just got back from Cuba.. my brief thoughts

[R_P_A_S]

Well.. What can I say? I'm overwhelmed. I will later elaborate more and will want to discuss topics with you guys. I'm at the airport in Mexico.. my flight does not leave for an other 22 hours.. OUCH! I know. at least there's internet.
But I would like to say that I spent the last 6 days in Cuba struggling in my own way. I took a taxi ONLY once. walked all over Havana and it's hell for a vegetarian. The food fucking sucks! The only good meals I had were with the family I was staying but that was limited to Rice, eggs, Bread and Beans. I must say the Mangos are AMAZING! all the fruit there is good!

One of the things I'd like to talk about is the youth. people even in their late 20's and early 30's. I was a bit disappointed on how fucking annoying they are. they nag you to death. It could had been worst. If I were in a poor area in Mexico they would had killed me for sure. I also understand the situation and the Revolution but I don't think they do. As many elders told me that the young cubans don't understand the revolution and want more material goods and money.. But how? How can this generation have those wants if they are rarely exposed to it?

[R_P_A_S]

I would also like to add, that even though i had some very disappointing experiences with with Cuban people... my last day there I met two good communist university students that also showed me that theres good revolutionaries in Cuba.

[Hiero]

I though the food was alright. It is limited, but the sweets are pretty good, and you can get like a coffee and a sweet for like 10c from a street vendor.

[R_P_A_S]

I though the food was alright. It is limited, but the sweets are pretty good, and you can get like a coffee and a sweet for like 10c from a street vendor.

coffee and sweets? you must of been running wild huh? haha

[Davie zepeda]

young Cubans see t.v propaganda from Miami so it's difficult to not have that in young Cubans but the elders should set them straight .

[bootleg42]

young Cubans see t.v propaganda from Miami so it's difficult to not have that in young Cubans but the elders should set them straight .

That's my friend right there. He basically got brainwashed by all the Miami shit. Well..........he found out it was not as nice as they pictured it. He wants to go back...but at the same time, he hates Castro, socialism, the whole nine yards and he wants Cuba to be like "every other latin american country".

But the funny part is, when he talks about Cuba, he never says ANYTHING bad about it. Everything he mentions is good. Only when you mention "socialism" and Castro will he start mouthing off and he doesn't even know what to say against it.

[Leo]

As many elders told me that the young cubans don't understand the revolution and want more material goods and money

I'm pretty sure lots of elder Cubans want those too actually.

You tend to want better living conditions materially when you are a proletarian living in a capitalist country.

[Qwerty489]

young Cubans see t.v propaganda from Miami so it's difficult to not have that in young Cubans but the elders should set them straight .
Why does the Cuban State allow such transmissions? Even the USSR was able to block bourgeois radio transmissions quiet easily.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I'm pretty sure lots of elder Cubans want those too actually.

You tend to want better living conditions materially when you are a proletarian living in a capitalist country.

So what do you propose the Cubans do?

Since they are already capitalist, it shouldn't matter if every state-owned enterprise is safely moved into private hands and rural co-operatives are broken up, right?

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, what the pro-Cubans on the forum have to explain is why those people want those material goods. Are the workers simply demanding a 'free lunch,' like the Spartacists said about the Polish insurrection in the 1980s? Or maybe Cuba is indeed a state of statified capitalism, and thus fails to provide the needs of the great majority of the population?

Labour Shall Rule: that is a nonsense argument. Revolutionaries don't even support privatization in imperialist market capitalist states, why would we in a statified-capitalism third world country? What we do is tell the workers that they must take the nationalized property out of the hands of the bureaucratic exploiters and control them themselves.

Oh and qwerty, thumbs up for supporting the Cuban state's 'right' to decide what 'its' citizens can or can't watch.

[BobKKKindle$]

Well, what the pro-Cubans on the forum have to explain is why those people want those material goods.

Wanting consumer goods is not something to be ashamed of - people enjoy having access to things which can improve the quality of life and make them happy, and so a lack of consumer goods may become a focus of political dissent and resentment. The absence of mass abundance in Cuba is a result of Cuba's isolation from the rest of the world, which intensified following the collapse of the Soviet Union - a single country cannot develop socialism on its own, without help from more advanced states which have developed an industrial base.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Why does the Cuban State allow such transmissions? Even the USSR was able to block bourgeois radio transmissions quiet easily.A lot of crap is blocked. The U.S. spends tons of money of getting around the blocks so they can broadcast their propaganda, but Cuba is usually a few steps ahead of them.

Some other stuff isn't blocked though. You also have the influence of tourists, Cubans visiting from Miami, Miami based Cubans who call their family members and send them money, etc.


Oh and qwerty, thumbs up for supporting the Cuban state's 'right' to decide what 'its' citizens can or can't watch.

Leave it to a State Department socialist to call for the "freedom" of Cubans to watch and listen to pro-capitalist propaganda from the strongest imperialist power in the world... and to ignore the class character of the Cuban state.


Well, what the pro-Cubans on the forum have to explain is why those people want those material goods. What do you think, shortages can't exist in a socialist country? Do you think that a socialist revolution in an imperialist-oppressed former-colony will automatically bring about all the materials goods that everyone wants, even while the country suffers under a harsh blockade?

Cuba is poor. It was poor before the revolution and its poor now. The means of production were not built up sufficiently in Cuba when the revolution occurred. What the revolution has done is enable the toiling masses of Cuba to reorganize production to meet their needs. That's why Cuba surpasses every other imperialist-oppressed country in practically every social measure -- in spite of the difficult conditions it faces.

Of course revolutions are needed in other countries in order to help Cuba move forward. The working class of Cuba knows that. Che wrote that "...we find it difficult to believe that victory can be achieved in one isolated country.” And that's why Cuba has given so much to help bring about the world revolution. That's what Che meant when he wrote that "The practice of proletarian internationalism is not only a duty for the peoples struggling for a better future, it is also an inescapable necessity."

* * *

R_P_A_S: What areas did you go to? Sounds like you ran into an awful lot of jineteros. They stick to tourist areas for the most part, which makes me think you didn't get away from those places. That sort of thing is an unfortunate result of tourism. The rest of the country is much better.

[lvl100]

RPAS whats the average wage there ?

[A New Era]

The food depends on where you go. I've eaten both utterly lousy and wonderful food in Cuba.

And yeah, most people just seem to care about material goods. And it can be very annoying walking around in Havana because there are always someone trying to get into your wallet, metaphorically speaking.



RPAS whats the average wage there ?

The amount people earn vary a whole lot. That "average" will contain a lot of people earning less, and a lot of people earning a lot more. Many get money by family overseas, through hustling, doing business in the black market, having a private resturant, etc.

[More Fire for the People]

I'm pretty sure lots of elder Cubans want those too actually.

You tend to want better living conditions materially when you are a proletarian living in a capitalist country.
Do you ever get tired of being a reactionary?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Labour Shall Rule: that is a nonsense argument. Revolutionaries don't even support privatization in imperialist market capitalist states, why would we in a statified-capitalism third world country? What we do is tell the workers that they must take the nationalized property out of the hands of the bureaucratic exploiters and control them themselves.

If it was truly 'state-capitalist', then the state would interfere with the economy on the basis of encouraging public and private investment and guaranteeing profits and loans. It would resemble a "tiger economy", such as South Korea's or Taiwan. In Cuba, only 10% of the economy is privately-owned — moreover, production is directed on the basis of social use-value, rather than for commodity exchange.

[Leo]

So what do you propose the Cubans do?What is in the interests of the Cuban workers is to initially struggle for their basic class demands, such as living and working conditions, and fundamentally work for the world revolution in solidarity with the international proletariat.

The Cuban bourgeoisie, on the other hand may do as it wishes, and they will keep being the class enemy of the Cuban working class no matter what leftist students say about their glorious regime.


Since they are already capitalist, it shouldn't matter if every state-owned enterprise is safely moved into private hands and rural co-operatives are broken up, right?Not necessarily, it might, occasionally privatizations are conducted among with an attack on the living standards of the working class. Although it has nothing to do with the fantasies asserting that state capital is any better than private capital. Try to talk to a public worker about it if you wish.

The only revolutionary position is to oppose both state capital and private capital.


If it was truly 'state-capitalist', then the state would interfere with the economy on the basis of encouraging public and private investment and guaranteeing profits and loans. It would resemble a "tiger economy", such as South Korea's or Taiwan.Where on earth are you taking that definition of state capitalism from?


What do you think, shortages can't exist in a socialist country?I think above all the argument would be that there can't be a socialist country, but only a socialist world and than that it is not a matter of shortages but of which class is in power, which is not the Cuban working class.

[Yehuda Stern]

Leave it to a State Department socialist to call for the "freedom" of Cubans to watch and listen to pro-capitalist propaganda from the strongest imperialist power in the world... and to ignore the class character of the Cuban state.

Look, if I wanted to hear Pabloist condensation (see? I know fancy words to describe my opponents too), I'd go to one of your websites. At the moment unless you have anything to justify supporting a Stalinist regime's censorship of information, I suggest you remain quite lest you expose yourself more than you intend.


What do you think, shortages can't exist in a socialist country?

Well, no, they can't. They can exist in a workers' state. Socialist countries only come about after the revolution has won all over the world. By the way, Cuba is not a workers' state either, deformed or not, but I guess you don't even remember the difference.


If it was truly 'state-capitalist', then the state would interfere with the economy on the basis of encouraging public and private investment and guaranteeing profits and loans. It would resemble a "tiger economy", such as South Korea's or Taiwan. In Cuba, only 10% of the economy is privately-owned — moreover, production is directed on the basis of social use-value, rather than for commodity exchange.

No, and like Leo, I have no idea who give you that definition. Statified capitalism means that a state is still bourgeois in its state character, and that it is still based on wage labor exploitation, but industry is nationalizied. A country like, say, Cuba.

By the way, even in a workers' state there's no such thing as production being directed on the basis of use-value. That only happens in the higher phases of socialism. So, basically, your position, like that of UnbrokenThread, is that Cuba is a communist state. Congratulations.

[Chapter 24]

supporting a Stalinist regime's censorship of information

Whoa whoa there.

How exactly is Cuba Stalinist?

If Cuba is as repressive as you accuse it of being, it can't be any more repressive than any other Latin American country led by a U.S.-backed dictatorship. How about Nicaragua? Chile? Guatemala? I don't think executing Batista regime soldiers and criminals is on level with the massacres of Pinochet.

It seems for some people that if a socialist country doesn't turn into a paradise right away that it's Stalinist.

[Leo]

Whoa whoa there.

How exactly is Cuba Stalinist?

What sort of an ignorant question is that, what on earth did you think it was? It was in the freaking Eastern Block, of course it is Stalinist!


If Cuba is as repressive as you accuse it of being, it can't be any more repressive than any other Latin American country led by a U.S.-backed dictatorship.

This is completely true, it isn't any more repressive than any other Latin American country.


I don't think executing Batista regime soldiers and criminals is on level with the massacres of Pinochet.

How about the execution of anarchists and trotskyists? What does that show about a regime?

[Chapter 24]

What sort of an ignorant question is that, what on earth did you think it was? It was in the freaking Eastern Block, of course it is Stalinist!

Define "Stalinism". Seems more Khrushchev influenced to me.

Your interpreation of Stalinism may be different from others, that's why I asked. Why should that be considered such an ignorant question?


How about the execution of anarchists and trotskyists? What does that show about a regime?

I'm not an apologist for the executions of anarchists or their exile, but this isn't exactly new. Anarchists never have exactly been welcome in countries both capitalist and communist. Lenin isn't exactly innocent of this, does that make him Stalinist?

[Yehuda Stern]

How exactly is Cuba Stalinist?

Stalinism isn't just the regime headed by Joseph Stalin, just as much as Bonapartism doesn't describe only the regime of Louis Bonaparte. Stalinism refers to, under my group's definition at least, to the bureaucratic states with nationalized property created by the USSR and by pro-Soviet parties after WWII, and to the USSR itself after the Stalinist counterrevolution. Cuba is Stalinist in that it fits with this definition. Even those who advocate that Cuba is a deformed workers' state generally agree, in private, that it is Stalinist, although apparently some of them prefer to refer to it as a classless society (which is also what Stalin called the USSR).



If Cuba is as repressive as you accuse it of being, it can't be any more repressive than any other Latin American country led by a U.S.-backed dictatorship.

Neither was Soviet imperialism any worse than Western imperialism. That is no reason to support either. This is the reasoning of a reformist, seeking to cling to one or another wing of world imperialism or of the national bourgeoisie of some country.


It seems for some people that if a socialist country doesn't turn into a paradise right away that it's Stalinist.

No, but a state-capitalist country with a repressive regime isn't socialist. It's Stalinist, as defined above.

[Leo]

Define "Stalinism". Seems more Khrushchev influenced to me.

Your interpreation of Stalinism may be different from others, that's why I asked. Why should that be considered such an ignorant question?Well, I thought you were gonna argue that it was some sort of paradise fitting the closet liberal fantasies of some Western leftists, to be honest, so apologies for calling the question ignorant.

Yeah, I consider both Khrushchevites, Maoists, Hoxhaists, Guevarists etc. to be variants of stalinism. It is not a matter about the personality of Stalin, it is a wide but certain set of bourgeois practices and theoretical justifications that pretends to be "revolutionary" and is integrated into the national capital of the respective countries it is organized in. I'll say ideas such as "socialism in one country" and "workers' patriotism" and "defense of the fatherland" are key ideas to it.


I'm not an apologist for the executions of anarchists or their exile, but this isn't exactly new. Anarchists never have exactly been welcome in countries both capitalist and communist. Lenin isn't exactly innocent of this, does that make him Stalinist?No, but I don't call Cuba Stalinist because they executed people either.

On the other hand, with anarchists it is important of course to remind that they weren't considered enemies but allies for the Bolsheviks for a while, and their executions and exiles were a sign of the fact that the revolution and the party was degenerating.

[Chapter 24]

Well, I thought you were gonna argue that it was some sort of paradise fitting the closet liberal fantasies of some Western leftists, to be honest, so apologies for calling the question ignorant.

Oh no, I would never claim that Cuba is a worker's paradise. In fact no one on this board really claims this either, but of course there's a variety of reasons why Cuba is in the state it's in as others before have pounted out; "western liberals", on the other hand, usually flip-flop on the whole Cuba thing, saying they have good healthcare just from what they've seen from Sicko, but then they ask why Cubans are coming to the U.S. on pieces of plywood. It's irritating because they want to not believe all of the propaganda given to them by the media yet still believe there's substance to it.But as for worker's states, there's never exactly been one of those. Out of curiousity, how would you classify other "communist states" - China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea?



Yeah, I consider both Khrushchevites, Maoists, Hoxhaists, Guevarists etc. to be variants of stalinism. It is not a matter about the personality of Stalin, it is a wide but certain set of bourgeois practices and theoretical justifications that pretends to be "revolutionary" and is integrated into the national capital of the respective countries it is organized in. I'll say ideas such as "socialism in one country" and "workers' patriotism" and "defense of the fatherland" are key ideas to it.

The first two I agree with, the third one not so much. The defense of the motherland/fatherland concept was more of a propaganda feature during the Great Patriotic War (no I don't call it that, I refer to it as World War II like every other westerner) to encourage Soviet citizens to rise against the Nazis and fight against their invasion. Certainly the cult of personality around Stalin was abhorrent by all means, but in a way the motherland idea was almost necessary in the encouragement to fight against the fascist threat.


On the other hand, with anarchists it is important of course to remind that they weren't considered enemies but allies for the Bolsheviks for a while, and their executions and exiles were a sign of the fact that the revolution and the party was degenerating.

Yes this is true, and it should be noted that anarchists also fought in guerilla factions during the Cuban Revolution and even in the 26th of July Movement.

But on your definition of Stalinism: it seems that anything connected to Stalin - whether it is Krushchev denouncing it, Mao praising yet criticizing him, or Guevara admiring him - is purely Stalinist. This could mean a big long web of Stalinist connections, such as the Vietcong being Stalinist due to their funding by the Soviet government, which was during and post-Stalin a Stalinist regime. If Cuba as a Stalinist state is an example to Latin American revolutionary movements then what does that say about the Bolivarian movement or the Zapatistas?

And you have to remember that the way the Cuban government operates is under dramatically different conditions than that of the USSR. By the time of the Cold War the Soviet Union had already been an industrial superpower while Cuba was a tiny island miles south of Florida with a US backed tyranny and was continually raped by its imperialist to the north. If there was to be a serious communist movement in Cuba it had to have support from Moscow.

[Leo]

Oh no, I would never claim that Cuba is a worker's paradise. In fact no one on this board really claims this either

I've seen people argue that classes don't exist in Cuba.

Regardless, obviously no one would say "Cuba is a workers' paradise", yet people do say it is "socialist".


Out of curiousity, how would you classify other "communist states" - China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea?

Capitalist, just like Cuba.


The first two I agree with, the third one not so much. The defense of the motherland/fatherland concept was more of a propaganda feature during the Great Patriotic War (no I don't call it that, I refer to it as World War II like every other westerner)

I generally call it an imperialist war (like the WW1), but I'm not a westerner anyway.


to encourage Soviet citizens to rise against the Nazis and fight against their invasion.

Not just Soviet citizens.


Certainly the cult of personality around Stalin was abhorrent by all means, but in a way the motherland idea was almost necessary in the encouragement to fight against the fascist threat.

Again, I see the war in an entirely different way. I see it as an imperialist war, like the first world war, and I think that revolutionaries should have, just like they did during the first war, called for the fraternalization and solidarity of all proletarians, turning the imperialist war into civil war and the overthrow of both the Nazi-Fascist ruling classes and the Allied ruling classes by the working class.


This could mean a big long web of Stalinist connections, such as the Vietcong being Stalinist due to their funding by the Soviet government

It was I think, and not just because of the funding.


If Cuba as a Stalinist state is an example to Latin American revolutionary movements then what does that say about the Bolivarian movement or the Zapatistas?

I regard them to be bourgeois-nationalist movements.


And you have to remember that the way the Cuban government operates is under dramatically different conditions than that of the USSR. By the time of the Cold War the Soviet Union had already been an industrial superpower while Cuba was a tiny island miles south of Florida with a US backed tyranny and was continually raped by its imperialist to the north. If there was to be a serious communist movement in Cuba it had to have support from Moscow.

I won't say communist, but I think if there was to be a movement against American imperialism in Cuba, it had to take the support of Russian imperialism (which wasn't better at all), and this by itself shows that national liberation is a tool of world imperialism, and that there is no "independence" of nations under capitalism.

As for an actually proletarian revolutionary movement: one of such cannot exist in Cuba if it doesn't exist in other countries. The proletarian movement either develops internationally, or doesn't develop at all.

[Labor Shall Rule]

No, and like Leo, I have no idea who give you that definition. Statified capitalism means that a state is still bourgeois in its state character, and that it is still based on wage labor exploitation, but industry is nationalizied. A country like, say, Cuba.

First off, the Cuban Revolution created a worker's state. Though it had numerous deformities (which was inevitable, they were a former semi-colony whose only hope for survival was to bar themselves in the Soviet nuclear umbrella), they were founded on collective property relations, which allowed free education, health care, and strides in women (and recently, GLBT) rights.

A worker's state, no matter how backwards it is, retains former characteristics of capitalist production.


“Instead of scholastically invented, ‘concocted’ definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?), Marx gives an analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism. In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from traditions or vestiges of capitalism. Hence the interesting phenomenon that communism in its first phase retains ‘the narrow horizon of bourgeois law.’ Of course, bourgeois law in regard to the distribution of consumer goods inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the rules of law. It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!” V.I. Lenin, State and Revolution, written in 1917. Published in Collected Works vol. 25 (Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1973), 476.

[Leo]

First off, the Cuban Revolution created a worker's state.I don't think so. I don't even think there was a workers' revolution in Cuba; it was merely a coup d'etat, lead by a bourgeois lawyer who had no intention whatsoever of proclaiming himself to be a "socialist" or proclaiming Cuba to be "socialist". Cuba "became" socialist only when the new faction of the bourgeoisie in power had no choice but to join the ranks of the Russian imperialist block.


they were founded on collective property relationsAgain they were clearly not founded on them, and nationalization (which does not in any way even imply collective relations of production) were introduced in time, due to specific imperialist alliences and conflicts.


which allowed free education, health care, and strides in women ... rightsThose stuff are certainly not specific to Cuba, and not an indicator of whether a country is a workers' state or not.

Your criteria doesn't put Cuba an inch above the Kemalist Turkey.


In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from traditions or vestiges of capitalism.
A worker's state, no matter how backwards it is, retains former characteristics of capitalist production.Yes that is so, and the Lenin quote is mostly accurate. This has got nothing to do with what I'm saying though.

I'm not saying that the problem with Cuba is one regarding it's economical structure. I'm saying that it is the Cuban national bourgeoisie, manifested in the Cuban state bureaucracy, that is socially and politically in power: not the working class.

Revolutionary Russia too was, economically, capitalist. Abolishing capitalism and building socialism can't be done overnight, nor can it be done in one country. On the other hand, there was a significant difference between revolutionary Russia and Cuba: in Russia it was the working class who was the ruling class. The workers had established their dictatorship through their centralized councils and although the economical mode of production was still capitalist, workers held political and social power and pursued their political and social goals: the world revolution.

In Cuba, it is not the working class that is in power but it is the bourgeoisie, and they pursue their political and social class goals. Regardless of the red flags, it has always been simply another nationalist regime, only allied with a different imperialist block.

[Yehuda Stern]

First off, the Cuban Revolution created a worker's state. Though it had numerous deformities (which was inevitable, they were a former semi-colony whose only hope for survival was to bar themselves in the Soviet nuclear umbrella)

No, it did not. The Cuban state never brought the working class vanguard into power. It never abolished wage slavery. It didn't even nationalize anything until quite some time after the revolution (not that that's my criterion for a state being a workers' state, anyway). And by the way, if the only hope for any revolutionary state is to shield itself by allying itself with some imperialist power, we are all doomed.


they were founded on collective property relations

Again, no. Nationalizations didn't begin until a while after the revolution. And there's a big difference between collective property and state property - state property belongs to the ruling class through its ownership of the state.


which allowed free education, health care, and strides in women (and recently, GLBT) rights.

These are all democratic rights, not socialist rights, and even they are very limited in Cuba. The fact that homosexuals were actively persecuted in Cuba under Castro is a shattering blow to the ridiculous claim that the Cuban regime was in any way progressive.

[Qwerty489]

What sort of an ignorant question is that, what on earth did you think it was? It was in the freaking Eastern Block, of course it is Stalinist!



This is completely true, it isn't any more repressive than any other Latin American country.



How about the execution of anarchists and trotskyists? What does that show about a regime?
Hey kid, go and vandalise a starbucks or something, we true socialists have no place for you anarchokids around here.

[black magick hustla]

Hey kid, go and vandalise a starbucks or something, we true socialists have no place for you anarchokids around here.



The name and work of Stalin is linked with the establishment of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union and the construction of socialism in that country. By denigrating Stalin and the social system for which he fought and worked throughout his life, reaction and all the anti-communist scum wanted to destroy not only the greatest and most powerful base of socialism, but also the communist dream of hundreds and hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. - Enver Hoxha

heh that'll show those anarchochildren

[Chapter 24]

Neither was Soviet imperialism any worse than Western imperialism. That is no reason to support either. This is the reasoning of a reformist, seeking to cling to one or another wing of world imperialism or of the national bourgeoisie of some country.


Who's arguing for Soviet imperialism? :confused: Supporting Cuba in their decades-long struggle against the imperialist aggressor in the north is not the same as arguing for the interests of the USSR. I am against imperialism, by the way.

[Qwerty489]

What sort of an ignorant question is that, what on earth did you think it was? It was in the freaking Eastern Block, of course it is Stalinist!

Umm no, the USSR abandoned 'Stalinism' (Marxism-Leninism) after Stalin's death, thereupon Khrushchev restored capitalism via introduction of price mechanisms, playing down class struggle and class rule (in favor of a state 'of all the people').


"In our country, for the first time in history, a State has taken shape which is not a dictatorship of any one class, but an instrument of society as a whole, of the entire people...
The dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary ".
(N.S. Khrushchov: Report on the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 22nd. Congress CPSU; London; 1961; p. 57, 58).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RPAS, why should any of this surprise you in a State Capitalist country?

[Hiero]

I've seen people argue that classes don't exist in Cuba.

Who? Where?

Not any real Marxist-Leninist has said anything of the kind.

[Qwerty489]

Who? Where?
Fidel has said on multiple occasions that no class struggles exist in Cuba. It's the common trait of a revisionist to play down class struggle and play up class collaboration ('national unity').


Not any real Marxist-Leninist has said anything of the kind.Indeed.


In fact, prior to the autumn of 1959 Castro made no attempt to conceal his opposition to Communism. He was indeed:
"A radical middle-class democrat whose ideal was democratic capitalist America". (Peter Taaffe: op. cit.; p. 5).
In February 1958 Castro told the American magazine 'Coronet':
"We have no plans for the expropriation or nationalisation of foreign investments here. Foreign investments will always be welcome and secure here". (Fidel Castro: 'Why we fight', in 'Coronet', Volume 43, No. 4 (February 1958); p. 84, 85).
After the victory of the revolution, on 2 April 1959, just before he left for a visit to the United States at the invitation of the American Association of Newspaper Editors,
"Castro told a television audience . . . that he was going to the US to secure credits". (Hugh Thomas: op. cit.; p. 425).
Minister of the Economy Regino Boti, who accompanied Castro to America, is on record as telling economist Felipe Pazos on their arrival:
"We have no intention of asking now, during Castro's visit, for aid, but you, Pazos, will return in a fortnight to make a request (Hugh Thomas: op. cit.; p. 425).
During his visit to the United States, Castro assured his audiences his anti-Communist views and the safety of foreign investments in Cuba. said on American TV:
"I am not a Communist, nor do I agree with communism". (Fidel Castro" 'Meet the Press' Programme, in: 'Castro'; Paul Humphrey: Hove; 1981; p. 42-43).
"Dr. Castro . . . has stated repeatedly that his movement is not Communist and that if Cuba can obtain some degree of prosperity, Communism cannot grow there". ('Times', 20 April 1959; p. 8).
"Dr.Fidel Castro . . . went before the National Press Club here today to repeat his assurances made so often during his visit to the capital that he means nothing but friendship to the United States, that there are no Communists in his Government, that he has no plans to expropriate any foreign holdings in Cuba"., ('Times', 21 April 1959; p. 11).
Castro had no difficulty in convincing the CIA of his anti-Communism:
"Even more bizarre, Castro was prevailed on to meet the CIA's chief expert on Communism in Latin America, a Central European named Droller: the two talked privately for three hours, and afterwards Droller told Lopez Fresquet: 'Castro is not only not a Communist, he is a strong anti-Communist fighter"' (Hugh Thomas: op. cit.; p. 431).
After leaving the USA, on 21 May 1959 Castro described Communism as a system
"Which suppresses liberties, the liberties which are so dear to man." (Fidel Castro, in: 'Revolucion, 21 May 1959, in: Theodore Draper (1965): op. cit,; p. 37).
He told an old friend:
"Communism is the dictatorship of a single class and I . . . have fought all my life against dictatorship". (Hugh Thomas: op. cit.; p. 432).
On 21 May 1959, Castro said in a televised speech:
"Capitalism sacrifices man, the Communist state sacrifices man. . Our revolution is not red, but olive-green, the colour of the rebel army". ('Guia del Pensiamento politicoeconomico de Fidel' (Guide to the Politico-economic Thought of Fidel); Havana; 1959; p. 48).
Writing in the 'New York Times' in July 1959, Herbert Matthews*, a senior editor on the newspaper, declared emphatically:
"Castro .. . is not only not a Communist, but decidedly anti-Communist". (Herbert Matthews: 'New York Times', 16 July 1959; p. 2).
The US Ambassador to Cuba, Philip Bonsal*, was convinced
"That Castro was not a Communist (Jaime Suchlicki: op. cit.; p. 30).
And as late as November 1959, the Deputy Director-General of the CIA, Charles Cabell*, was assuring the Senate Internal Security Committee:
"The Cuban Communists do not consider him (Castro -- Ed.) . . even a pro-Communist."(Robert Scheer & Maurice Zeitlin: op. cit.; p. 120).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

... Pabloist ... (see? I know fancy words to describe my opponents too)Yep.. the only problem is that you misuse them.


At the moment unless you have anything to justify supporting a Stalinist regime's censorship of information, I suggest you remain quite lest you expose yourself more than you intend.When the working class takes state power it uses it to repress the old exploiters. It defends itself against internal and external threats.

The U.S. imperialists have fought to destroy the Cuban Revolution for decades. They've blockaded, harassed and attacked. They carry out a concerted propaganda campaign aimed at the Cuban people. Why would workers with state power let such garbage -- from an aggressor working destroy their revolution -- in? Out of some liberal notion of "freedom of speech"?

* * *

"Right-wing Miami rag The Miami Herald was forced to admit recently something that many around the world have long known: that several of their 'journalists' were being paid by the United States government to write anti-Cuban propaganda.

"At least 10 of these so-called journalists were paid for their contributions to counterrevolutionary broadcasts that the U.S. directs into Cuba, violating international law.

"One was paid at least $175,000 for hosting shows on U.S.-funded 'TV Martí' and 'Radio Martí,' which are based in Miami, but can’t be broadcast in the U.S. because they violate anti-propaganda laws(!).

"Another, Pablo Alfonso, who writes for the Herald’s Spanish-language sister paper, El Nuevo Herald, was paid close to that amount to present for the propaganda stations.

"'Reporters' Wilfredo Cancio Isla and Olga Conner also received thousands.

...

"Since the outset of the Cuban revolution in 1959, the U.S. government has done everything possible to discredit and destroy it, because, as former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said, 'The real threat of Cuba is that they offer a model to be emulated by people who are dissatisfied with their lot or who are struggling to change things for the better.'

"The U.S. government spends $37 million each year broadcasting TV and Radio Martí to Cuba..." - Report reveals U.S. government paid anti-Cuban "journalists" (http://mfje.org/english/page.php?150)


I think above all the argument would be that there can't be a socialist country, but only a socialist world
As for an actually proletarian revolutionary movement: one of such cannot exist in Cuba if it doesn't exist in other countries. The proletarian movement either develops internationally, or doesn't develop at all."Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie." - Marx

"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organizing their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world – the capitalist world – attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings int hose countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting class and their states." - Lenin


What sort of an ignorant question is that, what on earth did you think it was? It was in the freaking Eastern Block [sic], of course it is Stalinist!The "Stalinist" label is pretty much meaningless.. It gets thrown around more than a baseball.

Of course even many/most of those that use the term wouldn't describe Cuba as "Stalinist."


How about the execution of anarchists and trotskyists? What does that show about a regime?More meaningless labels. If someone calls himself an "anarchist" then takes up arms and joins a CIA-backed band of counterrevolutionary mercenaries, should a workers revolution not take action against him?

A major task of a workers state is to defend against counterrevolution. Counterrevolution with a red veneer is still counterrevolution. Solidarność pretended to be an "independent working class organization" all the while spearheading the counterrevolution in Poland with the backing of the CIA and Catholic Clerics.


Well, no, they can't. They can exist in a workers' state. Socialist countries only come about after the revolution has won all over the world.When workers take power and reorganize production in a socialist manner, they have formed a socialist state. It is socialist in direction and nature.

The term "workers state" alone doesn't have a lot of value. A workers state cannot exist in a vacuum, nor can a workers state remain static. When workers take state power, they must either move towards communism or backward to capitalism.


By the way, Cuba is not a workers' state either, deformed or not, but I guess you don't even remember the difference.I'm not a Trotskyist... And anyway your political trend's hostile stance towards every workers state that has ever come into existence hardly leaves you in a position to condemn others for straying from the Old Man's theories. Let's not forget that Cliff broke with Trotskyism over the very question when he refused to defend north Korea from imperialism.


The fact that homosexuals were actively persecuted in Cuba under Castro is a shattering blow to the ridiculous claim that the Cuban regime was in any way progressive.So because you say homosexuals were persecuted that means that there's no possible way there was a revolution that was progressive? Really?

Eliminating homelessness and unemployment weren't "progressive" advances? Going from a 54% literacy rate to eliminating illiteracy all together wasn't "progressive"? Taking infant mortality from 68 to 5.8 isn't "progressive"? Opening up the schools which were previously reserved for only the most privileged to all, and creating new schools across the country to educate the workers and poor farmers -- not only from Cuba, but from around the world -- isn't "progressive"? And all of this, done by a poor, imperialist-oppressed country blockaded and attacked by the strongest imperialist power that has ever existed isn't "progressive"?

And the claims about homosexuals facing institutionalized persecution in Cuba are ridiculous. What happened early on was this: Cuba was under attack. The whole country had to be mobilized to defend it. The revolution was very new and there was still a strong element of machismo among most of the men. These men rejected the idea of homosexuals serving in the military. So they, along with religious objectors and people who didn't have the education to serve in the military were sent to Unidades Militares de Ayuda a la Produccion (UMAPS) in which they aided in other ways. The UMPAS only existed about three years.

There were some prejudices against homosexuals in the UMAPS. Fidel visited one in Camaguey and saw such things, and called for a review of the situation.

There is still prejudice against homosexuals among sectors of Cuban society. That's a product of the history of Cuba and its development. Do you expect a revolution to immediately wipe out all prejudices and superstition?

"...I'm not going to defend myself against all that -- the part of the responsibility that I bear, I accept. I certainly had other ideas with respect to that problem. I had opinions, and for my part I instinctively opposed, and had always opposed, any abuse, any discrimination, because that society which had been based on injustice was saturated with prejudice. Homosexuals were most certainly the victims of discrimination. In other places much more than here, but they certainly were, in Cuba, victims of discrimination. Today a much more civilized, more educated population is gradually overcoming those prejudices." - Fidel

The point is that the revolution never encouraged any such thing, and in fact actively fought against it.


I don't think so. I don't even think there was a workers' revolution in Cuba; it was merely a coup d'etat, lead by a bourgeois lawyer who had no intention whatsoever of proclaiming himself to be a "socialist" or proclaiming Cuba to be "socialist". Cuba "became" socialist only when the new faction of the bourgeoisie in power had no choice but to join the ranks of the Russian imperialist block.That's because you have no idea about what went on in Cuba. You have either done no research into the matter or have just ignored what you've learned.

Read Fidel's spoken autobiography. Read his prison letters in which he requested books by Marx and Lenin. Look into his activities in the university. Look into Raul's activities prior to the revolution... to Che's...

The capitalist classes in the imperialist-oppressed countries cannot carry out the bourgeois-national revolution in the period of imperialism. They are too tied to the imperialists and/or afraid of the toilers in their countries. Only the workers can lead an anti-imperialist, democratic revolution.. and they can only be victorious if that revolution becomes socialist.

"...to be triumphant, [the workers and farmers] cannot settle for anything less than the establishment of a government of a socialist nature.” - Che

What happened in Cuba was that the workers* and farmers took up the task of carrying out the democratic, anti-imperialist revolution. Their actions brought them in conflict with the local capitalists and the imperialists and convinced them of the need to carry out socialist revolution. It was an organic process helped along but some of the leaders of the revolution who were already convinced before the struggle began, or became so during the fighting.

* Anyone who ignores the major role of the working class in the revolution is being obtuse or dishonest. Carlos Franqui wrote that "The 26th of July organized and fought in an underground struggle in the 126 municipalities of Cuba, from the large cities to the smallest towns... the struggle was used in every part of the country...." It was a general strike that finally drove Batista out and signaled the victory of the revolution.

Claims that a popular revolution that mobilized millions of workers and farmers was a "coup" do not even deserve a response.

* * *

I'm not going to respond to ever point in this thread or waste time responding to one-liners devoid of any political content.

This question has been discussed here time and time again.

If anyone is interested in the question of whether or not Cuba is socialist, see:

this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-socialist-revisionist-t27853/index.html?t=27853) and this one (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-forces-cuban-t49105/index.html?t=49105).

[Yehuda Stern]

Supporting Cuba in their decades-long struggle against the imperialist aggressor in the north is not the same as arguing for the interests of the USSR. I am against imperialism, by the way.

That was an analogy. We Marxists do fight for every democratic demand, but we do not politically support any bourgeois regime as opposed to any other, inasmuch as we are for the overthrow of all bourgeois regimes.


Not any real Marxist-Leninist has said anything of the kind.

True, but it has been said by people claiming to be Marxists. UnbrokenThread wrote that a few days ago.


Why would workers with state power let such garbage -- from an aggressor working destroy their revolution -- in? Out of some liberal notion of "freedom of speech"?


First off, I'll point out again that the workers never achieved political power in Cuba, even if one incredibly contends that Cuba is a 'deformed' workers' state. Second, I was merely pointing out that Castro supporters who do believe that the Castro regime was Stalinist have to explain why they support this sort of censorship on its part, and those who think that it is a workers' regime must explain why imperialist propaganda is so effective there.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's not a question of whether or not propaganda is "effective." When workers take state power, they do so in order to repress the old exploiters. That includes limiting their ability to spread propaganda (an ability which the U.S. especially has, with its masses of wealth and well-developed advertising machine and intelligence agencies).

[Leo]

"Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie." - Marx
"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.


It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range." -Engels


"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organizing their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world – the capitalist world – attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings int hose countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting class and their states." - Lenin"Only in one event would social-democracy on its own initiative direct its exertions towards acquiring power and holding it for as long as possible - namely in the event of revolution spreading to the advanced countries of Western Europe, where conditions for the realisation of socialism have already reached a certain ripeness. In this event the restricted historical limits of the Russian revolution can be considerably widened, and the possibility will occur of advancing on the path of socialist transformation." -Lenin



The "Stalinist" label is pretty much meaningless.. It gets thrown around more than a baseball.Saying something is meaningless without attempting to prove it is not really impressive, to be honest.


Of course even many/most of those that use the term wouldn't describe Cuba as "Stalinist." Cuba is no special case; it depends on whether they describe Russia after Khrushchev to be Stalinists or not. I do, of course.


More meaningless labels. If someone calls himself an "anarchist" then takes up arms and joins a CIA-backed band of counterrevolutionary mercenaries, should a workers revolution not take action against him?
The crime of the trotskyists was, as far as I remember, organizing a march for the state to close the American Guantanamo base in the island, and of course the more Cuba got closer to Russia, the more repressed they were.

Of course your general point is a straw-man. I'm gonna have to ask you to try to prove that anarchists in Cuba joined "CIA backed mercenaries" before I take that comment seriously.


That's because you have no idea about what went on in Cuba. You have either done no research into the matter or have just ignored what you've learned.

Read Fidel's spoken autobiography. Read his prison letters in which he requested books by Marx and Lenin. Look into his activities in the university. Look into Raul's activities prior to the revolution... to Che's...Actually I know quite a lot about it, and I think have read most of the things you mentioned, among with other things. Yes, Guevara and Raul Castro had Stalinist orientations before the revolution. No, Castro did not, and him reading and asking for books does not change this fact. His Stalinism came with his alliance with Russia.


The capitalist classes in the imperialist-oppressed countries cannot carry out the bourgeois-national revolution in the period of imperialism. They are too tied to the imperialists and/or afraid of the toilers in their countries. Only the workers can lead an anti-imperialistOf course you know that initially Castro did not have much against the Americans. They were thinking that Cuba would be "a loyal ally" of their Northern neighbor. Things didn't go well, obviously. Thus Cuba had to enter the Russian imperialist block, and became a mere pawn in the negotiation table between Russian and American imperialisms disproves completely the point that workers in one country can "lead an anti-imperialist" something in the way you understand it.

The only opposition to imperialism can be the internationalist opposition of the world proletariat to imperialism and the rulers of all countries. It is not possible to "oppose imperialism" in one country.


and they can only be victorious if that revolution becomes socialist. In this case, I'll say they weren't victorious in Cuba...


"...to be triumphant, [the workers and farmers] cannot settle for anything less than the establishment of a government of a socialist nature.” - CheQuoting something like that is a bit funny in my opinion. Ah, the cult of personality does make one blind, doesn't it?


Anyone who ignores the major role of the working class in the revolution is being obtuse or dishonest ... It was a general strike that finally drove Batista out and signaled the victory of the revolution.That strike did not drive Batista out and signal the victory of the revolution, nor was it an independent action, decided by the working class. Castro called for it, as it was their plan to make their coup when there was a general strike going on already, in fact they were planning it when they were merely 82 people in Granma in 1956.

This does not show workers involvement in the revolution, only that Castro had, like all bourgeois leaders, popular support and that workers were used by Castro. Yes, workers had good reasons to oppose the Batista regime and Castroists did manage to acquire the popular support necessary from using this situation


What happened in Cuba was that the workers* and farmers took up the task of carrying out the democratic, anti-imperialist revolution.I think what happened was that a bunch of armed men with popular support raided government buildings. This is called a coup, no matter how popularly supported it was.

[Raúl Duke]

Well, it's not suprising that it's "hell for vegeterians" in Cuba... I suspect such trends haven't caught on the Caribbean or maybe generally among Latin Americans.

In PR we do have stuff for vegeterians but they are more "fringe" then in the U.S.
I only meet one guy who was a vegeterian/PETA supporter in school while in PR; I think he gave me a negative view on some vegeterians (specifically PETA supporters and such) since he though he was so "r-r-r-Revolutionary" because of PETA, etc yet he didn't know jack shit of any sort of "revolutionary position", didn't seem like an active "independentista" either (just doing some idol worship of Albizu Campos; who I think , from a book of another independentista {communist influenced I think}, was a reactionary nationalist {maybe fascist?} who wanted to bring back the landed estates which were being replaced with corporate capitalist agriculture), and seemed to be doing it as a sort of "fashion statement".

In the U.S. I've meet more vegeterians/vegans and slightly more people with positve attitudes towards PETA.

[comrade stalin guevara]

If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years.
Vladimir Lenin (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/vladimirle401601.html)