Fidel Castro retires: The problem is not the rider but the horse

[Leo]

Fidel Castro retires: The problem is not the rider but the horse

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/castro-quits

In the week of February 18th 2008, the Cuban "president", Fidel Castro, announced that he no longer aspired to lead the Cuban capitalist state. This has motivated the right wing bourgeoisie, through their speakers, to announce a complete end to communism and the end of the Cuban revolution. In the same way as they did with the fall of the Eastern Bloc, they try to confuse the workers, without realizing that they - the bourgeoisie - are celebrating their own burial. With their speculation on possible disappearance of the Cuban model, it is not the proletariat who loses - it is capitalism. On the other side of the fence, the left wing of capital, with sergeant Hugo Chavez at the front, assures us that the revolution continues. To counter this nonsense that aims to confuse the working class, we have to clarify a few things.

In January 1959 there wasn't a real social revolution in Cuba, but an exchange of ruling factions, with the ascent of leaders from the rural Castro-Guevarist and cienfuegist revolt to power, overthrowing sergeant Batista. Things turned around from the right wing of capital, manifested in the military dictatorship, to the left of capital; the latter spearheading a cluster of reforms and nationalizations, that far from elevating the level of consciousness and proletarian struggle, accommodated them to capitalism. By the same token, the promises of a change of situation for the majority felt short. There was a relative betterment in education and hygiene - which was made in the interest of Cuban capital since it exports to many countries educators and medics - but the rationing that has persisted through half a century demonstrates a dramatic lack of basic necessities. Anyone who wishes to acquire something minimally decent has to pay for it through the ridiculously high prices in special shops which cater for tourists or the black market. The privileges of an exploitative minority persist at a level even more ostentatious than in the times of Batista: the members of the so called "Communist" Party, the high-ranking military functionaries, etc. have access to all types of luxuries that deeply contrast with the deprivation and suffering of the majority.

In Cuba there wasn't a revolution. The regime changed hands, and the taking of power, instead of being made through parliament, was made through insurrection. Capitalism is still capitalism. They only changed their dress-code: the liberal clothes of suit and tie were replaced by the green uniform of men with beards.

Another aspect is the pretended "anti-imperialist" character of Mr. Castro. In the first place, any capitalist state in order to survive is necessarily imperialist, since it has to make others submit and has to supply itself with the military, economic, political, ideological and cultural means that would permit it to defend its interests in the midst of the world imperialist jungle. This is why in Cuba the majority of the country's resources are concentrated in the maintenance of a fairly powerful army, which has waged wars in Africa (for example Angola) under the pretext of "anti-imperialism." In the same manner, Cuba has promoted itself as a "socialist country" through a powerful propaganda apparatus. With these means - obviously limited because of the small size of the country- the Cuban regime has tried to carve its own niche in the struggle nations wage against each other.

Fidel is certainly taking advantage of the discontent with the USA, presenting this country as the great empire, due to the contradictions he had with this nation, but at the same time he denounced American imperialism, he praised soviet social-imperialism; now he supports the Bolivarian imperialism of sergeant Chavez. Please, tell me then if there is a bad imperialism and a good one; would it be something like a terrorist being dedicated to the suppression of terrorism?

At the beginning of the "Cuban Revolution" - 1959 and 1970 - it was Fidel Castro who, in that famous speech to the UN, confessed to not being a communist, but that his attempts of trying to get a reasonable deal with the powerful northern neighbor failed. Then, he changed his coat and allied to Russian imperialism. Consequently, the old Cuban "Communist" party was forced to merge with the "July 26 movement" and constituted itself as a new "Communist" Party that, since then, has ruled as the only party.

The Cuban regime has loudly proclaimed itself as "anti-imperialist" reducing the label of "imperialism" to exclusively the United States. Humanity is fed up with the savagery and destruction of Yankee imperialism; however imperialism is not combated by states that are supposedly "anti-imperialist," but through the independent and internationalist struggle of the proletariat. There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" imperialism. There aren't "good" states that pay allegiance to the law and "humanism" on the one hand, and states that have the monopoly on tyranny, militarism, and barbarism on the other. To combat imperialism through a state, in the way that Castro and the Bolivarian Chavez proposes to us, would be like trusting the fight against terrorism to a terrorist.

Another great lie that has been perpetuated is the one of "communist" Fidel or "socialist" Cuba. The first thing to evaluate in this case, is if in Cuba there exists surplus value, wage-labor, private property, and if there can exist in a capitalist world an island of socialism.
In Cuba there exists wage-labor and the exploitation of man by man. Instead of there being a classical capitalist class there is a bureaucracy that administers the state against the majority. What has happened was just a juridical change in property, changing it from particular to bureaucratic; the title of the property has passed from the particulars to the State, but it still is private property since the great majority is deprived of every medium of existence, and to survive has to accept working everyday in the conditions imparted by the Boss. The only difference is that, while in other countries the boss is Mr. Someone from Company Something, in Cuba the boss is Mr. State.

Fidel Castro - and now Chavez, Morales etc. - reproduce the great Stalinist lie: making people believe that nationalizations were a step to socialism - trying to persuade that socialism in one country is a step towards socialism or a variant of socialism, while in reality, it is nothing more than a facet of capitalism: state-capitalism

Nucleus of Internationalist Discussion (Dominican Republic)

[chegitz guevara]

What an utterly awful article.

[Zurdito]

It was interesting but raised questions of its own:



Instead of there being a classical capitalist class there is a bureaucracy that administers the state against the majority.


This appears to note a qualitative difference between a bureaucracy-run state and a borugeois run state. But it does not examine why the "classical capitalist class" should no longer exist in Cuba, and nor does it really explain what implications this has for how we should classify the Cuban state.

[PRC-UTE]

What an utterly awful article.

Aside from relying on recursive and unpersuasive arguments, absurd claims that Cuba was fighting for its own interests in Angola, obscure Maoist rhetoric, weak explanations and circular reasoning, it's pretty decent.

[chegitz guevara]

:lol:

[BIG BROTHER]

wooa! It doesn't take a genious to realize that Cuba isn't a socialist heaven in its way of becoming a communist society, but this article is to pesimistic, biased, aburd. I mean Cuba as an imperialist power? sight...

[Niccolò Rossi]

Well I'll admit, it's not a particularly good article, but it does raise some important points about 'socialist' Cuba, something other comrades are so desperate to show 'solidarity' towards.



This appears to note a qualitative difference between a bureaucracy-run state and a borugeois run state. But it does not examine why the "classical capitalist class" should no longer exist in Cuba, and nor does it really explain what implications this has for how we should classify the Cuban state.

You right, but that's because it's all taken for granted I believe. You can find an explanation in the ICC Platform, here (http://en.internationalism.org/node/609) and here (http://en.internationalism.org/node/610).

[Keyser]

Yet another anti-communist and anti-working class rant from the left 'communists' that runs contrary to both logic and reality.

According to these left 'communists', no revolution is good enough for them and their infantile sectarianism and their petty and adolescent posturing. From Russia all the way to the last workers and peasants uprising in Oaxaca (despite it failure and being crushed by the Mexican bourgeois state) the left 'communists' do nothing but write rubbish articles that simply write of the struggles of the oppressed against their class enemies and imperialist powers.

I'll post an actual reply to this pro-imperialist and pro-bourgeois rubbish later as I am busy at the moment.

Like another poster said, an awful article.

[Niccolò Rossi]

According to these left 'communists', no revolution is good enough for them

Wow, where you trying to purposely insult yourself? Your implying by this comment that we should accept any old 'revolution' as being good enough. I like that attitude, "Cuba's not close to socialist, but o well, it's good enough..."

[Keyser]

Wow, where you trying to purposely insult yourself?


No.

Are you making statements that bear no relation to what I actually say?



Your implying by this comment that we should accept any old 'revolution' as being good enough. I like that attitude, "Cuba's not close to socialist, but o well, it's good enough..."


I never said that.

The article calls Cuba an imperialist country and that all capitalist states are imperialist. A materialist (ie; a Marxist and communist) analysis will show this absurd claim by the left 'communists' to be complete and utter rubbish.

And the point I raised it true. Not one uprising or any actual successful revolution has been supported by the left 'communists', they write them all off. Even uprisings that are apparently non-authoritarian and have been supported by the anarchists and others such as Oaxaca or the 1968 Paris uprising have been written off by the left 'communists' in their usual knee-jerk sectarian manner.

Their petty sectarianism is both depressing and will mean that left 'communists' will never be a part of any revolution and will remain for all time as a collection of small and irrelevant sects.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Another aspect is the pretended "anti-imperialist" character of Mr. Castro. In the first place, any capitalist state in order to survive is necessarily imperialist, since it has to make others submit and has to supply itself with the military, economic, political, ideological and cultural means that would permit it to defend its interests in the midst of the world imperialist jungle.

Utter rubbish. Rosa Luxemburg would NOT have said that if she were alive today. Heck, I don't think David Harvey would agree with that childish rubbish above. :glare:


Then, he changed his coat and allied to Russian imperialism.

I think that two RevMarx comrades in this thread are a bit too pro-Cuba. This sentence is actually correct. :(

Nobody in this thread (not even Comrade Zeitgeist_91, for some reason) has addressed this profoundly correct statement, however poorly written it was:


Another great lie that has been perpetuated is the one of "communist" Fidel or "socialist" Cuba. The first thing to evaluate in this case, is if in Cuba there exists surplus value, wage-labor

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-error-re-t74487/index.html


trying to persuade that socialism in one country is a step towards socialism or a variant of socialism, while in reality, it is nothing more than a facet of capitalism: state-capitalism

"Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!" (Wilhelm Liebknecht)



Overall, it's a mixed article written by Sabbath-sectarians.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Nobody in this thread (not even Comrade Zeitgeist_91, for some reason) has addressed this profoundly correct statementMy apologizes, I took that fact for granted as it's been discussed numerous times before (I'll try not to take anything for granted in the future, can cause a lot of problems of interpretation).

Indeed you are right, the fundamental question is whether exploitation exists. It does and it is inevitably a symptom of state ownership of means of production as opposed to a collective control by the working class as a whole. Capitalism is capitalism while it does, whether it be state monopoly or laissez-faire.

[Leo]

This appears to note a qualitative difference between a bureaucracy-run state and a borugeois run state. But it does not examine why the "classical capitalist class" should no longer exist in Cuba, and nor does it really explain what implications this has for how we should classify the Cuban state.

I think the emphasis there lies upon the phrase "classical", it does not say that there is no capitalist class, it says that while there still is one, it is not as such in the "classical" sense, that is in the form of "free" capital. Zeitgeist_91 answered this fairly, I believe.


absurd claims that Cuba was fighting for its own interests in Angola

Obviously, they were also fighting for the interests of the Russian imperialist block.


Utter rubbish. Rosa Luxemburg would NOT have said that if she were alive today.

Actually, that's exactly what she would have said.


The article calls Cuba an imperialist country and that all capitalist states are imperialist.

That's right, it's Rosa Luxemburg's analysis.


Not one uprising or any actual successful revolution has been supported by the left 'communists'

Let's see the "count": October Revolution, Hungarian Revolution, German Revolution, Italian "red years" and all other genuinely proletarian and internationalist revolutionary movements of the period, were not only supported by the left communists, but included left communists.

Other than that, of course, left communists are not interested in nationalist, pro-imperialist, anti-working class bourgeois "uprisings" but in the struggles and revolutionary attempts of the working class. Funny you mentioned Oaxaca. There, you of course supported APPO where we supported and emphasized the struggle of the teachers who started it and other workers involved in it.


or the 1968 Paris uprising

And of course, left communists did not miss that one either: they participated in it, in fact they were strengthen by their involvement.

Keyser, you are basically screaming at something about which you haven't got the slightest idea.

[Andy Bowden]

Ok, if they were fighting for the Russian "imperialist" bloc, what resources did Russia exploit from Angola?

[Leo]

Ok, if they were fighting for the Russian "imperialist" bloc, what resources did Russia exploit from Angola?

I would recommend you to read on imperialism, specifically on the differences between imperialism and colonialism.

[Devrim]

Ok, if they were fighting for the Russian "imperialist" bloc, what resources did Russia exploit from Angola?

It tends to be more difficult to exploit resources in the Middle of a war. I think it would be fair to ask what resources they wanted to exploit. I would imagine the answer to be oil and diamonds.

Devrim

[Andy Bowden]

"You would imagine" - so you don't actually have any sources as to how and if, the Soviet bureaucracy benefited from Angola the same way the western ruling class does with the resources of Africa today?

The Angolans successfully repelled the Apartheid armies, and were aligned with the Soviet Union - did the Soviets extract oil at below market prices, at favourable prices to the Soviet Union, or enter similar arrangements with diamonds etc?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, that's exactly what she would have said...

That's right, it's Rosa Luxemburg's analysis.

So Haiti is an imperialist state? :laugh:

Andy, there were instances wherein the Soviets acted in an imperialist manner (export of capital), such as Soviet investment in the Aswan Dam.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't care what Red Rosa "would" have said. She's dead. She didn't say it. You're just putting words in her mouth. I'm only concerned with what she did say, and only as a means of trying to understand her methods, because her conclusions have as much use in my world as my conclusions have in hers.

[Unicorn]

So Haiti is an imperialist state? :laugh:

Andy, there were instances wherein the Soviets acted in an imperialist manner (export of capital), such as Soviet investment in the Aswan Dam.
How is foreign aid imperialist?

[spartan]

How is foreign aid imperialist?

It usually comes with strings attached which are favourable to the country giving the aid.

[Andy Bowden]

The Soviet assistance to building the Aswan Dam in Egypt is not imperialism by any stretch of the imagination.

Imperialism underdevelops a country by exploiting its resources for a capitalist class - it doesn't provide aid for building its infrastructure.

[Devrim]

"You would imagine" - so you don't actually have any sources as to how and if, the Soviet bureaucracy benefited from Angola the same way the western ruling class does with the resources of Africa today?

The Angolans successfully repelled the Apartheid armies, and were aligned with the Soviet Union - did the Soviets extract oil at below market prices, at favourable prices to the Soviet Union, or enter similar arrangements with diamonds etc?

As I said I would imagine. I do know that UNITA were supplied with Eastern European weapons in exchange for diamonds, and that De Beers paid for South African mercenaries to fight on behalf of the Government. It was that kind of war.

Devrim

[chegitz guevara]

The Soviet assistance to building the Aswan Dam in Egypt is not imperialism by any stretch of the imagination.

Imperialism underdevelops a country by exploiting its resources for a capitalist class - it doesn't provide aid for building its infrastructure.

Imperialism will build the infrastructure of a colony, but for the purposes of extraction. For example, they'll build a port or a railway, not to the benefit of the country, but for the benefit of the international market. A lot of foreign aid does come with strings attached, i.e., country x wants to build a bridge, so country y gives them money, but they have to buy their steel and concrete and hire a firm from country y to build the bridge. Imperialism doesn't so much underdevelop a colony as it shapes its development in a particular direction, like a bonsai tree.

As you note, Soviet assistance doesn't come anywhere close to this. This is a reductionist understanding of imperialism, which only looks at a laundry list, checks it off, and declares such and such to be imperialist, rather than looking at things in their context. The Soviets did not build the Aswan High Dam to help the Soviet economy or Soviet industry. They did it in order to get a key ally in a strategic region. The USSR had to buy its friends.

[chegitz guevara]

As I said I would imagine. I do know that UNITA were supplied with Eastern European weapons in exchange for diamonds, and that De Beers paid for South African mercenaries to fight on behalf of the Government. It was that kind of war.

Devrim

Given that UNITA was opposed to the Soviet allied government, this doesn't really support your point. Eastern European weapons are easy and cheap to get in Africa, and pretty much available from any dealer. All this tells is is that blood diamonds were used to oppose Soviet "imperialism."

[Andy Bowden]

The Soviets did not build the Aswan High Dam to help the Soviet economy or Soviet industry. They did it in order to get a key ally in a strategic region. The USSR had to buy its friends.

Getting allies in this manner still doesn't equate to imperialism. I dunno if thats what you were arguing, I might have misinterpreted you.

And as for UNITA, they were primarily armed by the western powers and South Africa, which were imperialist.

There was also Chinese support for UNITA - but even then the Chinese did not benefit economically. It was more to do with a mental Maoist viewpoint that Soviet "Social Imperialism" was the main enemy.

[chegitz guevara]

I was expanding on your point generally, and correcting a minor mistake.

[black magick hustla]

Lol I translated that article for the ICC. It was written by some Dominican guy.

I don't completely agree with everything in the article (i.e. Communist Party bureacrats having more ostentatious privilieges than Batista lackeys). However, imperialism is a world-system (and no, I am not using Lenn's definition so shut the fuck up, the term was used way before Lenin) because every capitalist state wants to agressively expand (although not every state can). Agressive geopolitics don't necessarily equate to finance-dependent economies. Anyone with a half-brain knows that satellite "socialist" states were tied to Moscow, and so was every post-stalin Communist Party. Soviet apologists love to give a very narrow definition to imperialism, because they don't want to condemn what was obviously an agressive, expansionist realpolitik.

I agree its not a very good leaflet, but it is informative, and not every communist militant is a writer (or has a college degree for that matter).

[Devrim]

Given that UNITA was opposed to the Soviet allied government, this doesn't really support your point. Eastern European weapons are easy and cheap to get in Africa, and pretty much available from any dealer. All this tells is is that blood diamonds were used to oppose Soviet "imperialism."

They were supplied direct from Eastern Europe, not from any dealer. Also the other point was about De Beers supporting the MPLA Government against its own states proxy armies.

So basically you have Eastern Europeans selling guns to those who are opposed to the Soviet side, and a large South African based company paying for mercenaries to fight against South African backed militias.

These sort of things tend to happen in wars like this.

Devrim

[Zurdito]

Imperialism will build the infrastructure of a colony, but for the purposes of extraction. For example, they'll build a port or a railway, not to the benefit of the country, but for the benefit of the international market. A lot of foreign aid does come with strings attached, i.e., country x wants to build a bridge, so country y gives them money, but they have to buy their steel and concrete and hire a firm from country y to build the bridge. Imperialism doesn't so much underdevelop a colony as it shapes its development in a particular direction, like a bonsai tree.


Hmmm, Leninist imperialism is not classical colonialism. Imperialism is the export of capital by the imperialist borugeoisie to counteract the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and to counteract the tendency to crises of overaccumulation. It doesn't always coincide with developing a country's infrastructure, it can be based on simply dumping capital or commodities, mass scale privatisations and buy-outs/bankrupting of domestic capitalism to replace it (but not actually develop anything), and financial services like loans - in fact aggressively chasing third world govt's for loans, beginning in the 1970's, was a key part of the growth of the financial sector in imperialist states and a way to put to use idle capital.

So overall I don't think there is any proof that "imperialism" today has anything to do with advancements in infrastructure in semi-colonies - just like there is no proof that any advances of the means of production today are under capitalism today are "due to capitalism". The Leninist theory is that imperialism is capitalism in decay. So yes, it very much does keep semi-colonies underdeveloped, as dumping of imperialist capital is the reason why they can never become advanced capitalist states developing a sufficient surplus within their own economies to make the gradual granting of concession viable as has happened in the west.

[chegitz guevara]

They were supplied direct from Eastern Europe, not from any dealer. Also the other point was about De Beers supporting the MPLA Government against its own states proxy armies.

So basically you have Eastern Europeans selling guns to those who are opposed to the Soviet side, and a large South African based company paying for mercenaries to fight against South African backed militias.

These sort of things tend to happen in wars like this.

Devrim

DeBeers only signed a contract with the MPLA government in 1990. However, during the 90s, 93% of all diamonds were sold by UNITA. DeBeers also contracted with the govenrment of Zaire to get weapons for UNITA.

UNITA's direct Eastern European arms suppliers came after the fall of the USSR.

I'm not really sure you know what you're talking about.

[Cheung Mo]

Didn't the Kremlin let Winnie and Ike overthrow Mossadegh because Winnie offered Stalin a sweetheart deal on British-controlled Iranian oil?

[Die Neue Zeit]

As you note, Soviet assistance doesn't come anywhere close to this. This is a reductionist understanding of imperialism, which only looks at a laundry list, checks it off, and declares such and such to be imperialist, rather than looking at things in their context. The Soviets did not build the Aswan High Dam to help the Soviet economy or Soviet industry. They did it in order to get a key ally in a strategic region. The USSR had to buy its friends.

You're correcting me for the second time, damn it! [However, I was basing my assertion on Lenin's stuff regarding the export of capital.]

Or are you?

On the other hand, Egypt did buy Soviet weapons during that time, so maybe that was part of the deal. :confused:

[Devrim]

DeBeers only signed a contract with the MPLA government in 1990. However, during the 90s, 93% of all diamonds were sold by UNITA. DeBeers also contracted with the govenrment of Zaire to get weapons for UNITA.

So what you are saying is that DeBeers supported both sides at different times. The fact that the vast majority of diamonds were sold by UNITA doesn't mean that all were, and probably means they had control of the resources. That is what people fight wars for.

UNITA's direct Eastern European arms suppliers came after the fall of the USSR.[/quote]

I don't believe this t o be true.


I'm not really sure you know what you're talking about.

I know very little about it, as I said earlier. I think it is pretty clear though that it is the sort of war that the working class has no interest in taking any side in.

It is also a bit off topic.

Devrim

[Guerrilla22]

why in Cuba the majority of the country's resources are concentrated in the maintenance of a fairly powerful army, which has waged wars in Africa (for example Angola) under the pretext of "anti-imperialism."

What utter non sense. Most of Cuba's military assets were and still are those that were provided to them by the USSR. They sent guerrilla fighters to Angola, carrrying little more than a rifle. The idea that Cuba maintains some kind of super army is absurd.

[chegitz guevara]

Didn't the Kremlin let Winnie and Ike overthrow Mossadegh because Winnie offered Stalin a sweetheart deal on British-controlled Iranian oil?

Stalin died the same year the Anglo-American imperialists overthrew Iran. They were likely distracted. In addition, the Americans had previously made it very clear to the Soviets that they would brook no interference in Iran, with the American ambassador telling the Soviets to withdraw at the end of WWII of the U.S. would let them have it "with both barrels."

[chegitz guevara]

So what you are saying is that DeBeers supported both sides at different times. The fact that the vast majority of diamonds were sold by UNITA doesn't mean that all were, and probably means they had control of the resources. That is what people fight wars for.

Capitalists have no problem buying and selling from both sides in a conflict. It's kinda like how capitalists will give money to both parties in an election.



UNITA's direct Eastern European arms suppliers came after the fall of the USSR.

I don't believe this to be true.

Do some research.

[RNK]

Actually, the forces sent to Congo, Angola, Bolivia etc usually didn't even have rifles; most if not all arms were supplied by local forces and dealers. Cuba sent these operations under huge secrecy; they could not supply them with so much as bars of soap.

[Andy Bowden]

I think it is pretty clear though that it is the sort of war that the working class has no interest in taking any side in.

I'm not sure if im misinterpreting what war you are referring to, but I think it was pretty obvious to the black working class then and now that they had an interest in smashing the armies of apartheid.

[Devrim]

Capitalists have no problem buying and selling from both sides in a conflict. It's kinda like how capitalists will give money to both parties in an election.

As could the Soviets.


Do some research.

It was kind of a polite way of saying that you are wrong.

Devrim

[Andy Bowden]

Devrim, what are your sources re Eastern Bloc funding for UNITA? The only references I can find to UNITA getting arms from Eastern Europe refer to Bulgaria, and in the 90s, after the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc regimes collapsed.

The only reference I can find to Bulgarian actions in Angola when it was allied with the Soviet Union claims they supported the MPLA.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/BRR.htm


The MPLA received continuous support from Scandinavia, the Soviet Union, East Germany,Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and, until the Soviets began providing more extensive aid, the People's Republic of China.

[spartan]

Perhaps Devrim is confusing Chinese weapons (The Chinese supported UNITA) with Eastern European weapons as the Chinese weapons were usually copies of Soviet, and thus Eastern European, weapons?