated. The Cuban revolutionaries aligned with the USSR because the Soviet Union was opposed to American imperialism; this alliance was beneficial to the workers of both countries.

Cuba has no private property, no employment of workers, no exploitation, no capitalist social relations, no capitalists in power; it cannot be capitalist.


State-capitalism. Marx and Lenin acknowledged the possibility that this could occur. In certain countries, the bourgeoisie (or some group that is effectively a bourgeoisie) owns the means of production through the state instead of directly. Ultimately, production relations are the same.

Prove how this applies to Cuba.

FoB

Are you not at all familiar with the concept of state capitalism?

That concept of state capitalism is fallacious and false. Please read above.

Jacob Richter

Some posters here, like myself, would argue that the whole Soviet era was one of state capitalism, and that the proper course for political development was revolutionary democracy and not bureaucracy (then again, the Depression killed the potential for the former): as long as wage-slavery exists, even if there were full state monopoly and workers' control over the economy, that's still state capitalism.

First of all, bureaucracy does not equal state capitalism (and cannot, realistically, for this is a logical fallacy). Secondly, wage-slavery does not exist in Cuba, it left with the gusano capitalists who ran to Miami.

[Sam_b]

Therefore, Cuba is not a "state-capitalist" society, it is a workers state.

Bob, are you still an SWP member? For years and years comrades such as Chris Harman and of course Tony Cliff have made the argument that Cuba is a state-capitalist system.

It is by no means a worker's state. Who controls the means of production? The ruling body in a hierarchical fashion. Just look at the differences between 'dollar shops' and 'peso shops' in Cuba. The state trades itself on the international market just like any corporation would do. A good read on Russia's evolution to state capitalism, with many parallels in my opinion to Cuba can be read in the Bookmarks publication "Russia: From Worker's State to State Capitalism".

[R_P_A_S]

If you want to help Cuban families directly you could consider staying in a Cuban home, rent a bedroom.. they are call "casas particulares" and you can also eat at some family own restaurants called "Paladares"

[manic expression]

Bob, are you still an SWP member? For years and years comrades such as Chris Harman and of course Tony Cliff have made the argument that Cuba is a state-capitalist system.

It is by no means a worker's state. Who controls the means of production? The ruling body in a hierarchical fashion. Just look at the differences between 'dollar shops' and 'peso shops' in Cuba. The state trades itself on the international market just like any corporation would do. A good read on Russia's evolution to state capitalism, with many parallels in my opinion to Cuba can be read in the Bookmarks publication "Russia: From Worker's State to State Capitalism".

The peso/dollar gap is for tourism, not for some phantom "hierarchical" class. While there have been some signs of increased inequity, this is mostly due to the Special Period, and most of those problems have been curtailed and eliminated. As for the Convertible Peso issue, this has been implemented to encourage tourism. Raul Castro has said what everyone has known for some time: that the present course is not sustainable, because it certainly wasn't meant to be. Changes will be made in time to address these issues.

The fact is that the Convertible Peso is no sign of capitalism whatsoever. There is simply nothing to back that assertion.

[Dros]

I don't think that being reliant on another country means that a country can't be socialist; dependency is something we should try to avoid, because it can make a country vulnerable to a sudden loss of markets, but, at the same time, there's no reason to try and produce everything we need within the borders of one country, it makes sense that countries should specialize in what they are able to produce most efficiently, and trade with other countries so that people can enjoy the goods that can't be produced within national borders. Socialists don't reject international trade. This is especially true of a small country like Cuba, which does not have sufficient resources to make self-sufficiency a realistic objective.

I don't reject trade. What I said was that by tying himself to the state-capitalist USSR, Castro subordinated building socialism to a trade partnership, occuring within a capitalist frame work, with the Soviet Union. This meant that Cuba was objectivly not Socialist.


As for the issue of surplus value, a country can still be socialist, even if production results in the accumulation of surplus value. If workers were payed the full value of their labour, it would not be possible to expand production or develop new sectors of the economy, and so in any socialist economy, especially in a country that lacks an industrial base, it is necessary to have some degree of surplus value accumulation.

This is not inconsistent with what I said and is of course totally true. I do see how what I said could have been read in that way. What I was attempting to communicate is that capitalist production relations still prevail in Cuba. I think the SWP would agree with me here.


However, this is different from the system of accumulation which exists under capitalism, because workers are able to determine how surplus value is used, and surplus value does not finance the personal consumption of a capitalist class.

Actually, it does and workers don't.


Marxists have written about state-capitalism, yes, but they have used the term to refer to a situation in which property is taken over by the state to try and support the rule of the bourgeoisie, or when the government intervenes in the economy to prevent the onset of depression. This is very different from what happened in Cuba, where bourgeois property (which was actually the property of foreign corporations) was expropriated - it was this that prompted the United States to take a more aggressive stance towards Cuba which, in turn, pushed Cuba closer towards the Soviet bloc.

Castro attacked and defeated imperialism and expropriated property held by imperialists. That is not the same as socialism.


Although, arguably, Cuba now has a privileged caste, they cannot be considered a class (and thus Cuba cannot be considered a class society) because they do not have ownership of the means of production, and so they do not have control of the products of workers labour, they cannot transmit assets to their children, they don't draw an income from the profit generated by the sale of products - essentially, this stratum does not have any of the characteristics of the bourgeoisie in a capitalist society.

Except the defining charecteristics: control of the means of production. Whether or not this is "ownership" subjectively is irrelevant because they clearly do own it subjectively.


Therefore, Cuba is not a "state-capitalist" society, it is a workers state.

I don't use the term "worker's state" because it doesn't have a definition with any objective or scientific basis.

So instead, I will ask you a question: What is the mode of production in Cuba?

[chegitz guevara]

So instead, I will ask you a question: What is the mode of production in Cuba?

Who owns the means of production? Is production for use-value or exchange-value? Whatever Cuba is, it isn't capitalist.

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't reject trade. What I said was that by tying himself to the state-capitalist USSR, Castro subordinated building socialism to a trade partnership, occuring within a capitalist frame work, with the Soviet Union. This meant that Cuba was objectivly not Socialist.I don't see how your position is "objective" - even if Cuba was dependent on the Soviet Union how does this mean that they did not try and "build Socialism"? Cuba was one of the world's biggest sugar producers before the revolution, and so it makes sense that they would continue producing sugar once the proletariat had seized power, because the country had developed a specialized infrastructure and labor pool based on the sugar industry. This does not mean that the Cuban government made the right decisions - they should have done to develop other sectors of the economy so they were not reliant on the export of a single product - but it does not mean that you can discount Cuba as "state-capitalist".

The Cuban people did a lot to "build Socialism" and to claim that Cuba was not socialist is do undermine the achievements they made.

Despite the lack of resources, the Cuban people were able to advance the provision of medical care in areas where people had previously not been able to access basic treatment, they reduced illiteracy by helping people who had never had an education to learn, and also have recently begun to developed new sectors of the economy by building on the government's high standard of welfare provision, such as biotechnology. How can you explain these advances if Cuba was simply another version of Capitalism? No other developing country has been able to achieve this standard of welfare when faced with the same problems that Cuba encountered, as an isolated socialist state.