Trotskyism on Cuba

[Dros]

I have heard from a lot of Trots that Cuba isn't capitalist. If this is so, what, then do you believe is the mode of production in Cuba? Is it socialist?

"Worker's State" (whatever that means) is not a mode of production. It is a description of the state apparatus.

[chegitz guevara]

I would argue that it is a transitional economy, i.e., it has elements of both capitalism and socialism. Because it is an isolated revolution, it lacks the capability to move forward towards full socialism, yet because of the proletarian character of the state, it can't yet move back to capitalism. Instead it vacillates between the two extremes depending on the balance of forces in the world. I would use this definition to characterize both the USSR and the PRC as well.

This, however, is not based on a deep study of the Cuban economy, but only a cursory one. I have always caught shit from Trots for this, but I also always thought they were making shit up to avoid admitting that it was possible for another class to overthrow capitalism. One of the reasons I'm a post-Trot.

[Dros]

I would argue that it is a transitional economy, i.e., it has elements of both capitalism and socialism. Because it is an isolated revolution, it lacks the capability to move forward towards full socialism, yet because of the proletarian character of the state, it can't yet move back to capitalism. Instead it vacillates between the two extremes depending on the balance of forces in the world. I would use this definition to characterize both the USSR and the PRC as well.

This, however, is not based on a deep study of the Cuban economy, but only a cursory one. I have always caught shit from Trots for this, but I also always thought they were making shit up to avoid admitting that it was possible for another class to overthrow capitalism. One of the reasons I'm a post-Trot.

Why does the fact that the state has a "proletarian charecter" mean that it can't be capitalist. I'm sure Jacob Richter will be telling us about "stamocap" shortly.:D

In all seriousness, I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

[Saorsa]

Why does the fact that the state has a "proletarian charecter" mean that it can't be capitalist. I'm sure Jacob Richter will be telling us about "stamocap" shortly.http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyism-cuba-t74246/revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif

I think we have to differentiate between a "state" and a "regime" or "government". I'm not totally clued up on the Marxist line on these matters, but I see it as possible for there to be a proletarian (to varying degrees) regime presiding over a capitalist state buerucracy, as we see today in Venezuela. This is an inherent and dangerous contradiction which can only be resolved either by the capitalistic state buerucracy being smashed and replaced with organs of workers power, or with the overthrow of the proletarian regime.

But if you analyse the state and it's institutions as being proletarian, this means that at the very least there must be a significant presence of socialist elements in the national economy. A proletarian state, which means military, police, organs of political power and so on existing within a capitalist economy would be a very major contradiction which I don't think could exist in the long term. Either the workers state or the capitalist economy would have to change it's character.

With the specific case of Cuba, I would have to characterise it as a form of state-capitalism (ordinary Cuban workers and peasants can't even go into the flash tourist hotels, unless they work there as cleaners, bartenders etc, how much more fucking degrading can you get?!?) with elements of socialism in it's state institutions and government. It is not, however, fully capitalist, so I kinda agree with the "transitional economy" theory, although I think Cuba leans more towards capitalism than it does anything else, and that Cuba's move towards capitalism has been it's general trajectory for the past 20 years or so.

It's basically a state-capitalist country whose government uses a portion of the national wealth to fund a welfare state and provide the services all of Cuba's supporters love to talk about.

A wee bit of a rambling post, I'm afraid... :blushing:

[Guest1]

I think we have to stay away from the easy sounding terminology of "state-capitalism", which in reality does not tell us much about the cuban economy.

Cuba is the result of a deformed revolution. It began as a revolution based on the American model, with basic national reforms, and as a result of American provocation, ended with the expropriation of all American interests on the island.

This just happened to be the majority of the economy. This was all nationalized. What this means is that, objectively, Capitalism was broken by the nationalization of the major industries. They passed into the hands of the state, and a planned economy became the dominant portion of the economy.

To this day, the market is still not dominant in Cuba's economy, and this is why it is still a transitional economy and a deformed workers' state. It is a deformed workers' state because the country is not run by the working class itself, but by a bureaucratic caste. The economy is planned, but bureaucratically, and not democratically. This is not to say that the Capitalist section of the economy does not exist, and has not been growing. Clearly, the tourist industry is a major Capitalist cancer, and privatization may be on the agenda.

A section of the bureaucracy wants to follow the Chinese model, but for the moment, the planned economy remains, though it is eroding.

It is very important to recognize that there rumblings amongst Cuban workers and students, people are looking to an alternative to the erosion of the gains of the revolution, and the ideas of Trotsky are gaining an echo on the island. The Cuban working class may yet surprise skeptics, and a healthy workers' state, with a democratically planned economy, would signal the beginning of a major historical turning point in the Latin American revolution. The Venezuelan revolution is having a huge effect, with people awakening to the possibilities of a revolution within the Cuban revolution.

[AGITprop]

I cannot say for sure, but it seems that Raul is edging on following the Chinese model eventually. What the important question is, is will the workers stand for this. It raises some interesting issues. I do not think that workers and farmers are armed in Cuba and this could pose a threat, because I am not entirely sure where the soldiers stand. The army is an independent body from the people in Cuba, as there is no militia but I doubt they would actually side with the bureaucracy. This is purely navel gazing but still brings up some important questions. Would there be an armed insurrection?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have always caught shit from Trots for this, but I also always thought they were making shit up to avoid admitting that it was possible for another class to overthrow capitalism. One of the reasons I'm a post-Trot.Why does the fact that the state has a "proletarian character" mean that it can't be capitalist. I'm sure Jacob Richter will be telling us about "stamocap" shortly.:D

In all seriousness, I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

Yes and no.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/law-uneven-development-t72803/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/trots-and-others-t72296/index.html

Neither link is the "Stamocap" link, but the first link does have a link to that thread. :D

The transitional "multi-economy," as Lenin said in "Left-Wing Childishness," (GO READ IT) will have, naturally, a transitional character:

1) Private "economy" (but cooperative economics and/or wholesale parecon can be applied here) for a lot of "niche" businesses;
2) "Managerial-revolutionary" state-capitalist "economy" for financially leveraged state corporations and central planning bureaus run by technocrats (which will give way to more soviet democracy later on);
3) Labour-time "economy" (proper socialist economics); and
4) Pure gift-based "economy" (communist economics).

[DrFreeman09 has suggested here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-300/message/1931) that the last two could be combined together, with the labour-time economics giving way to pure-gift economics. I'm still having problems with that approach, though. To me, this "moneyless economy in embryo" that is labour-time economics will last much longer than most people think. :( ]

[Guest1]

Jacob... please... you're a smart guy... but your points don't come across when you invent new terms.

Can you just use terms we are familiar with?

Think the labels that have worked for so long are too confusing? Explain what you mean then, dive deep into the issue, rather than relying on labels to do your explaining for you. New labels achieve that even less than the ones that the Marxist movement has used since the 19th century.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Care to elaborate which specific terms? [And please respond to my question on Chirino.]

"Social proletocracy" (-cracy) should be obvious. "Managerial-revolutionary" refers to Burnham's The Managerial Revolution. "Labour-time" is something you can ask Sentinel or perhaps someone who's familiar with Bordiga.

[Sufficed to say, "socialism" is NOT merely "state-capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people."]

[Guest1]

Using "outdated language", what is "social proletocracy"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Think of the history behind the formation of the term "social democracy": it was supposed to indicate the revolutionary merger of Marxism and the workers' movement. Read Kautsky's The Class Struggle or feel free to put an admin post in my "Merge Marxism" thread.

The problem with that term is the bourgeois connotation behind the latter term, so now some form of socialism was merged instead with "popular" elements (petit-bourgeoisie, for example).

Now, think of "rule" (-cracy) by the working class, instead of both the "pure democracy" (read: bourgeois democracy) that Lenin decried and the words "proletarism" and "revolutionary workerism" (RS2K), which sound economistic.



There you have it: "social proletocracy" advocates rule by the working class and expresses the revolutionary merger between Marxism and the workers' movement.

[AGITprop]

Is proletocracy another term for dictatorship of the proletariat?

If not, could you please explain the difference comrade.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ It's OK to talk about workers' rule to workers, but where's the socialism (hence the "social" prefix)?

If one talks about the dictatorship of either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, one either gets derided (bourgeois media) or faces scaremongering (the Newspeak notion that dictatorship = tyranny).

If one talks about democracy, there are bourgeois connotations that Bordiga rightfully pointed out (hence why revolutionary Marxists should be "anti-democratic" except in a classless society).

[AGITprop]

If one talks about democracy, there are bourgeois connotations that Bordiga rightfully pointed out (hence why revolutionary Marxists should be "anti-democratic" except in a classless society). Our understanding of democracy is not that of bourgeois-democracy. But I don't understand what you mean that revolutionary Marxists should be anti-democratic. How should we organize the party then?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ In a proletocratic manner:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic-centralism-vs-t70106/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1106744&postcount=15

[AGITprop]

No offense to you Jacob, but I am in no state to read page upon page of explanation. Is there no way you can quickly summarize point by point what a proletocratic manner actually is. I am an advocate of Democratic Centralism and would like to know your position.Sorry for the inconveniance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ In simpler language, proletocratic centralism is "unity in action, freedom of discussion AND criticism" (including the PUBLIC criticism that is prohibited amongst Trot parties in their misunderstanding of Lenin's democratic centralism).

In other words, there should be no limits on the post-decision criticisms that are made. With improved communication technology, the structure of the party should accommodate more input from below (rank-and-file, party-wide discussions AND voting, while reducing central bodies' roles to moderating roles in keeping an eye on localist tendencies).

[Guest1]

We're getting off-topic... but I really don't see the need for creating a brand new word that needs so much explaining.

Revolutionary workers' democracy works just fine.

I'll make a post on your ideas at some point, in one of the other threads you spoke of, but we should continue this conversation in another thread.

[AGITprop]

So, speculations on Cuba. As I stated earlier, I suspect Raul of leaning towards the Chinese model. This may occur over a very long period of time, but may happen very quickly. Either way, I doubt the masses will stand for it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ CyM: Fine by me. Feel free to drop in! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic-centralism-vs-t70106/index.html)

[BTW, "revolutionary workers' democracy" has twelve syllables in three words, while proletocracy has only five in one. ;) ]


So, speculations on Cuba. As I stated earlier, I suspect Raul of leaning towards the Chinese model. This may occur over a very long period of time, but may happen very quickly. Either way, I doubt the masses will stand for it.

The Chinese "model" had a population advantage. The problem with Cuba is that it's main economic sector is tourism; it doesn't have much of a manufacturing base.

[BobKKKindle$]

A Workers State is a state in which the property of the bourgeoisie has been expropriated, and is owned by the state apparatus. This is not the same as state capitalism, whereby the state intervenes in the economy (through the nationalization of sectors such as the arms industry, or demand-management policy) to support the rule of the bourgeoisie, when the market is no longer capable of ensuring that their class interests are protected, for example, during a war, when it is necessary to gear the economy towards imperial conquest. A Workers state can emerge through a proletarian revolution, or through an external force, as occurred in Eastern Europe after WWII.

I don't see how this concept is "unscientific" - it is far more "unscientific" to argue that a country can change from being socialist to capitalist as a result of a change in the party leadership (the mythical danger of "revisionism") because this attributes historical change to the actions of individuals, whereas Marxists seek to explain historical change as a result of underlying economic forces and class struggle.

Cuba is, I agree, a transitional economy, which combines elements of capitalism and socialism, and it is possible that Cuba will eventually become a capitalist economy, as the bureaucracy will seek to attain private ownership in order to solidify their position of power. The growing power of the pro-Chinese faction suggests that this process may have begun. Capitalism could also be restored through external forces (invasion, or a change of government through subversion) which would allow foreign firms to attain control of the Cuban economy, and Cuba would return to the status of a neo-colony, geared to the demands of the United States, and incapable of development.

[Niccolò Rossi]

A Workers State is a state in which the property of the bourgeoisie has been expropriated, and is owned by the state apparatus.

Since when is state ownership defined as socialism. Socialism is the stage of society where the means of production are under the control of the proletariat as a whole, not the benevolent state apparatus (even under dictatorship of the proletariat). I'm sure Jacob Richter will argue as I, that socialism is defined as a stage of society where the means of production are under the direct control of the proletariat as whole and where the proletariat are compensated not by wages but by labour-time vouchers, representing the full-value of their labour (the Bordigaist perspective).


This is not the same as state capitalism, whereby the state intervenes in the economy (through the nationalization of sectors such as the arms industry, or demand-management policy) to support the rule of the bourgeoisie, when the market is no longer capable of ensuring that their class interests are protected, for example, during a war, when it is necessary to gear the economy towards imperial conquest.Of course the definition you provide is "state capitalism". However, a system where by surplus-value is extracted from the labour of the proletariat, and the proletariat in no way control the means of production, can in my opinion only be regarded as a state capitalism. Whether or not a propertied class exists is irrelevant as the relations between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie under capitalism are the same as those between the proletariat and the state apparatus in Cuba and other "deformed worker's states".

[BobKKKindle$]

Since when is state ownership defined as socialism. Socialism is the stage of society where the means of production are under the control of the proletariat as a whole, not the benevolent state apparatus (even under dictatorship of the proletariat).
Socialism is a transitional mode of production, before Communism, and was sometimes described by Marx as the "lower stage of communist society" and differs from the "higher stage" in economic relations (people are paid according to how much work they do, not according to their needs) and in the continued existence of a state apparatus, to protect the working class against the hostile restoration of capitalism. Socialism can also exhibit the continued influence of capitalist ideas.

Therefore, The Soviet societies were still socialist in their basic structure, but progress towards communism was impeded and eventually reversed by the bureaucratic degeneration of these societies, arising from the low level of development of the productive forces, which enabled a bureaucracy to gain political power, which was then used as a tool to gain access to material privileges and undermine proletarian democracy. They were not class societies, however.


I'm sure Jacob Richter will argue as I, that socialism is defined as a stage of society where the means of production are under the direct control of the proletariat as whole and where the proletariat are compensated not by wages but by labour-time vouchers, representing the full-value of their labour (the Bordigaist perspective).What do you mean by the "direct control" of the "proletariat as a whole"? This is a vague description which could be interpreted to mean many different things, depending on what you want it to mean. Why is it necessary that a society use LTVs to be classified as socialist? Do you actually have any reason for using this narrow definition? Why should we accept Bordiga's view?


However, a system where by surplus-value is extracted from the labour of the proletariat, and the proletariat in no way control the means of production,The accumulation of surplus value is necessary to develop the forces of production, and so a society can still be socialist even if workers are not paid the full value of their labour, as in a socialist society there exists no parasitic ruling class.


Whether or not a propertied class exists is irrelevant as the relations between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie under capitalism are the same as those between the proletariat and the state apparatus in Cuba and other "deformed worker's states".It only makes sense to speak of "state capitalism" if the society one is examining is a class society. The bureaucracy in deformed/degenerated workers states was not a class (only a caste) because they did not have ownership of the means of production, they did not generate income through property, and they were unable to transmit property to their children as inheritance. Marxists understand class in terms of relationship to the means of production, and so the absence of any relationship based on the ownership of property means that the bureaucracy was not a new class, only a ruling stratum. Cuba does not have the same production relations as a capitalist country.

This debate (that is, whether Cuba is a workers state or a state capitalist society) is important, because if Cuba is state-capitalist there would be no principled reason to defend Cuba against internal or external (market) capitalist restoration, because, according to state-capitalist theory, a market economy would only be a step "sideways" (that is, a change to a different form of capitalism) not a counter-revolution.

[chegitz guevara]

Why does the fact that the state has a "proletarian character" mean that it can't be capitalist. [snip]

In all seriousness, I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

I never said they were mutually exclusive, and you are quite correct that a proletarian state could sit atop a capitalist economy. What was the NEP except that very situation? It is, however, quite clear that a free market doesn't exist on the island, and that what market does exist is limited to getting hard currency from Western tourists. Otherwise, Cuba is a planned, command economy run by a deformed workers state.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Since when is state ownership defined as socialism. Socialism is the stage of society where the means of production are under the control of the proletariat as a whole, not the benevolent state apparatus (even under dictatorship of the proletariat). I'm sure Jacob Richter will argue as I, that socialism is defined as a stage of society where the means of production are under the direct control of the proletariat as whole and where the proletariat are compensated not by wages but by labour-time vouchers, representing the full-value of their labour (the Bordigaist perspective).

Indeed (and I have argued this numerous times before):

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/318/hlcorbg.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-300/message/1928

Nevertheless, since proletocracy is still fully in the capitalist mode of production, the "labour-time" economy will emerge as one of three or four economies in the transitional/proletocratic "multi-economy" (including the much maligned state-capitalist economy).

What the Trots call "socialism" is merely the culmination of "state-capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people," in Lenin's words. :)

[Of course, Lenin mistakenly equated non-market, worker-run state-capitalism with socialism. :( ]


Why should we accept Bordiga's view?

If you read my CPGB article above, you'll realize that it was actually Marx himself who advocated labour-time economics as the foundation of the socialist mode of production. Bordiga merely advocated a return to this after the social-democratic mistake of equating non-market, worker-run state capitalism with the socialist mode of production.

[Niccolò Rossi]

What do you mean by the "direct control" of the "proletariat as a whole"?

What I mean is socialism is not benevolent state capitalism, run for the "benefit" of the proletariat by state bureaucrats. In order for the proletariat to abolish itself as a class and bring about a classless communist society, it must bring to an end the conditions that define it as a class, that is as slaves to the forces of capital which extract from their labour surplus value.

How the proletariat have direct control over the means of production can be debated, but it is certainly far more than centrally planned state ownership coordinated by bureaucrats, even if "democratically controlled".

The direct control of the means of production most certainly would involve worker's councils or soviets where by workers themselves wield power over how they labour. Of course their would still need to be a co-ordinating central economic body, but this would be composed by soviet democracy.


Why is it necessary that a society use LTVs to be classified as socialist? Do you actually have any reason for using this narrow definition?

Did Marx not advocate that in a socialist society distribution would be organised "to each accroding to his contribution".


What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.


The accumulation of surplus value is necessary to develop the forces of production, and so a society can still be socialist even if workers are not paid the full value of their labour, as in a socialist society there exists no parasitic ruling class.

Even if in a "socialist society" there exists no parasitic class, the relations of proletariat to the state and the means of production are the same as under capitalism as the proletariat are still slaves to capital, whether or not it is form their "benefit"


It only makes sense to speak of "state capitalism" if the society one is examining is a class society. The bureaucracy in deformed/degenerated workers states was not a class (only a caste) because they did not have ownership of the means of production, they did not generate income through property, and they were unable to transmit property to their children as inheritance. Marxists understand class in terms of relationship to the means of production, and so the absence of any relationship based on the ownership of property means that the bureaucracy was not a new class, only a ruling stratum.


They do not eliminate the private ownership of the means of production, but only the juridical aspect of individual ownership. The means of production remain ‘private’ property as far as the workers are concerned; the workers are deprived of any control over the means of production. The means of production are only ‘collectivised’ for the bureaucracy which owns and manages them in a collective manner.

The state bureaucracy which takes on the specific function of extracting surplus labour from the proletariat and of accumulating national capital constitutes a class. But it is not a new class. The role it plays shows that it is nothing but the same old bourgeoisie in its statified form. Concerning its privileges as a class, what is specific to the state bureaucracy is primarily the fact that it obtains its privileges not through revenues arising out of the individual ownership of capital, but through ‘running costs’, bonuses, and fixed forms of payment given to it according to the function its members fulfil - a form of remuneration which simply has the appearance of ‘wages’ and which is often tens or hundreds of times higher than the wages given to the working class.



Cuba does not have the same production relations as a capitalist country.

The relations of proletariat to the means of production are the same in Cuba as in a capitalist country, thus the proletariat still exist as an exploited class whether or not a propertied class exists.