Chinese President Visits Fidel Castro

[Small Geezer]

HAVANA, Nov. 18 (Xinhua) -- Chinese President Hu Jintao on Tuesday visited Fidel Castro, first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, in Havana.

The two leaders warmly shook hands, exchanged greetings and had a long conversation in a sincere and friendly atmosphere.


Hu said he was delighted to see Castro again. The comrades of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China "have all cared about your health and I brought their sincere greetings to you," he said.
"I see in person that you have recovered and have been energetic so I feel very pleased," he told Castro.



Castro extended a warm welcome to Hu for his second state visit to Cuba. "We are old friends. I am happy to see that you are as energetic as when I met you last time," he said.



Hu said that as the founder of the Cuban socialist revolution and construction, Castro is dearly adored by the Cuban people. During the past half century, Castro led the heroic Cuban people in their fearless struggle to safeguard state sovereignty and adhere to the path of socialism, thus winning respect from people worldwide, including the Chinese people.



Hu said that Castro has followed closely his country's development, showed great concern about people's life and dedicated himself to profound reflections of major strategic issues, such as international affairs and national development.

"Your thoughts and experience will surely guide the Cuban people to continue their march on the road of socialist construction," he said.



On Sino-Cuban relations, Hu said relations between the two countries have withstood the changes of international situation thanks to the joint efforts to forge and nurture their bilateral ties by generations of Chinese leaders, including Mao Zedong, DengXiaoping and Jiang Zemin, and Castro and other Cuban leaders.



"The brotherly friendship between our two countries and two parties has been deeply rooted in the hearts of our two peoples," he said.
"The Chinese people will never forget that thanks to your concern and effort that Cuba became the first Latin American nation to forge diplomatic ties with China 48 years ago," he said.
Thanks to the concerted efforts of both sides, the Sino-Cuban mutually beneficial and friendly cooperation in all areas have been expanding continuously, and bilateral ties have entered a new era of all-round development, said Hu.
"Our two nations, parties and peoples have become reliable friends and brothers who share weal and woe," he said.
"What affected me and other Chinese leaders most is that you always pay close attention to China's development and remain committed to promoting friendly cooperation between our two countries," Hu added.



Hu noted that Castro ordered to send a medical team to China immediately after the devastating earthquake in Wenchuan, southwest China's Sichuan province on May 12.
The Cuban leader also made constant phone calls to offer instructions on the team's work in China, Hu added.



Moreover, in his article entitled China's Victory, Castro has showed his firm support for China on such major issues as Taiwan, Tibet and the Olympic Games in Beijing, the Chinese president said.



The Cuban leader has also showed great concern about the Chinese students studying in Cuba and the progress of a joint ophthalmic hospital. "The Chinese people, the Communist Party of China and the Chinese government will for ever remember all these," he said.



Castro expressed appreciation of China's relief and reconstruction efforts following the Wenchuan earthquake and other natural disasters. He once again congratulated China on its successful hosting of the Beijing Olympic Games and Paralympics as well as the success of the Shenzhou-7 manned space mission.



Hu said that the Chinese government will always adhere to the principle of long-term friendship between China and Cuba. The Chinese people will, as always, support the just struggle of the Cuban people in safeguarding state sovereignty and opposing outside interference.



China will continue to provide assistance for Cuba within its capacity, and will firmly support the country's socialist cause, he said.



"We will work with the Cuban people to continuously push forward the development of friendship between China and Cuba," he added.



Castro said he and other Cuban comrades have followed closely "everything that happened in China."



"China has a large population and a culture of long standing and the Chinese people are known for their diligence," he said, adding that the Chinese people "have surmounted all manner of unimaginable difficulties and accomplished great achievements in construction."



"As the current international financial crisis is spreading, the Chinese economy has kept a sound momentum for development, demonstrating that China is the most prepared country," he said.



China is the most dynamic nation in the world and "no force can stop it from forging ahead," he said.



The two leaders also exchanged views on the two countries' economic development and major international and regional issues, including the international financial crisis and the world economy.



Before the conclusion of the meeting, Hu again expressed his heartfelt wish for Castro's good health. Castro, in return, expressed his gratitude.



Cuba is the third leg of Hu's five-nation trip. He has attended a Group of 20 summit on the financial crisis in Washington and visited Costa Rica.



He will also visit Peru and Greece, and attend the Economic Leaders' Informal Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in the Peruvian capital of Lima.

[Small Geezer]

MEETING HU JINTAO

I didn’t want to speak much, but he forced me to elaborate. I asked a
few questions but I mostly listened to him.

He related the exploits of the Chinese people in the past 10 months.
The enormous nation with a 1.3 billion population has been hit by
heavy and out-of-season snow, and an earthquake which devastated
areas three times that of Cuba; in addition to the most serious
international economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

I could see in my mind the great efforts of the Chinese people, its
workers, its peasants and its manual and intellectual workers; the
traditional hard-working spirit and the millennium-old culture of
that country that preceded by thousands of years the colonial period
imposed by the West, the same West where the current G-7 powers sit
today with their force and wealth, playing a hegemonic role in the
world economy.

What a great challenge for this leader in these times of
globalization who in a gesture of goodwill came to visit our
blockaded, harassed and threatened homeland! Are we not one a rogue
state among 60 or more that can be the target of a pre-emptive
attack? That much was said by the insane leader of the empire six
years ago, the same man who just five days ago met in Washington with
the G20!

China is the only member of that group whose State can regulate a
high growth rate, at the pace it chooses, no less than 8% in 2009.
The idea raised during the last Party Congress was to quadruple the
per capita Gross Domestic Product between 2000 and 2020, measured in
2007 present values; that was the year the Congress was held.
He spoke to me about that in detail. Thus, in conditions of peace,
China will reach by the end of that period the figure of no less than
4 thousand dollars per capita income. I think that it should not be
forgotten that China is an emerging nation whose per capita income at
the time of the revolutionary victory --with a smaller population—
hardly reached $400 per capita, and the country was completely
isolated by imperialism. Just compare this with the $20 thousand per
capita, or more, that developed capitalist countries such as Japan,
the Western European nations, the United States and Canada currently
enjoy. The per capita income in some of these exceeds the $40
thousand annually, even if their distribution in society is far from
fair.

It is only by using $586 billion from its foreign reserves amounting
to almost $2 trillions, accumulated through much hard work and
sacrifices that this country is facing the present crisis and
advancing. Is there any other country as sound as this?

The President of China, Secretary General of the Party and Chairman
of the Party and Government Central Military Commissions, Hu Jintao,
is a leader who’s aware of his authority and exercises it to the
full.

The delegation he headed signed with Cuba twelve draft agreements
towards a modest economic development in an area of the planet where
the small territory in its entirety can be battered by increasingly
intensive hurricanes, an evidence of true climate changes. The area
affected by the earthquake in China is hardly 4% of the total area of
that great multinational State.

Under certain circumstances, the size of an independent country, its
geographical location and the size of its population can play a major
role.

Would a country like the United States, which robs already trained
minds everywhere, be in a position to apply an Adjustment Act to the
Chinese citizens similar to the one it applies to Cuba? Obviously
not. Could it apply it to the entire Latin America? Of course, it
couldn’t there either.

Meanwhile, our marvelous, contaminated and only spaceship continues
to circle around its imaginary axis, as one popular Venezuelan
program likes to repeat.

It’s not an everyday occurrence for a small state to have the
privilege of receiving a leader of Hu Jintao’s stature and prestige.
He shall now continue his trip to Lima. There will be another great
meeting there. Again, President Bush will attend, this time seven
days closer to the end of his mandate.

It is said that in Washington, with only 20 leaders of the attending
nations, the local security measures and those required by the host
to thwart any attempt at physical removal, changed the habits and
every day life in that city. How would it be in the great city of
Lima? The city will surely be taken over by the security forces.
It will be difficult to move around it because the well-trained members
of the US supranational bodies will be there, and their interests and
plans will only be known many years after the presidential terms of
the eventual leaders of the empire are over.

I summed up for him some of our country’s assessments on the habits
of our neighbors to the north, which tries to impose on us its ideas,
its mindset and its interests with its fleet full of nuclear weapons
and fighter planes; also our views on Venezuela’s solidarity with
Cuba from the most critical days of the Special Period and the hard
blows dealt by the natural disasters. Likewise, that President
Chavez, a great admirer of China has been the steadiest advocate of
socialism as the only system capable of bringing justice to the
peoples of Latin America.

In Beijing, they treasure good memories of the Bolivarian leader.

President Hu Jintao reaffirmed his wishes to continue developing
relations with Cuba, a country for which he feels great respect.

The conversation went on for 1 hour and 38 minutes. He was warm,
friendly and modest, and his affection was obvious. I found him
young, healthy and strong. We wish our distinguished and fraternal
friend the best in his endeavors. Thanks for his encouraging visit
and the honor of showing an interest in a personal meeting with me!

Fidel Castro Ruz

November 19, 2008

[Yehuda Stern]

What a beautiful illustration of socialist internationalism! Two old Stalinists gather to discuss how to take more and more of 'their' workers' rights and go back to market capitalism without causing so much of a social catastrophe like in the USSR.

[PostAnarchy]

What a beautiful illustration of socialist internationalism! Two old Stalinists gather to discuss how to take more and more of 'their' workers' rights and go back to market capitalism without causing so much of a social catastrophe like in the USSR.

Wow Yehuda - for once, we agree totally on this!

[Ismail]

What a beautiful illustration of socialist internationalism! Two old Stalinists gather to discuss how to take more and more of 'their' workers' rights and go back to market capitalism without causing so much of a social catastrophe like in the USSR.Replace 'Stalinism' with Khrushchevism and this post is correct considering that both Hu Jintao and Fidél Castro aren't fans of Stalin and never have been. If you're going to call any current socialist (real or not) leader a 'Stalinist' then Kim Jong Il is the one most deserving, since he actually upholds Stalin on the same level as Lenin, Marx and Engels even if Juche is a repudiation of Marxism-Leninism.

The love for Castro is annoying. Seriously, he really isn't anything amazing. There are plenty of nationalist, pseudo/semi-socialist leaders just like him throughout the decades in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Somalia, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, etc. At least a few of these (Somalia, Tanzania) didn't become puppets of Soviet imperialism in the process and actually tried to implement socialism (albeit their own variants) in said nations.

http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/Compass101-Cuba92.htm

"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)

Turns into...

"Over the past 13 years more than 300,000 Cubans have served there (in Angola - Ed.). Arguably the Cuban role in bringing about the UN-backed peace treaty for South-West Africa last December is President Castro's most single important foreign achievement. Without the presence of 50,000 troops in Angola, willing to fight indefinitely against South African-backed forces, it is unlikely that Pretoria would ever have come to the negotiating table". ('Financial Times', 17 February 1989; p. 33).


Hooray for Soviet imperialism!

[BobKKKindle$]

"I am not a Communist, nor do I agree with communism..."

Anyone with a basic knowledge of how the Cuban revolution developed knows that after the initial seizure of power Castro and all those who had participated in the struggle against the Batista regime faced pressure not to reveal the full extent of their political ambitions because Cuba was economically dependent on the United States, and if Castro had made it clear that he intended to destroy the domestic bourgeoisie and take control of foreign property as soon as the seizure of power had been completed, Cuba would automatically have faced economic isolation (because Castro had not started to cultivate links with the Soviet Union) and possibly the threat of military invasion. A nuanced understanding of history demands that we look beyond what statements seem to suggest on the surface and consider the role of external pressures.

[Ismail]

Well considering that the US also wanted Batista out (although they favored Colonel Ramón), the rise of Castro came as a pleasant surprise to them. Fact is, Castro was just fine with US help and only went to the Soviets after it was clear the US didn't approve of his nationalization programs and so on. This isn't unique since Ho Chi Minh felt the same way, as did Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia.

If Castro was legit, he would of been condemning both the US and Soviets for their imperialist policies. Albania pulled it off and it was much more backwards than Cuba. (It had tribes) Castor never repudiated the state capitalist goals of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, and instead upheld them. He sent troops at the request of the Soviets into Angola, Ethiopia (to fight Somalia), etc. and even modeled the 70's constitution on the Soviet Unions.

"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).


This sums up Castro, Chávez, and virtually all Latin American (and even most African) 'revolutions', nationalist and populist, not Communist. You cannot deny the great importance the Cuban state, today, puts on the armed forces and an emphasis on "people" as opposed to the proletariat. You also might have trouble denying the ideological bankruptcy of the Cuban Communist Party, whose ideology is essentially "we love Che and like to blow shit up in Latin America."

[RedStarOverChina]

"Over the past 13 years more than 300,000 Cubans have served there (in Angola - Ed.). Arguably the Cuban role in bringing about the UN-backed peace treaty for South-West Africa last December is President Castro's most single important foreign achievement. Without the presence of 50,000 troops in Angola, willing to fight indefinitely against South African-backed forces, it is unlikely that Pretoria would ever have come to the negotiating table". ('Financial Times', 17 February 1989; p. 33).


Hooray for Soviet imperialism!

What the fuck?


The Cubans stayed in Angola to fight and die in the struggle against the Apartheid regime in South Africa, and got nothing out of it except for the respect of Africans. If that's Soviet Imperialism to you, then I'm the biggest fucking imperialist ever.


And sending thousands and thousands of doctors to remote corners of Latin America to provide healthcare for those who can't afford it doesn't seem like a big deal to you either, eh?

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the many failings of Fidel and the Cuban Revolution. But to attempt to smear what they HAD accomplished with a contemptuous jeer is just despicable.

[Ismail]

The Cubans stayed in Angola to fight and die in the struggle against the Apartheid regime in South Africa, and got nothing out of it except for the respect of Africans. If that's Soviet Imperialism to you, then I'm the biggest fucking imperialist ever.The Soviets intervened on behalf of the MPLA, which essentially sold itself to Soviet imperialism.

As a note, Hoxha agrees:

The intervention of the Soviet Union and its Cuban mercenaries in Angola is of this nature. They have never had the slightest intention of assisting the Angolan revolution, but their aim was and is. toget their claws into that African country which had won a certain independence after the expulsion of the Portuguese colonialists The Cuban mercenaries are the colonial army dispatched by the Soviet Union to capture markets and strategic positions in the countries of Black Africa, and to go on from Angola to other states, to enable the Soviet social-imperialists, too , to create a modern colonial empire.


Under the cloak of aid for peoples' liber the Soviet Union and its mercenary, Cuba are intervening in other countries with armies equipped with artillery and machine-guns, allegedly to build socialism, which does not exist in either the Soviet Union or Cuba. These two bourgeois-revisionist states intervened in Angola in order to help a capitalist clique seize power, contrary to the aims of the Angolan people who had fought to win their freedom from the Portuguese colonialists. Agostinho Neto is playing the game of the Soviets. In the struggle against the other faction, in order to seize power for himself, he called in the Soviets to help him. The struggle between the two opposing Angolan clans did not have anything of a people's revolutionary character.


The fight between them was a struggle of cliques for power. Each of them was supported by different imperialist states. Agostinho Neto emerged the winner from this contest, while socialism did not triumph in Angola. On the contrary, following the intervention from abroad, Soviet neo-colonialisrn has been established there.
And sending thousands and thousands of doctors to remote corners of Latin America to provide healthcare for those who can't afford it doesn't seem like a big deal to you either, eh?Where did I claim that Castro has an intense hatred of healthcare and/or doctorship?


There's nothing wrong with criticizing the many failings of Fidel and the Cuban Revolution. But to attempt to smear what they HAD accomplished with a contemptuous jeer is just despicable.No, I'm definately not smearing what they have accomplished. They are standing up to US imperialism (which makes more sense today since the USSR doesn't exist and they currently aren't a neo-colony of China) and Cuban society has vastly improved since 1959.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You also might have trouble denying the ideological bankruptcy of the Cuban Communist Party, whose ideology is essentially "we love Che and like to blow shit up in Latin America."

Really? That's their ideology? What books, magazines, documents, party congresses, etc., do you base your well-though-out description on? I'd love to see them.

* * *

Ismail is of course way off about pretty much everything. But let's not let petty facts get in the way of dogma pushed by a long-dead bureaucrat, right?

Fidel was a known leftist from his school days (although a "utopian socialist" early on, by his own admission). You can read his prison letters from the days after the original attack on Moncada to see that he requests books by Marx and Lenin. You can also look at his political activities before that. Raul and Che were known communists. Others in the leadership of July 26 had similar ideologies. The first aspect of the Cuban Revolution dealt with democratic tasks. It grew over into a socialist revolution organically.

"The initial outcome of mass democratic, national liberation and/or anti-capitalist revolutions in backward and imperialist-oppressed countries is often, but not always, the creation of an infant proletarian and farmers state, resting on top of the old capitalist economy. Such a state cannot hold out for long. The revolution must either 'grow over' into a socialist one (i.e. the toilers must mobilize and utilize their newly found state power as an instrument to expropriate the exploiters, establish a monopoly on foreign trade, reorganize the economy to meet human need, and consolidate the creation of the proletarian state) at a relatively quick pace, or be overthrown.

"As the communist revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara pointed out, '...the indigenous bourgeoisies have lost all capacity to oppose imperialism – if they ever had any – and are only dragged along behind it like a caboose. There are no other alternatives. Either a socialist revolution or a caricature of revolution.'" - Organization, guidelines and methods of work of the Party of World Revolution (http://powr-prm.org/guidelines.html)

Cuba sent tens of thousands of troops to Angola without notifying the USSR at all, as anyone who has spent any amount of time looking into the matter would know. It's documented fact. See the book "Conflicting Missions" by Professor Piero Gleijeses and the documentary "Cuba: An African Odyssey."

"Cuba made the decision to send troops without informing the Soviet Union and deployed them, contrary to what has been widely alleged, without any Soviet assistance for the first two months." - source (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB67/)

Cuba lost many of its best fighters in Angola and exposed itself to danger by sending a large chunk of its own weaponry and soldiers. All it took away from that country was its dead.

It was proletarian internationalism in practice. And it's why Fidel and the Cuban toilers are looked at as heroic comrades by millions in Africa while Mr. Hoxha remains almost completely unknown.

I'll leave aside the nonsensical crap about "Soviet imperialism" which has been dealt with numerous times before here, and which is so alien to what imperialism actually is (as explained by none other than Lenin) that a mere cursory glance at reality refutes it.

[Ismail]

Really? That's their ideology? What books, magazines, documents, party congresses, etc., do you base your well-though-out description on? I'd love to see them.I'd indeed love to see some party congress findings. I've seen Korean ones, Ethiopian ones, Romanian ones, Soviet ones, etc. but never Cuban. If we are to judge the Ethiopian ones (Cuba after all defended them, as did the DPRK), then it's mostly just "the U.S. gave me AIDS" and "we must praise the Soviet Union for its great struggle against the Americans, and also because they give us glorious weapons. Also Marxism-Leninism, great worker's struggle, Lenin was pretty cool, etc."


Ismail is of course way off about pretty much everything. But let's not let petty facts get in the way of dogma pushed by a long-dead bureaucrat, right?Fidél Castro is First Secretary of the Cuban Communist Party, a post he has held since 1965, aka 43 years. Enver Hoxha was First Secretary of the Albanian Party a Labour, a post he held for about 41 years. I guess Castro is the über-bureaucrat since he held on longer than Hoxha, in the same position to boot.


Fidel was a known leftist from his school days (although a "utopian socialist" early on, by his own admission).So was Giles Duceppe. So was... a whole lot of other people I can name, even outright reactionaries. Even Enver Hoxha. This doesn't suddenly make them life-long Communists to the end.


You can read his prison letters from the days after the original attack on Moncada to see that he requests books by Marx and Lenin.A youthful man grows up and wants to read Marxism, a rising current within Cuba at that point? Why am I not surprised.


You can also look at his political activities before that. Raul and Che were known communists. Others in the leadership of July 26 had similar ideologies. The first aspect of the Cuban Revolution dealt with democratic tasks. It grew over into a socialist revolution organically.Organically? Wait, what? A revolution doesn't 'organically' grow. There is the bourgeois-democratic revolution (or national-democratic revolution), and then there's the socialist revolution. Neither Cuba or the DPRK moved past the former. Furthermore, being a "known Communist" doesn't mean anything since:
A. Gorbachev was one of the few bureaucrats in the USSR to have read essentially the entire collected works of Marx and Lenin before becoming General Secretary.
B. Deng Xiaoping was a veteran of the civil war.
C. Plekhanov turned opportunist.

Not to mention that, as I said, Communism was actually a fairly popular movement and you were just telling me how Castro was susceptible to utopian ideas.

"
As the communist revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara pointed out, '...the indigenous bourgeoisies have lost all capacity to oppose imperialism – if they ever had any – and are only dragged along behind it like a caboose. There are no other alternatives. Either a socialist revolution or a caricature of revolution.'" - Organization, guidelines and methods of work of the Party of World Revolution (http://powr-prm.org/guidelines.html)So says the guy who pionered the brilliant strategy known as 'Foco' which got him killed and basically undermined the vanguard party upheld by Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, the former who I assume you also uphold.


Cuba sent tens of thousands of troops to Angola without notifying the USSR at all, as anyone who has spent any amount of time looking into the matter would know. It's documented fact. See the book "Conflicting Missions" by Professor Piero Gleijeses and the documentary "Cuba: An African Odyssey."The MPLA just happened to be pro-Soviet and the Cuban intervention was praised quite a bit by the Soviets. What about Ethiopia? Better off, what made the MPLA progressive to begin with as opposed to UNITA or any of the other various factions?


Cuba lost many of its best fighters in Angola and exposed itself to danger by sending a large chunk of its own weaponry and soldiers. All it took away from that country was its dead.Indeed, it's a shame that innocent Cubans had to die because of adventurism.


while Mr. Hoxha remains almost completely unknown.Except in Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and quite a few other Latin American countries, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Liberation_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_People%27s_Movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Mexico_(Marxist-Leninist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Mexico_%28Marxist-Leninist))

Tell me, does this look like a rally (in Mexico) of people who have no idea who Hoxha is?
http://www.iul2006.net/billeder/mexico/demo_mexico.jpg


I'll leave aside the nonsensical crap about "Soviet imperialism" which has been dealt with numerous times before here, and which is so alien to what imperialism actually is (as explained by none other than Lenin) that a mere cursory glance at reality refutes it.Anyone who denies Soviet imperialism in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and other places (like attempts by Khruschev to get Kim Il Sung overthrown by his own party) is a reactionary who holds that only the US is an imperialist force in the world.

[Revy]

The problem with the "Cuban Revolution" in the first place is that the Cuban Communist Party always was Stalinist, so of course it followed the Stalinist model. Cuba as it exists today isn't all that different from the USSR in the 1980's.

Of course, we defend it from imperialism, we praise its progressive aspects, should we engage in cult-like fanaticism about its merits? No. Socialism can be built in Cuba, but it cannot be built under the Stalinist framework that still exists. Stalinism allows for capitalism to operate under a socialist face, to be inevitably replaced with capitalism with a capitalist face. Of course, people laud the workers' benefits and healthcare, so how is Stalinism any different than social democracy?

It's not challenging the capitalist system, it's maintaining it. I am sorry if that is such a hard pill to swallow.

[Ismail]

The problem with the "Cuban Revolution" in the first place is that the Cuban Communist Party always was Stalinist, so of course it followed the Stalinist model. Cuba as it exists today isn't all that different from the USSR in the 1980's.No, it isn't 'Stalinist.' I don't even know if 'Stalinism' (read: Marxism-Leninism) was even all that popular in Cuba as opposed to generic Marxism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Fidél Castro is First Secretary of the Cuban Communist Party, a post he has held since 1965, aka 43 years. Enver Hoxha was First Secretary of the Albanian Party a Labour, a post he held for about 41 years. I guess Castro is the über-bureaucrat since he held on longer than Hoxha, in the same position to boot.Among other things, you utterly misunderstand bureaucracies in proletarian states.


17. Since the earliest years of capitalism, working people have attempted -- in various geographic locations and to varying degrees of success -- to overthrow their exploiters.

In 1871, a revolutionary uprising in Paris, France, created the Paris Commune, considered the first attempt at establishing a proletarian state.

The first successful attempt at overthrowing capitalism came in 1917, when the October Revolution sent shockwaves through the world by overthrowing capitalist rule throughout the vast Russian Empire and laying the foundation for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

The October Revolution, which was carried out by the proletariat – under the leadership of its Bolshevik party – destroyed the capitalist state and paved the way for the construction of a proletarian state in its place. Due to the USSR’s backwardness, isolation, imperialist encirclement, the failure of the socialist revolution to successfully spread to other (especially more advanced) countries, and the loss of many of its most advanced members of the working class in the civil war, the revolution began to degenerate after a few years, giving rise to a privileged bureaucratic caste that eventually seized political power, thus making the USSR a bureaucratized proletarian state.

The bureaucracy did not own the means of production, which were brought into public ownership in the wake of the October Revolution, thus it was not a class. The bureaucracy was a conservative, nationalist caste that controlled the state.

18. After the October Revolution, capitalist rule was overthrown, and capitalist property relations subsequently overturned, in Mongolia, China, Viet Nam, Laos, Albania, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, and the northern half of Korea. But the methods in which capitalism was overthrown in these countries gave rise not to healthy proletarian states, but bureaucratized proletarian states like that which existed in the USSR.

The bureaucrats who controlled these states came from various backgrounds. Some were communists who had genuine revolutionary intentions but viewed “actually existing socialism” in the bureaucratized proletarian states that has already come into existence as the model for socialism and/or looked to the leaders of bureaucratized-socialist states (especially the USSR), who nationalistically subjected the interests of the international working class as a whole to the interests of their own countries, for leadership and direction. Others were opportunists, looking for a way to “get ahead.” Finally, some were professional, administrators, et. al., in the old society seeking privileged positions for themselves in the new society.

In the states liberated from fascism by the Red Army during World War II (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and east Germany), the soon-to-be bureaucrats were placed a top bureaucratic states constructed by the Red Army on the model of the Soviet state.

In the states created through mass revolutions (China, Viet Nam, Laos, Albania, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, Ethiopia and north Korea), the soon-to-be bureaucrats insured the creation of bureaucratic proletarian states by patterning themselves on the bureaucratic castes that ruled the existing bureaucratized proletarian states.


The working class is in power in Cuba. The Communist Party of Cuba is the party of that class. The state in Cuba is the state of that class. Fidel Castro, a leader of the Cuban Revolution since its earliest days, has been chosen time and time again to fill the positions he is in. He is not a privileged bureaucrat but an active fighter, from the attack on Moncada until the present day. Even many of his enemies have been forced to recognize what little privilege he has, as has been pointed out in numerous other threads. Indeed, Fidel has successfully led several fights against rising bureaucracies over the years (see the Ochoca Incident and the Escalante Affairs #1 & #2).


So was Giles Duceppe. So was... a whole lot of other people I can name, even outright reactionaries. Even Enver Hoxha. This doesn't suddenly make them life-long Communists to the end.You argued that Fidel didn't become a communist until after the Revolution. Know you say that it's 'no big deal' that he was one before. Which one is it?


Except in Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and quite a few other Latin American countries, right?No, not even in those ones. A handful of people know about him, sure. But the majority do not. A wikipedia link about a "Hoxhaist" party that won 1% of the votes in a general election and another about a "Hoxhaist" guerrilla army that gave up the fight and became a reformist electoral party doesn't do much for your case. You should have mentioned the "Hoxhaists" in the Dominican Republic who had some success setting up neighborhood councils in parts of the country in the 1980's.. but even then, most Dominicans couldn't tell you who Enver Hoxha was.

Anyway, It's not like this a pissing contest... but are you sure you want to argue that more folks in Latin America know who Enver Hoxha is than Fidel Castro? :lol:

Especially since I was talking about Africa (which was clear in the first part of that sentence, which you coincidentially didn't include in your quote).


The MPLA just happened to be pro-Soviet and the Cuban intervention was praised quite a bit by the Soviets. Actually, the USSR was completely caught off guard by Cuba's moves. Check out the sources I listed earlier if you're really interested. Once Cuba intervened, the leaders of the USSR could hardly condemn them without exposing themselves as conservative bureaucrats.

And no, the MPLA didn't just "happen" to be pro-USSR. As I pointed out in earlier threads, the October Revolution had a great impact on the world that lasted years and years. While bureaucratic degeneration tarnished the USSR's reputation, it didn't destroy it completely.


What about Ethiopia?What about it? After unsucessfully trying to prevent war between Ethiopia and Somalia, Cuba intervened to defend revolutionary Ethiopia from a U.S.-backed Somali invasion.


Better off, what made the MPLA progressive to begin with as opposed to UNITA or any of the other various factions?Are you asking the difference between the socialist MPLA and the U.S.-backed pro-capitalist groups (Unita and FNLA) which allied themselves with the government of apartheid South Africa?


Indeed, it's a shame that innocent Cubans had to die because of adventurism.What happened to "imperialism??"

You admit that Cuba sacrificed for no material gain. What kind of "imperialism" is that?


A youthful man grows up and wants to read Marxism, a rising current within Cuba at that point? Why am I not surprised.Actually, Cuba was deeply influenced by the United States and anti-communism was wide spread at the time. The Communist Party even changed its name to the Popular Socialist Party to deal with this. Maybe you should do some investigating before you start talking.


Organically? Wait, what? A revolution doesn't 'organically' grow. There is the bourgeois-democratic revolution (or national-democratic revolution), and then there's the socialist revolution. Says you, Stalin and the Mensheviks.

Of course in real life revolutions do grow over from one to the other. It's what happened in the USSR and its what happened in Cuba. It's what could have happened in Nicaragua, Burkino Faso, Grenada and Afghanistan.


Neither Cuba or the DPRK moved past the former. Furthermore, being a "known Communist" doesn't mean anything since:You modify your arguments half-way through. Before you said Fidel and company only claimed adherence to communism to win the favor of the USSR. Now you say it doesn't matter that leaders of the 26 July Movement were communists. I'm not sure who this is supposed to fool though, since anyone with a mouse can scroll back up in the thread and see what you said.


So says the guy who pionered the brilliant strategy known as 'Foco' which got him killed and basically undermined the vanguard party upheld by Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, the former who I assume you also uphold.I don't "uphold" anyone. I'm not a dogmatist. Communists don't cling to the writings of this or that personality and refer to them as Holy Writ.

As for "focoism" and whether or not it failed, I can only refer interested parties to this: Foquismo and guerrilla war / A failed Theory? / What it's really about (http://powr-prm.org/cheandtheworld.html#f)


Anyone who denies Soviet imperialism in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and other places (like attempts by Khruschev to get Kim Il Sung overthrown by his own party) is a reactionary who holds that only the US is an imperialist force in the world.Crossing a border doesn't make a country imperialist. That's a liberal view that has nothing to do with the rigorous scientific analysis carried out by Lenin on the question.

Several threads have already been made on Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia and Hungary for those interested enough to do a search.

[Revy]

No, it isn't 'Stalinist.' I don't even know if 'Stalinism' (read: Marxism-Leninism) was even all that popular in Cuba as opposed to generic Marxism.

Perhaps it wasn't popular, but the CCP was always Stalinist, its forerunner the Popular Socialist Party was Stalinist and a member of the Comintern (you know, Stalin's international).

Take for example, this long-winded rant against Trotskyism (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isr/vol27/no03/roca.htm) published in 1966 by a leading Communist Party 'theoretician' named Blas Roca, called "The Trotskyist Slanders Cannot Tarnish the Cuban Revolution".

[Small Geezer]

Where's the picture of Hoxha in that Mexican demo?

[Revy]

The Hoxhaists are amusing, but irrelevant. Hoxhaism isn't popular anywhere. I hadn't even heard of it until recently. It's just a new path for Stalinism to take, since Stalinism is in its dying throes they need to rally around another brutal dictator.

[Ismail]

Where's the picture of Hoxha in that Mexican demo?It's still from the Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist-Leninist)


The Hoxhaists are amusing, but irrelevant. Hoxhaism isn't popular anywhere. I hadn't even heard of it until recently. It's just a new path for Stalinism to take, since Stalinism is in its dying throes they need to rally around another brutal dictator.Just because you're ignorant of Africa, the Middle East and Latin America doesn't mean that Hoxhaism never existed. Hoxhaism has existed since 1978 with the Sino-Albanian split. Before that...

Mao made a speech on November 3, 1966 which claimed that Albania was the only socialist state in Europe and that "an attack on Albania will have to reckon with great People's China. If the U.S. imperialists, the modern Soviet revisionists or any of their lackeys dare to touch Albania in the slightest, nothing lies ahead for them but a complete, shameful and memorable defeat."[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-39) Likewise, Hoxha stated that "You may rest assured, comrades, that come what may in the world at large, our two parties and our two peoples will certainly remain together. They will fight together and they will win together."[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-40)
From the 1960s onwards, nations friendly to the PRC, led by the People's Republic of Albania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_Albania) under Enver Hoxha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha), moved an annual resolution in the General Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly) to transfer China's seat at the UN from the ROC to the PRC. Every year the United States was able to assemble a majority of votes to block this resolution. But the admission of newly independent developing nations in the 1960s gradually turned the General Assembly from being Western-dominated to being dominated by countries sympathetic to Beijing. In addition, the desire of the Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon) administration to improve relations with the de facto government of mainland China to counterbalance the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) reduced American willingness to support the ROC.Anyway, if you want more evidence of Hoxhaists, the Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray (led the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front, which overthrew pro-Soviet military man Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia in 1991), is that sufficient? I already gave links to the Popular Liberation Army, which is being butchered by FARC-EP among others in Colombia as we speak, and in Ecuador the Hoxhaists hold three seats in the 100-seat National Assembly.

To say that Hoxhaism is irrelevant would be a lie created by ignorance.


Perhaps it wasn't popular, but the CCP was always Stalinist, its forerunner the Popular Socialist Party was Stalinist and a member of the Comintern (you know, Stalin's international).

Take for example, this long-winded rant against Trotskyism (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isr/vol27/no03/roca.htm) published in 1966 by a leading Communist Party 'theoretician' named Blas Roca, called "The Trotskyist Slanders Cannot Tarnish the Cuban Revolution".Uh, Tito also condemned Trotskyism as did the post-Stalin USSR. It's nothing new. The actual governments themselves however weren't 'Stalinists.' They also attacked capitalism, ergo they must be the most über-Communists around! Keep in mind that when Lenin and Stalin condemned Trotsky and Trotskyism, they actually focused on his ideology, whereas post-Stalin, attacks on 'Trotskyism' were more like "These guys don't like it, ergo Trotskyists." Hoxhaists have also been called Trotskyists, FYI.

[Revy]

Isn't the Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray part of the same coalition that props up the brutal dictator (and U.S. stooge) Meles Zenawi?

They're said to be not that popular anymore by the way. But way to stick with the workers there! But then again, it's useless trying to explain democracy to you....

[Ismail]

Zenawi led the MLLT, yes. He abandoned Marxism-Leninism in 1990 and is indeed a U.S. puppet, just like Mengistu was a Soviet puppet. We don't endorse him nor hold him to be socialist at all anymore. Still, he upheld Hoxhaism and waged war against the Maoists and Mengistu's men.

[Yehuda Stern]

Replace 'Stalinism' with Khrushchevism and this post is correct

To Trotskyists, Stalinism didn't end with Stalin. All those supporting socialism in one country (Stalinism, Maoism, Khrushschevism, Titoism, Hoxaism, etc.) are in effect Stalinist, whatever their criticism of Stalin or his regime.


Anyone with a basic knowledge of how the Cuban revolution developed knows that after the initial seizure of power Castro and all those who had participated in the struggle against the Batista regime faced pressure not to reveal the full extent of their political ambitions because Cuba was economically dependent on the United States

No one actually "knows" this, because it's completely false. However, some apologists for Castroism would like to believe that, or at least have others believe it.

[Ismail]

I don't get why Trotskyists focus so much on SIOC. Stalin himself clearly said that world revolution is the final and indeed necessary goal for the victory of socialism:

"But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. Lenin expressed this thought succinctly when he said that the task of the victorious revolution is to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries. (Stalin, Vol. XXIII: The Foundations of Leninism, p. 385)"There is so much other stuff Trotskyists can (and have, of course) criticized Stalin on, but SIOC is, quite honestly, irrelevant today since Hoxhaists, Trotskyists, Anarcho-Communists, Syndicalists, Council Communists, etc. all argue for world revolution anyway, the only difference is in the tactic. As Lenin said:

"…when we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth. The 'final' victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible". (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol.26; p470)Do you guys honestly think we sit around and discuss how much we love just having socialism in literally a single country and doing all we can to destroy revolution elsewhere? No, we look forward to seeing Communism (even though it won't come in our lifetimes) after world revolution has made socialism unnecessary, just like you guys advocate.

Back to the point: it wouldn't be accurate to say that Brezhnev supported 'SIOC' since during the interventions in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan he was always stressing each soldier's "internationalist duty" and the need to spread revolution across the world. Of course we know he was full of it, but he was also an advocate of worldwide revolution using this faulty logic. :D

Socialist governments should receive terms based on relations to the means of production among other things since that is what actually matters. Foreign policy matters too, but it's more like if they're being imperialistic or forming friendships for no socialist reason with capitalist states, etc. Fact is, Khrushchev was much different from Stalin, Brezhnev was actually more 'radical' (read: market-oriented) than Khrushchev was but was also more autocratic and corrupt, Tito had this fixation with pseudo-syndicalism, Castro promoted Focoism, which is very different from the vanguard party, Barre tried to merge Islam with Marxism, etc.

[Yehuda Stern]

There's nothing irrelevant about it. It was the original divide between Trotskyism and Stalinism, and to this day colors groups' attitude towards the world revolution and national liberation movements.

[Ismail]

There's nothing irrelevant about it. It was the original divide between Trotskyism and Stalinism, and to this day colors groups' attitude towards the world revolution and national liberation movements.While it does indeed divide us, it is simply wrong to apply it to anyone but Trotsky and Stalin since other socialist leaders never really cared about the debate since it never really applied. The Soviets were funding Communist Parties across the world in the 60's, 70's and 80's (there were major fears that Eurocommunism would lead to a 'Communist' Italy, Spain and France until it naturally became openly reformist) which isn't exactly isolationist.

We know of course that the Soviet Union (post-50's) clearly wasn't actually interested in spreading socialism, but rather expanding its sphere of influence. It wanted types like Nasser, Traoré or Mengistu in power, not types like Béla Kun or Ernst Thälmann. Whether they endorsed "Socialism in One Country" or not is quite frankly a horrible way to say if they're 'Stalinist' or not since I see the SIOC debate as between Stalin himself and Trotsky. Even Kim Il Sung tried to spread Juche like Maoism and basically tried to become leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, which is why most African countries have Juche study groups.

Pretending all of these countries, movements and parties were for a moment 100% Communist, we'd be concluding that they're doing a noble job of spreading revolution (also pretending USSR wasn't imperialist) or at least just communist thought across the world. So what happens then? Would, in this situation, all the socialist countries, movements and parties end themselves?

Hell, I heard stories that you could call up a Soviet embassy and request Lenin's works for free even in the 80's. That's so awesome both as an idea and practice that it almost makes up for Soviet imperialism and its misleading of about 50-70% of the world communist movement.

[Yehuda Stern]

Really? Free books equal worldwide repression and destruction of revolutions?

[Wanted Man]

This thread reminds me of why I don't want to be part of the hoxhaist group. Urgh. Also, it's not surprising to see that NHIA's latest post did not get a response, as it utterly demolished the ridiculous claims against Cuba (coupled with disgusting support for US imperialist stooges). Look, nobody's arguing that the US was the only country in the imperialist bloc, but the Soviet Union was certainly not a part of it.

As for the relevance of hoxhaism, I can't say much. It's certainly not a factor where I'm from, nor is it a factor in any nearby country. We did get one picture of a Mexican rally, a party with 3% of the vote in Ecuador, and a rebel army that demobilised in the 1990s to pursue reformism, except for a few nuts who started murdering their former comrades as 'traitors'. The former two may have some relevance, but it still doesn't say much. One trotskyist group takes part in the "democratic socialist" government of Sri Lanka, that doesn't automatically make trotskyism relevant to the whole world (other things might).

[Ismail]

Also, it's not surprising to see that NHIA's latest post did not get a response,http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1291344&postcount=11


Look, nobody's arguing that the US was the only country in the imperialist bloc, but the Soviet Union was certainly not a part of it. Explain the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the invasion of Hungary, the Specialization Policy between Warsaw Pact states, Peaceful Co-Existence, capitalist reforms (remember, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism), Ethiopia vs. Somalia, the fear the Soviets had of Maoism as far back as the 50's, attempts to overthrow leaders because they don't like the Soviets, etc.



Really? Free books equal worldwide repression and destruction of revolutions?It was a joke. I'm saying it's an awesome idea and not something you'd expect from such a revisionist and imperialist state, 'socialist' or not.

[Yehuda Stern]

Also, it's not surprising to see that NHIA's latest post did not get a response, as it utterly demolished the ridiculous claims against Cuba

Actually, it received no response because it is the usual rhetoric given by Castro supporters.

[Das war einmal]

What a beautiful illustration of socialist internationalism! Two old Stalinists gather to discuss how to take more and more of 'their' workers' rights and go back to market capitalism without causing so much of a social catastrophe like in the USSR.

What a beautiful example of a failing ideology who fails to see the circumstances of today or any day for that matter. Trotskyists support every revolution, except the ones that prevail. Furthermore, they support terrorist factions like Hezbullah and Hamas but complain about non-existent human rights violations in Cuba.

[Wanted Man]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1291344&postcount=11
I did say his latest post. You know: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1291380&postcount=14


Actually, it received no response because it is the usual rhetoric given by Castro supporters.
Indeed, bringing up numerical and historical facts, pointing out complete ignorance while exposing the double standards and contradictions of others. That's "rhetoric" all right. The reaction of the ultra-lefts of any stripe is always to gloss over it and pretend that the sun still shines out of their behinds, as if their arguments weren't dissected and as if they haven't just been exposed as ignoramuses and hypocrites.

[PRC-UTE]

You also might have trouble denying the ideological bankruptcy of the Cuban Communist Party, whose ideology is essentially "we love Che and like to blow shit up in Latin America."

hey that sounds familiair, only different location. :cool:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Explain the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the invasion of Hungary, the Specialization Policy between Warsaw Pact states, Peaceful Co-Existence, capitalist reforms (remember, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism), Ethiopia vs. Somalia, the fear the Soviets had of Maoism as far back as the 50's, attempts to overthrow leaders because they don't like the Soviets, etc.

Maybe I should explain imperialism instead, since it appears you have not a clue about it (and that the other situations have been explained numerous times here and elsewhere).

"(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this 'finance capital', of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopoly capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed."

"The development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still 'reigns' and continues to be regarded as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the bulk of the profits go to the 'geniuses' of financial manipulation. At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialized production; but the immense progress of mankind, which achieved this socialization, goes to benefit... the speculators."


" is something quite different from the old free competition between manufacturers, scattered and out of touch with one another, and producing for an unknown market. Concentration [of production] has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw materials (for example, the iron ore deposits)... [throughout] the whole world. Not only are such estimates made, but these sources are captured by gigantic monopolist associations [now called multi-national conglomerates]. An approximate estimate of the capacity of markets is also made, and the associations 'divide' them up amongst themselves by agreement. Skilled labor is monopolized, the best engineers are engaged; the means of transport are captured – railways in America, shipping companies in Europe and America. Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialization of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialization."

"Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few. The general framework of formally recognized free competition remains, and the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the population becomes a hundred times heavier, more burdensome and intolerable."

Quotes from V.I. Lenin's [I]Imperialism: The Highest State of Capitalism. Emphasis added by me.

[Yehuda Stern]

blah blah, trotskyists, blah blah, terrorism, blah blah, ultra-left

Please. Heard it all before.

[Ismail]

hey that sounds familiair, only different location. :cool:It sounds familiar? What?


I did say his latest post. You know:Thanks for the link, I'll respond to it right now.


Furthermore, they support terrorist factions like Hezbullah and HamasYou're an idiot.

And now Nothing Human Is Alien, take it away! (From my eyesight)

Among other things, you utterly misunderstand bureaucracies in proletarian states.Well if I do then I don't know why we're discussing this. Enver Hoxha served in the exact same position as Fidél Castro currently does: First Secretary of (vanguard party here), ergo his position does not make him any more or less bureaucratic than Fidél. Furthermore, what makes him personally bureaucratic moreso than Hoxha? I mean damn, have you ever seen some of Fidél's speeches? They're competing with Hoxha, that's for sure.


The working class is in power in Cuba. The Communist Party of Cuba is the party of that class. The state in Cuba is the state of that class.Platitudes are awesome!


Fidel Castro, a leader of the Cuban Revolution since its earliest days, has been chosen time and time again to fill the positions he is in.Indeed, no disagreement here.


He is not a privileged bureaucrat but an active fighter, from the attack on Moncada until the present day.Hoxha fought in WWII, without Soviet aid, against both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Furthermore he was as much of a fighter, probably more, than Fidél was. The US, Soviets, Yugoslavs, Greeks and Chinese tried to overthrow him or at least weaken his leadership.


Even many of his enemies have been forced to recognize what little privilege he has,Gandhi didn't live a very luxurious life, but he was still a reformist and racist. Your point?


Fidel has successfully led several fights against rising bureaucracies over the years (see the Ochoca Incident and the Escalante Affairs #1 & #2).Enver Hoxha abolished army ranks, dissolved various cabinet positions, and allowed non-Communists to participate in the government, just like good ol' Fidél. You aren't aware of Albania's Cultural & Ideological Revolution, right?


You argued that Fidel didn't become a communist until after the Revolution. Know you say that it's 'no big deal' that he was one before. Which one is it?Both? Being a leftist doesn't make one a Communist. Mengistu Haile Mariam was a leftist, but didn't embrace Marxism-Leninism (or at least embrace it in name only) until shortly after the Derg took power in Ethiopia.


A handful of people know about him, sure. But the majority do not.So because Fidél is the quisessential anti-American 'dictator' he is thus more legitimate based on that alone? Not many people (on the street) know of Gramsci, but I doubt you'd ignore him based on that.


but are you sure you want to argue that more folks in Latin America know who Enver Hoxha is than Fidel Castro?I bet they know who President Bush is too. In fact, they might even know who he is more than Castro. (Albeit not by much) What the hell is your point?


Especially since I was talking about Africa (which was clear in the first part of that sentence, which you coincidentially didn't include in your quote).A vast majority of Africans haven't heard of Vladimir Lenin to begin with. Once again, what's your point?


Actually, the USSR was completely caught off guard by Cuba's moves. Check out the sources I listed earlier if you're really interested. Once Cuba intervened, the leaders of the USSR could hardly condemn them without exposing themselves as conservative bureaucrats.So are you saying the Soviets tried to keep Portuguese colonial rule as opposed to having a pro-Soviet leader in charge of Angola?


While bureaucratic degeneration tarnished the USSR's reputation, it didn't destroy it completely.Indeed, it managed to mislead 50-70% of the world Communist movement, including many Trotskyist parties who foolishly adopted the position of "Stalin bad, but now that he's dead, his successors are better!"


What about it? After unsucessfully trying to prevent war between Ethiopia and Somalia, Cuba intervened to defend revolutionary Ethiopia from a U.S.-backed Somali invasion.Er, no. Try this: Mengistu Haile Mariam, in the name of "national unity", made Somalians in Ethiopia live quite a... subpar lifestyle. In the name of not standing for this, Mohamed Siad Barre invades after various attempts at negotiations over the Ogaden region. The Soviets, realizing that Ethiopia was a more stable ally than Somalia (even though Mengistu was more of a Maoist than Soviet-style M-L, as was Barre), completely turn on him. Barre receives aid from the US and China, the former of whom thinks that Somalia will abandon its socialist policies, which doesn't happen at all. Cuban soldiers come and take out Barre's forces, Somalians in the Ogaden continue to lead lives of descrimination and overall badness.


Are you asking the difference between the socialist MPLA and the U.S.-backed pro-capitalist groups (Unita and FNLA) which allied themselves with the government of apartheid South Africa?UNITA was extremely opportunistic and had the idea of getting aid from the US and such as a way of fighting the Soviets. The fact that UNITA was still fighting it out as far as 2002, when the Soviets ceased existence and Santos got on good terms with the US, kinda shows that UNITA wasn't your average pro-US rebellion with a single purpose.


What happened to "imperialism??" You admit that Cuba sacrificed for no material gain. What kind of "imperialism" is that?It isn't imperialism because they gained little except more respect and probably aid from the Soviets.


Actually, Cuba was deeply influenced by the United States and anti-communism was wide spread at the time.Tsarist Russia, Ethiopia, Somalia, Albania, etc. suffered from the same problem, it doesn't mean that no one becomes a leftist or sneaks in some Marxist books.


Of course in real life revolutions do grow over from one to the other. It's what happened in the USSR... Afghanistan.Ahahahaha, Afghanistan? Are you shitting me? A military coup turns into a socialist revolution? A 'revolution' with near-zero popular support? I hope you're at least talking about that, and not when H. Amin was shot in the head by the KGB and the nation turned into a de facto Soviet puppet.

The socialist phase of a revolution happens when the bourgeoisie is done away with and the proletariat takes control, direct control. Any 'popular' revolution is not socialist, it's just that, 'popular', which includes an alliance of the national bourgeoisie, petite-bourgeoisie, and proletariat.

Furthermore you're wrong about the USSR, it did indeed have a socialist revolution, remember October?


You modify your arguments half-way through. Before you said Fidel and company only claimed adherence to communism to win the favor of the USSR. Now you say it doesn't matter that leaders of the 26 July Movement were communists. I'm not sure who this is supposed to fool though, since anyone with a mouse can scroll back up in the thread and see what you said.I never denied Fidél and co. were leftists, hence why I put quotes around the "known Communist" since it seems pretty clear that Fidél didn't care much about the Soviets until, you know, the Americans opposed what he was doing in Cuba.


I don't "uphold" anyone. I'm not a dogmatist. Communists don't cling to the writings of this or that personality and refer to them as Holy Writ.So you're a Maoist? :lol:

I am, of course, joking since apparently you don't uphold anyone, especially not Fidél Castro, who you seem fit to debate with me over. I also do not uphold Enver Hoxha using this logic, even though I agree with him, and Stalin, and Lenin, and Engels... and Marx. I guess I don't uphold any of them either. Now either this is the case, or "uphold" doesn't mean "GLORIOUS LEADER LEON TROTSKY TODAY VISITED A GROCERY IN MEXICO WHERE HE MET WITH SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE STORE, MANSEI" or something. I'm betting the latter.


Crossing a border doesn't make a country imperialist. That's a liberal view that has nothing to do with the rigorous scientific analysis carried out by Lenin on the question.Yes, the Soviets merely crossed the borders with a few tanks. That's clearly all that happened. Also, the Nazi Germans crossed the Polish border, nothing happening there either.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You're an idiot.

Please don't flame.

[Ismail]

Please don't flame.Very well. He holds a simplistic worldview in which apparently Cuba has "human rights violations" (see? I'm against Cuba but I don't make stuff up) and both Hamas and Hizbullah are terrorists despite having popular support and mass movements, which is the direct opposite of terrorism.

[Comrade_Ceaucescu]

Trotsky he so stupid he reject Soviet friendliness

I think he racist and hate Russians and that why

Romania love Soviet we thank them every day for glorious booming economy which CIA Commissar Ronald Reagan ruin

Don't deny he CIA capitalist western pig! It common knowledge in Romania

[Ismail]

Well, Trotsky did call Stalin a "Asiatic" back in the 20's in a rather racist manner (since Stalin was Georgian, not Russian, and even said he felt Asian as opposed to European), but yeah, nothing to do with Russia.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Ismail argues in a circular and childish manner, ignores documented evidence and completely changes his arguments midstream. It's not a serious method of debate at all. The only point of responding to it is for the benefit of other comrades who may be reading this exchange.

I'll handle his latest response, but after that I won't waste any more time on this unless something new (or principled) comes up.


Well if I do then I don't know why we're discussing this. Enver Hoxha served in the exact same position as Fidél Castro currently does: First Secretary of (vanguard party here), ergo his position does not make him any more or less bureaucratic than Fidél. Furthermore, what makes him personally bureaucratic moreso than Hoxha? I mean damn, have you ever seen some of Fidél's speeches? They're competing with Hoxha, that's for sure.

So one's position in society is determined by the length of speeches they give?

No, as I said, you completely misunderstand the nature of bureaucracies in the proletarian states.

"The October Revolution, which was carried out by the proletariat – under the leadership of its Bolshevik party – destroyed the capitalist state and paved the way for the construction of a proletarian state in its place. Due to the USSR’s backwardness, isolation, imperialist encirclement, the failure of the socialist revolution to successfully spread to other (especially more advanced) countries, and the loss of many of its most advanced members of the working class in the civil war, the revolution began to degenerate after a few years, giving rise to a privileged bureaucratic caste that eventually seized political power, thus making the USSR a bureaucratized proletarian state.

"The bureaucracy did not own the means of production, which were brought into public ownership in the wake of the October Revolution, thus it was not a class. The bureaucracy was a conservative, nationalist caste that controlled the state.

"In the states created through mass revolutions (China, Viet Nam, Laos, Albania, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, Ethiopia and north Korea), the soon-to-be bureaucrats insured the creation of bureaucratic proletarian states by patterning themselves on the bureaucratic castes that ruled the existing bureaucratized proletarian states.

"While relying on its existence for their positions, the bureaucrats simultaneously undermine the bureaucratized proletarian state by pursuing their own narrow interests (especially by seeking out ways to get more privileges and to secure wealth and positions of power that can be inherited by their offspring).

"The tendency of the bureaucracies to attempt to “peacefully coexist” with imperialism, allow increasing capitalist penetration into the economy and seek out new property forms, combined with the pressures of a hostile capitalist world, can lead to an eventual collapse of the bureaucratized proletarian state under the weight of its own contradictions. In the wake of such a collapse the bureaucracy will split, with the largest section most likely going over the internal and external forces of capitalist counterrevolution which will take full advantage of the situation to take power and forge a capitalist state. This is what occurred in the USSR, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and east Germany." - Organization, guidelines and methods of work of the Party of World Revolution (http://www.powr-prm.org/guidelines.html)

Bureaucrats are administrators who have elevated social positions that give them special interests attached from those of the working class and the proletarian state.

They are characterized by their control, privilege (which comes from their positions above the working class), isolation from the working class, and conservative self-centered outlook, and thrive on a lack of workers democracy.

There's no cult of personality around Fidel. Nor does he live a life of privilege. By admission of the right-wing rag "The Miami Herald (http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:--z-a9-ZTKcJ:www.latinamericanstudies.org/fidel/castro-family.htm+http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/fidel/castro-family.htm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)" and 'defectors', Fidel lives an "austere" life in a "two-house complex...furnished with simple wood and leather sofas and chairs and Cuban handicrafts" with the only visible luxury being "a big-screen television."

This is the leader of the entire country (or he was when this was written), and this is coming from arguably the most anti-Cuban newspaper in the United States. Draw your own conclusions.


Furthermore he was as much of a fighter, probably more, than Fidél was.

Again, this isn't a duel or pissing contest, but let's have some historical accuracy. I'm not discounting Hoxha's role in the resistance in Albania during WW2, but the United States attempted to murder Fidel Castro over 600 times. Rafeal Trujillo did the same. The United States sent a strong mercenary band into Cuba with the intention of overthrowing the Revolution. The U.S. had CIA-backed counterrevolutionaries waging open war in Cuba long after the success of the revolution. A terrorist campaign was waged against Cuba which included bombings and ecological warfare (e.g. importing foreign species of insects to destroy crops). Cuba was threatened with nuclear annihilation. Fidel lead the attack on Moncada. Fidel lead the Revolutionary War. Fidel lead opperations in Angola.


Gandhi didn't live a very luxurious life, but he was still a reformist and racist. Your point?

My point was that he is not a privileged bureaucrat, as I said in the original statement your responded to.


Enver Hoxha abolished army ranks, dissolved various cabinet positions, and allowed non-Communists to participate in the government, just like good ol' Fidél.

Except that Hoxha was a bureaucrat, and his manuevers were nothing more than bureaucratic wrangling.

The incidents I spoke of in Cuba marked defeats of rising bureaucracies.


You aren't aware of Albania's Cultural & Ideological Revolution, right?

I'm aware that it wasn't much of a "revolution" at all. It was a move to tighten the bureaucracy's control on Albania, e.g., by increasing "labor discipline" and forced collectivization.


Both? Being a leftist doesn't make one a Communist. Mengistu Haile Mariam was a leftist, but didn't embrace Marxism-Leninism (or at least embrace it in name only) until shortly after the Derg took power in Ethiopia.

I'm not talking about whether or not he is deemed an 'authentic anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist' by your sect. You originally acted as if Fidel claimed to be a communist only after poor relations with the United States. I pointed out that he was a communist (although of the utopian variety) before the Revolution even started.


So because Fidél is the quisessential anti-American 'dictator' he is thus more legitimate based on that alone?

Wait a minute.. let's remember what we're talking about.

I pointed to Cuba's contributions in Africa and the how they gave millions of African's a positive view of Cuba that continues to this day, and comparing that with your anti-revisionist hero, who is virtually unknown there.

You responded with a poor argument that there are some "Hoxhaist" sects in Latin America.

I pointed out that a few small sects doesn't mean the average person in Latin America knows who Hoxha is.

I also said that I wasn't interested in a contest, and laughed at a comparison of who is more known in Latin America: Fidel or Hoxha.


A vast majority of Africans haven't heard of Vladimir Lenin to begin with. Once again, what's your point?

That Cuba's selfless and proletarian internationalism in Africa makes it an example and shining beacon to millions of Africans.


So are you saying the Soviets tried to keep Portuguese colonial rule as opposed to having a pro-Soviet leader in charge of Angola?

Obviously not. I'm pointing out that:

1. Cuba's moves in Angola were made indepenent of wishes or knowledge of the USSR bureaucracy, which is a documented fact.

2. The USSR bureaucracy's approach in Angola was based on their narrow conservative outlook (as was "peaceful coexistence") and could never have lead to the victory of the MPLA over local reactionaries and South African invaders.


Er, no. Try this: Mengistu Haile Mariam, in the name of "national unity", made Somalians in Ethiopia live quite a... subpar lifestyle. In the name of not standing for this, Mohamed Siad Barre invades after various attempts at negotiations over the Ogaden region. The Soviets, realizing that Ethiopia was a more stable ally than Somalia (even though Mengistu was more of a Maoist than Soviet-style M-L, as was Barre), completely turn on him. Barre receives aid from the US and China, the former of whom thinks that Somalia will abandon its socialist policies, which doesn't happen at all. Cuban soldiers come and take out Barre's forces, Somalians in the Ogaden continue to lead lives of descrimination and overall badness.

Siad Barre wasn't interested in negotiations. As I mentioned earlier, Cuba tried to prevent a war between Somalia and Ethiopia, but even though Somalia promised then not to invade Ethiopia, it did anyway.

"It was at that precise moment [that Magistu Haile Mariam announced the socialist character of the Ethopian revolution] that the right-wing faction of the government of Somalia felt the time to invade Ethiopia had come, because they knew that invading Ethiopia meant cooperating with imperialism in the destruction of a great revolution and that imperialism would be delighted.... Today we realize that when we met with Somalia's leaders in March of last year in Aden they had already worked out the plan -- which they later put into pratice -- to invade Ethiopia, because they felt that the historical opportunity had arrived.... One of those [reactionary Arab countries], Saudi Arabia, which is ruled by an archaic monarchy, was one of the most interested in the destruction of the Ethiopian revolution because when you see your neighbor's house on fire you take precautions.... In view of these favorable circumstances for them, the reactionary faction, who hoped to get a flood of petrodollars from Saudi Arabia and Iran, and economic aid from NATO and the United States, took advantage of the fact that there was a revolution in Ethiopia and foisted on this country their policy of war and aggression.... But at the Aden meeting the leaders of Somalia solemnly pledged, solemnly committed themselves not to invade Ethiopia ever, not to attack Ethiopia militarily. In fact they already has everything planned, and the attack began in July.... [A]ctually our main support for Ethiopia involved sending specialists. The Ethiopians already have artillery and tank units, and equipment. They more than enough soldiers, and training an infantryman is easier than training a tank or artillery specialist." - Fidel, speech in Santiago de Cuba, 1978.

"The situation in the Horn of Africa is still tense, because Somalia refuses to renounce its expansionist aims and persists in attacking Ethopia. Recently, it signed an agreement with the United States for the establishment of U.S. military bases in its territory. The delegates to the Second Conference strongly denounce this agreement as a further threat to peace." - Fidel Castro, Resolution in the Second Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba, 1980.

BTW, east Germany, north Korea and south Yemen also aided in the defense of Ethiopia.

Siad Barre spoke of a nationalist desire to unite a "Greater Somalia" under his leadership. It was his Somalia that invaded Ethiopia, not the other way around. Although he was defeated, he still managed to get $100 million in aid every year from the United States until 1989.

As for Somalia not "abandoning it socialist policies".... perhaps you're unaware but starting in 1977 Somalia was opened to the World Bank and the IMF. In 1979 there was an imperialist-backed and sponsored election to a “people’s parliament.” In 1987 privitization began. In 1988 private banks opened, and the government adopted the imperialist banker’s “structural adjustment policies.”

Your "everything-anti-USSR is good" line is similar to that of the Maoists, who ended up supporting all sorts of reactionary goons from Afghanistan to the White House.


UNITA was extremely opportunistic and had the idea of getting aid from the US and such as a way of fighting the Soviets. The fact that UNITA was still fighting it out as far as 2002, when the Soviets ceased existence and Santos got on good terms with the US, kinda shows that UNITA wasn't your average pro-US rebellion with a single purpose.

Of course UNITA was opportunist. Are you answering your own original question ("what made the MPLA progressive to begin with as opposed to UNITA or any of the other various factions?") here, or what?


It isn't imperialism because they gained little except more respect and probably aid from the Soviets.

So what happened to Cuba's intervention in Angola being about "Soviet imperialism" like you argued in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1291298&postcount=5)?

What happened to your argument that Fidel "sent troops at the request of the Soviets into Angola"??


Tsarist Russia, Ethiopia, Somalia, Albania, etc. suffered from the same problem, it doesn't mean that no one becomes a leftist or sneaks in some Marxist books.


You're changing your arguments mid-stream again..

First, Fidel only claimed to be a communist after the break with the U.S.

I pointed out that he was a communis before the Revolution.

Then it was no big deal that Fidel was a communist before the Revolution, because "Marxism [was] a rising current within Cuba at that point."

I pointed out that the opposite was true: that anti-communism was extremely dominant in Cuba at the time.

Now it's not big deal that Marxism wasn't "a rising current within Cuba," because Fidel could sneak books!

:lol:


I'd indeed love to see some party congress findings.

So the answer to my original question, "Really? That ["we love Che and like to blow shit up in Latin America." -- as you argued] is [the Cuban communists'] ideology? What books, magazines, documents, party congresses, etc., do you base your well-though-out description on? I'd love to see them.," is none.


Ahahahaha, Afghanistan? Are you shitting me? A military coup turns into a socialist revolution? A 'revolution' with near-zero popular support?

This subject has been discussed over and over again here. It's clear that you don't have even a basic grasp of what actually occurred in Afghanistan. Rather than type it all again, I'll simply quote some earlier posts:


It wasn't a coup.

It happened like this (a very short version):

Two large protests/uprising, lead by the PDPA, broke out in late 77 and early 78. Both were smashed by the government, and leading members of the PDPA were jailed.

After the second uprising, Kaibar, a union leader and leading member of the PDPA, was killed by government forces.

A massive protest broke out against the assassination. Many of the participants were union members.

The government then arrested many of the leaders of the PDPA. Amin and other leaders of the military wing of the party escaped arrest.

Another uprising started at the Kabul International Airport, and soon spread to Kabul itself. Under the orders of the military wing of the party, a section of the army rebelled and stormed the palace. The palace guard resisted strongly. Strategic places such as the Ministry of Defense, radio stations and telecommunication centers were seized. The palace guards were isolated and finally defeated.

After seizing power, the military forces handed control over to the civilian wing of the party (some coup.. a military seizing power to hand it over instantly).

People in the cities of Afghanistan welcomed the revolution. Hundreds of thousands held victory marches in the cities.

But don't take my word for it:

"On April 27, 1978, to prevent the police from attacking a huge demonstration in front of the presidential palace, the army intervened, and after firing a single shot from a tank at the palace, the government resigned. The military officers then invited the Marxist party to form the government, under the leadership of Noor Mohammed Taraki, a university professor.

"This is how a Marxist government came into office -- it was a totally indigenous happening -- not even the CIA blamed the U.S.S.R. for this." - http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/104.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/104.html)

Then we can see what Lenin has to say about such things:

"The term ‘putsch’, in its scientific sense, may be employed only when the attempt at insurrection has revealed nothing but a circle of conspirators or stupid maniacs, and has aroused no sympathy among the masses." That clearly wasn't the case, as can be seen by the uprisings and large demonstrations.

Lenin also said "The exploiters can be defeated at one stroke in the event of a successful uprising at the centre, or of a revolt in the army."

As Emine Engin asked in his book on the Saur Revolution: "In Russia as well, soldiers made up an important section of the striking force. Clashes were brief and power was seized with relatively few losses. What did last for a long time were the sharp and bloody clashes throughout the civil war. And in the civil war certain backward sections of the people took the side of counterrevolution. Was the October Revolution a ‘coup’?"

On the counterrevolution:

Many in the backward countryside either did not support the revolution, or were neutral. The revolutionary government eliminated all peasant debt early on, but the landlords responded by hording grain. The government was unable to secure grain for the peasants, thus making things even harded for them then they were orginally. This turned many against the government. The U.S. helped organize and supported a counterrevolutionary armed based on the warlords and the mullahs the revolutionary government sought to eliminate. According to Brzezinki (Carter's right hand man), this was done largely with the intention of provoking the USSR to intervene militarily.



The civil war in Afghanistan was waged between modernizing communists (who came to power with widespread support among Afghanistan's -- admittedly small -- working class, students and a section of the poor peasantry) and U.S./Pakistan/Saudi-backed counterrevolutionary warlords, landowners, money lenders and mullahs (loosely grouped together as the "mujahideen," or holy warriors).

Progressive steps carried out by the revolutionary government (such as land reform, canceling peasants' debts, elimination of veil restrictions, compulsory education for both sexes, bringing women into the workforce and political life, etc.) sparked the reactionary wave, which was heavily supported by U.S. imperialism and its regional lackies (along with China, who participated under the guise of 'fighting Soviet social-imperialism'). The question of women's liberation particularly animated the rabid reactionaries. The New York Times wrote at the time: 'Land reform attempts undermined their village chiefs. Portraits of Lenin threatened the religious leaders. But it was the Kabul revolutionary Government's granting of new rights to women that pushed Orthodox Moslem men in the Pashtoon villages of eastern Afghanistan into picking up their guns.'


The bureaucrats leading the USSR at the time were pulled into the battle out of a real need to secure their border. They sent 100,000 troops only after refusing to send troops for some time. Still, the intervention brought about a serious chance for great gains to be made in Afghanistan - such as those that were made possible by the October Revolution in neighboring Uzbekistan, then a section of the USSR. Afghanistan was 90 percent illiterate at the time of the civil war, while virtually everyone could read in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan had a doctor for every 400 people while Afghanistan had one for every 20,000! Not to mention the level of women's equality in Uzbekistan.

The imperialists and their allies wanted not only to "get back" Afghanistan - a buffer state imperialism created in Central Asia, but also to destroy the USSR. They saw a defeat of the Red Army in Afghanistan as a way to make an opening into the USSR to push through counterrevolution, and to a large extent, they were right! How long after the treacherous withdrawal of the Red Army (which wasn't actually loosing the war at the time!!) did the USSR crumble?

And of course the USSR intervention was along the lines of what communists had long stood for (even though the bureaucrats didn't intend it that way). Lenin wrote "After expropriating the capitalists and organising 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 in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states."

At the very least, communists were certainly not supporters of "national liberation" that benefited the mullahs! Lenin wrote:

"With regard to the more backward states and nations, in which feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations predominate, it is particularly important to bear in mind:

"first, that all Communist parties must assist the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement in these countries, and that the duty of rendering the most active assistance rests primarily with the workers of the country the backward nation is colonially or financially dependent on; [so much for that, the 'leftists' in the U.S. and Britain jumped on the imperialist bandwagon!]

"second, the need for a struggle against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries; [according to YKHSOW, this amounts to Islamaphobia in the Afghan context]

"third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.; [!!!]

"fourth, the need, in backward countries, to give special support to the peasant movement against the landowners, against landed proprietorship, and against all manifestations or survivals of feudalism, and to strive to lend the peasant movement the most revolutionary character by establishing the closest possible alliance between the West European communist proletariat and the revolutionary peasant movement in the East, in the colonies, and in the backward countries generally. It is particularly necessary to exert every effort to apply the basic principles of the Soviet system in countries where pre-capitalist relations predominate—by setting up “working people’s Soviets”, etc.;"

There's a lot more.. see these threads:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1144753
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1068332

And this post:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1070957&postcount=33


The socialist phase of a revolution happens when the bourgeoisie is done away with and the proletariat takes control, direct control. Any 'popular' revolution is not socialist, it's just that, 'popular', which includes an alliance of the national bourgeoisie, petite-bourgeoisie, and proletariat.

The working class has to seize political power before it can make the neccessary economic changes. There's also the question of the tasks of the bourgeois revolution (democracy, land reform, etc.) which have yet to be carried out in the imperialist-oppressed countries because the local bourgeoisie is too weak and afraid of the working class. In the countries, the tasks fall onto the proletariat.

Hence, "The initial outcome of mass democratic, national liberation and/or anti-capitalist revolutions in backward and imperialist-oppressed countries is often, but not always, the creation of an infant proletarian and farmers state, resting on top of the old capitalist economy. Such a state cannot hold out for long."

The toilers must finish the revolution (i.e. mobilize and utilize their newly found state power as an instrument to expropriate the exploiters, establish a monopoly on foreign trade, institute a planned economy, and consolidate the creation of the proletarian state) or be overthrown. The rate at which the revolution proceeds is determined by material conditions, but needless to say the socialist tasks have to be carried out as quickly as possible.

That's reality. We have the October Revolution, the Saur Revolution and the revolutions in Afghanistan, Grenada and Burkino Faso to look at for proof.

Just because Hoxha (or Stalin, or whoever else) says things are one way doesn't make it so.

One of you're favorite comrades spelled it out: "Theory is not a note which you can present at any moment to reality for payment. If a theory proves mistaken we must revise it or fill out its gaps." - Trotsky


Furthermore you're wrong about the USSR, it did indeed have a socialist revolution, remember October?

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you should study subjects before your start telling other people they are wrong about them.

Revolutions often have to deal with democratic tasks before moving on to the socialists ones.

In backward countries where the working class is a minority (like Tsarist Russia) it has to lead the peasants/farmers to carry out the tasks the local bourgeoisie can and has not carried out. From there the socialist tasks can be carried out.

The stagist theory has nothing to do with reality (or communism).

I never said that the October Revolution wasn't socialist.

The working class took political power in the October Revolution, but it didn't immediately abolish capitalism. Once it had taken power the working class was actually forced to expropriate the capitalists and come into conflict with the "bigger" land owning peasants sooner than it originally planned to by invasion and civil war. As soon as that was over, it made a retreat in the form of the NEP.


Yes, the Soviets merely crossed the borders with a few tanks. That's clearly all that happened.

Even if they invaded with 300,000 tanks, 1,000,000 ground troops, 40,000 fighter jets, and a waterpistol it still wouldn't make them imperialist.

"Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed." - Lenin

[Ismail]

So one's position in society is determined by the length of speeches they give?You're the one arguing that Fidél is a tough-as-nails working-class hero but Hoxha is a lazy bureaucrat.


Bureaucrats are administrators who have elevated social positions that give them special interests attached from those of the working class and the proletarian state.Indeed, but how does this explain Hoxha being a bureaucrat but Fidél isn't? Cuba has an active tourist industry and capitalism seems to exist just fine in certain parts of the economy vis-à-vis other capitalist states. Compare this to Albania, which banned investments and every single part of the economy was owned completely by the state. (Including collectives here)


They are characterized by their control, privilege (which comes from their positions above the working class), isolation from the working class, and conservative self-centered outlook, and thrive on a lack of workers democracy.Bureaucracy does indeed exist. However, would you like to point out flaws in the 1976 Albanian constitution? http://bjoerna.dk/dokumentation/Albanian-Constitution-1976.htm


There's no cult of personality around Fidel.It's relative. Gandhi has a personality cult, as does Kim Il Sung, even though both are quite different. In Cuba, I know many who idolize Fidél and put him as basically the only person capable of making revolution. Trotsky held the same view of Lenin, that without him (Lenin), he wasn't sure if October would of ever happened.

Now you probably mean a state-sponsored personality cult, which I do know exists, to a limited extent of course, in Cuba. I've seen magazine comics that portray Fidél Castro and in particular Che in a heroic light. While the Fidél cult isn't strong, the Che one is, as evidenced by Che's face appearing in the Young Communist League of Cuba among other places, and the Cuban Communist Party basically treats him and Fidél as its two 'fathers.'


Nor does he live a life of privilege. By admission of the right-wing rag "The Miami Herald (http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:--z-a9-ZTKcJ:www.latinamericanstudies.org/fidel/castro-family.htm+http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/fidel/castro-family.htm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)" and 'defectors', Fidel lives an "austere" life in a "two-house complex...furnished with simple wood and leather sofas and chairs and Cuban handicrafts" with the only visible luxury being "a big-screen television."I've seen Hoxha's house, it's nothing amazing. However, you seem to think that bureaucrats live über-luxurious lives, which also isn't true.


This is the leader of the entire country (or he was when this was written), and this is coming from arguably the most anti-Cuban newspaper in the United States. Draw your own conclusions.And now on Stalin's lifestyle:
"My father lived on the ground floor. He lived in one room and made it do for everything. He slept on the sofa, made up at night as a bed." (S. Alliluyeva: Letters to a Friend; London; 1967; p. 28).

"Stalin does not seek honours. He loathes pomp. He is averse to public displays. He could have all the nominal regalia in the chest of a great state. But he prefers the background." (I. D. Levine: Stalin: A Biography; London; 1931; p. 248-49).




Again, this isn't a duel or pissing contest, but let's have some historical accuracy. I'm not discounting Hoxha's role in the resistance in Albania during WW2, but the United States attempted to murder Fidel Castro over 600 times. Rafeal Trujillo did the same. The United States sent a strong mercenary band into Cuba with the intention of overthrowing the Revolution...I don't deny this.


My point was that he is not a privileged bureaucrat, as I said in the original statement your responded to.I never called him a bureaucrat to begin with, you're the one asserting that Hoxha was.


Except that Hoxha was a bureaucrat, and his manuevers were nothing more than bureaucratic wrangling.Explain? Or rather you seemingly won't since this is your last post concerning this and all.




I'm aware that it wasn't much of a "revolution" at all. It was a move to tighten the bureaucracy's control on Albania, e.g., by increasing "labor discipline" and forced collectivization.Wow, forced collectivization even though by 1955 collectivization was already complete? Amazing!



You originally acted as if Fidel claimed to be a communist only after poor relations with the United States. I pointed out that he was a communist (although of the utopian variety) before the Revolution even started.Utopians aren't Communists, or at least not Communists in a useful sense. Being a utopian, by Lenin's standard, is pretty much Left Communism which doesn't say anything good about Fidél.

You responded with a poor argument that there are some "Hoxhaist" sects in Latin America.


I pointed out that a few small sects doesn't mean the average person in Latin America knows who Hoxha is.And I pointed out that it doesn't matter how popular something is, that has little bearing considering Hoxha was hated by the Soviets, Americans and Chinese by the time Hoxhaism formed, and obviously all three had a pretty big monopoly on foreign affairs.


That Cuba's selfless and proletarian internationalism in Africa makes it an example and shining beacon to millions of Africans.Internationalism in the name of crushing anti-Soviet movements.


1. Cuba's moves in Angola were made indepenent of wishes or knowledge of the USSR bureaucracy, which is a documented fact.Yet the Soviets failed to condemn this act as adventurist and harmful to the prospect of socialism in Angola, because they, in fact, approved of it. Even if there was no consultation, it doesn't mean they were against it. It should probably be noted that, like Kim Il Sung tried to spread Juche, Castro also tried to spread Foco.


2. The USSR bureaucracy's approach in Angola was based on their narrow conservative outlook (as was "peaceful coexistence") and could never have lead to the victory of the MPLA over local reactionaries and South African invaders.The MPLA wasn't a legitimate socialist organization, but otherwise you are correct, and "peaceful coexistence" was horrible, as you said.


Siad Barre wasn't interested in negotiations. As I mentioned earlier, Cuba tried to prevent a war between Somalia and Ethiopia, but even though Somalia promised then not to invade Ethiopia, it did anyway.Ethiopia tried to undermine the Somali government with groups like the Somali National Movement, and before that generally supported various clan-based rebellions in the western parts of Somalia.


*Fidel speech*First off, Mengistu was essentially a semi-Maoist (when he first came into power, he encouraged students to read Mao's Little Red Book and to go to the countryside to teach peasants how to read, write, overthrow landords etc., and I'm pretty sure you'd be against him simply for that. Secondly, this claim that Barre was right-wing is rather absurd considering he was widely known for his nationalization and land reform programs just like Mengistu. He also had a different and much more difficult problem that was also in Ethiopia at a much reduced level: the fight against tribalism.

The key difference is that the Ethiopian state under Mengistu practiced Amharic chauvinism against the Somali, Tigrayan, Oromo, and other minorities, which is probably the key reason Mengistu was forced to leave in 1991.


"The situation in the Horn of Africa is still tense, because Somalia refuses to renounce its expansionist aims and persists in attacking Ethopia. Recently, it signed an agreement with the United States for the establishment of U.S. military bases in its territory."As I said, Ethiopia was undermining Somalia. Somalia was friendly to the United States because the US would give it aid to fight against Ethiopia. This wasn't the best action, but Chinese aid wasn't much.


BTW, east Germany, north Korea and south Yemen also aided in the defense of Ethiopia.East Germany was little more than a Soviet puppet, the DPRK at that point had gotten over its disagreements over the Soviet 20th Party Congress and had become friends with them again, and South Yemen I admittedly know little of.


As for Somalia not "abandoning it socialist policies".... perhaps you're unaware but starting in 1977 Somalia was opened to the World Bank and the IMF. In 1979 there was an imperialist-backed and sponsored election to a “people’s parliament.”"Imperialist-backed'? Explain this. Furthermore as I said I don't agree with Somalia's foreign policy.


In 1987 privitization began. In 1988 private banks opened, and the government adopted the imperialist banker’s “structural adjustment policies.”By 1987 Somalia was getting close to collapse. Also, Mengistu abandoned socialism in 1990 when the situation was somewhat more stable than Somalia's.


Your "everything-anti-USSR is good" line is similar to that of the Maoists, who ended up supporting all sorts of reactionary goons from Afghanistan to the White House.If you're talking about the Mujahidin, Hoxha also supported them because they resisted Soviet imperialism.




Of course UNITA was opportunist. Are you answering your own original question ("what made the MPLA progressive to begin with as opposed to UNITA or any of the other various factions?") here, or what?Opportunism doesn't mean it was pro-US or pro-South Africa, it means it did all it could to get aid from groups to fight against the MPLA.


So what happened to Cuba's intervention in Angola being about "Soviet imperialism" like you argued in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1291298&postcount=5)?

What happened to your argument that Fidel "sent troops at the request of the Soviets into Angola"??The Cuban intervention aided Soviet imperialist aims. While you are correct that the Soviets didn't request Cuban troops in Angola, they still endorsed it if not in words than in deeds.



First, Fidel only claimed to be a communist after the break with the U.S.

I pointed out that he was a communis before the Revolution.He was a utopian leftist.


Then it was no big deal that Fidel was a communist before the Revolution, because "Marxism [was] a rising current within Cuba at that point."

I pointed out that the opposite was true: that anti-communism was extremely dominant in Cuba at the time.

Now it's not big deal that Marxism wasn't "a rising current within Cuba," because Fidel could sneak books!Anti-Communism was dominant in the same way it was dominant in Tsarist Russia or Albania. It still didn't prevent intellectuals from learning about Marx and spreading his word to peasants and/or proletarians. All three states were very strigent in their Anti-Communism, but due to their reactionary nature, Communism still caught on underground.


Revolutions often have to deal with democratic tasks before moving on to the socialists ones.I never denied this.


In backward countries where the working class is a minority (like Tsarist Russia) it has to lead the peasants/farmers to carry out the tasks the local bourgeoisie can and has not carried out. From there the socialist tasks can be carried out.I never denied this.


The working class took political power in the October Revolution, but it didn't immediately abolish capitalism. Once it had taken power the working class was actually forced to expropriate the capitalists and come into conflict with the "bigger" land owning peasants sooner than it originally planned to by invasion and civil war. As soon as that was over, it made a retreat in the form of the NEP.The NEP, as you know, was still done under proletarian dictatorship. I haven't seen anything on how the proletarian dictatorship was actually established in Cuba, I just see it the same way it was 'established' in the DPRKP: not at all, just a 'popular' government.


Even if they invaded with 300,000 tanks, 1,000,000 ground troops, 40,000 fighter jets, and a waterpistol it still wouldn't make them imperialist.It would of made them imperialist to send a single armed man to try and overthrow the government.


Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed." - LeninThe Soviet Union post-50's fits this description. The very existence of "peaceful coexistence" would show it.

Are you aware why I'm "everything-anti-USSR is good"? Because the USSR in my view was an imperialist nation. Everything it thus did was to benefit its imperial aims. The fact that it helped anti-colonial movements and such is because the Americans, British, and French were opposing them. They still aimed to make the leaders of these movements stringently pro-Soviet and to discourage them from taking other lines.

[Honggweilo]

Zenawi led the MLLT, yes. He abandoned Marxism-Leninism in 1990 and is indeed a U.S. puppet, just like Mengistu was a Soviet puppet. We don't endorse him nor hold him to be socialist at all anymore. Still, he upheld Hoxhaism and waged war against the Maoists and Mengistu's men.
Ofcourse this "noble" "peoples war" against the maoists and the soviet backed goverment was purely ideologically motivated, not at all by tribalism

[Ismail]

The TPLF didn't recognize the Eritrean people's desires to be independent, so they were also chauvinist, yes. Also you forget that the TPLF and EPLF allied at some points in the early 80's (pre-MLLT) against the Amharic government.

As a note, from 1974-1977 Ethiopia was pro-US and Somalia pro-Soviet. "From an average of about $10 million a year between 1969 and 1974, U.S. military deliveries reached a total value of $18.5 million in 1974-75, $26 million in 1975-76 and almost $135 million in 1976-77.", source being Marina and David Ottaway, Afrocommunism, 2nd ed. (New York: Africana, 1986), p. 4.

Basically, Mengistu was an opportunist. He even alluded as such in Talk of the Devil. Groups like the Eritrean People's Liberation Front had a much better Marxist foundation, but thanks to the Soviet Union, they stopped supporting the EPLF and instead became friends with Mengistu while the Soviets stopped being so pro-Somalia when it did stuff like join the Arab League.

[Andres Marcos]

Just a point about the so-called "irrelevancy" of ML today. True the avg. Latin American won't know who Hoxha is, this is not why tens of thousands of them support the PCM(ML), PCR, PCT, PCC(ML), EMEP, or PCMLE either as cadres, trade-unionists or fellow-travelers. Those parties dont; go around strutting about and being nostalgic about how good it was back in the 30s or 70s, but in addressing conditions that happen today. I know because I read the PCMLE's daily every once in a while and the only time they mention of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Dimitrov and Hoxha are in editorials, or in their online libraries, thats it. Or mayber their banners; that still hasn't hurt them from getting working class support.

Now for the opportunistic jab at the Ecuadorian comrades. First the Ecuadorians recieved 3% of the Parliamentary seats out of 100; but thats only part of the picture:





On the PCMLE record vis-à-vis electoral politics
PCMLE is not a legal party, so we put up candidates through another political formation called the Movement for Popular Democracy (MPD). MPD is not a Communist Party on its own and only a means of expressing the goals of the PCMLE – it is a democratic and patriotic party. It is legal and anyone can join it.
Through the MPD, we always had our own candidate for Presidential elections since 1978. In 1986 our candidate was the fourth out of eight candidates for presidency.
The MPD has passed the 5 percent of votes required, more than 200,000 votes, to be a recognized political party in Ecuador and we have three deputies in parliament. At the local level we have over 160 councillors in various cities. To give some context about the electoral situation in Ecuador you must know that the largest party in the country receives only 12 percent of the votes and we have 5 percent.
Within the PCMLE we don’t think we can get power through peaceful means. We participate in the elections but not to get power, it is only a step in that direction. ‘Popular power cannot be constructed step by step – it has to be taken forcefully. We want to make a big front against neo-liberalism. One way is through the MPD.
We are also seeking to create the conditions for armed struggle. We are not calling for a socialist revolution but a democratic and anti-imperialist one. It is not possible to go for socialist revolution in the first step.
Ecuador is too dependent and the technology is not developed enough to have a socialist revolution. But the final goal is socialism.
From: ‘Liberation’, February, 2004, pp. 33-34.
http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv10n1/ecuador.htm

A video just from last year showing thousands of supporters and members of the PCMLE in the streets of Quito:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c49CZkzLOmk
The first minute is one showing the events of the October Revolution

and a video from their youth congress

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HDAGv1GU3g&

So shut the fuck up if you have no idea what this party stands for or its influence amongst the Ecuadorian people.

Exactly what Trotskist Party has even got close to that in Latin America? I guarantee you there is not one member of a Trot, Castroite, or w/e party in the west that does not want their organization or Party NOT to have a Daily Newspaper, a party in the tens of thousands(the CPUSA at the height of its influence in America in the 1930s had about the same number the Turks have in the EMEP), or even to get at least 5% of the vote(an accomplishment even the American socialists could not achieve in the 1920s)!

These parties are not irrelevant(you talking about em arent ya?) because they aren't nostalgic but deal with problems in Latin America and Turkey today, although they don't abandon their history like the CPC-ML did. Now for the snarky remark about these parties being "sects" funny, considering these parties are in the tens of thousands and have popular support from the revolutionary sectors of society, and this is how ridiculous and laughable it is; because groups like the League for the Fifth International, Sparts, SWP, and other irrelevant and miniscule organizations who have the supposed "benefit" of being non-stalinist can't even muster a regular and healthy international relationship with other internationalist parties and even a relationship with other progressive and revolutionary organizations in their own country.

I have nothing for respect for these parties and revolutionaries not because I agree with their line(hell I even have respect for the Trotskyist Bhagat Singh because he ACTUALLY got up and did something for India rather than ***** about it and he gave his life for the liberation of Indians and taking a stand against colonialism) and friendly with their cadres and worked with them before but because they dont have time to quibble about people who never worked with them, and will never work with them; they are about practical organizing and not nostalgia or blaming other ideologies for their shortcomings.

[PRC-UTE]

Anyone with a basic knowledge of how the Cuban revolution developed knows that after the initial seizure of power Castro and all those who had participated in the struggle against the Batista regime faced pressure not to reveal the full extent of their political ambitions because Cuba was economically dependent on the United States

No one actually "knows" this, because it's completely false. However, some apologists for Castroism would like to believe that, or at least have others believe it.

actually it's pretty well documented, see Che, A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson. It actually explains this pretty well.

there were peasant committees being organised by the communist faction within the J26M even in the Sierra Meistra days, and communist political officers appointed even then. Fidel never disagreed with communist goals, but he said directly to communists that he disagreed with doctrinaire types who insisted there was only one path to building socialism.

and NHIA's post on the first page was well put, everyone should go back and give it a read if you didn't see it already so.