[daft punk]

This is false, the Communist Party is not allowed to campaign in elections and doesn't pick candidates at most levels of representation. Of course the people running for government support the regime, if they were really anti-government they would likely engage in more subversive activity. Show me a single congressperson that doesn't support the US government for example.

Right at the lowest levels they have direct recall, but the people that they directly elect can recall at the higher levels. This is much like the US where the people don't directly impeach the President, but their elected representatives do.

Well America is only a bourgeois democracy, but at least Trotskyists can explain their views and stand in elections. They can't in Cuba.

So pretty much you think that anti-Communists should be allowed more participation?

I would be in favour of that if Trotskyists could as well. It's democracy. The Bolsheviks allowed everyone their say except the black hundreds who were terrorist/fascist. That's why we are in favour of free speech for fascists within reason. Ban people from saying their stuff and you have a dictatorship. If Cuba was genuine democratic socialism you wouldnt need to worry about capitalists having their say.

Where did I say that there was more than one for the national elections? You were not clear about what level you were even talking about until I had to ask you (And you didn't even know which elections the results you were posting were from!).

Quote:
They have a choice of one candidate in the National elections. They get locked up for criticising Castro. This is not socialism and it is not democracy.



None of this is true.

You said it there.

You also said it several times on the other thread:

Quote:
Ok, so tell me, in National elections in Cuba, how many people are on your ballot paper?



I believe I've mentioned this. The requirement is that a minimum of 2 candidates, and a maximum of 8 I believe.

You seem to have a very short memory considering we discussed this over and over. I must have said it about 10 times by now.

Why is Democracy to you just about the single act of voting? This is a very vulgar notion of Democracy and ignores the rest of the process, and the nature of the organizations that select these candidates.

democracy is not just about voting, its about free speech and so on, none of which happens in Cuba.

The National Candidates are selected by people who have been selected by people who have been selected by the public. This is several steps away from direct choice. Plus, nobody can state their views except that they support the revolution. Basically it's taken for granted that they are not gonna oppose the regime in any significant way. The final choice is made by the Candidacy Commission. The people in that are selected by various bodies:

Confederation of Cuban Workers (Central de Trabajadores de Cuba)
· Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (Comités de Defensa de la Revolución)
· Federation of Cuban Women (Federación de Mujeres Cubanas)
· National Association of Small Farmers (Asociación Nacional de Agricultores Pequeños)
· University Students' Federation (Federación Estudiantil Universitaria)
· Federation of Secondary School Students (Federación de Estudiantes de la Enseñanza Media)

These are all controlled by the CP.

The list drawn up by the National Candidacy Commission is sent to the National Electoral Commission. The National Electoral Commission is required to verify whether the pre-election candidates proposed meet all legal requirements.

In other words, to get to be proposed as a deputy to the National Assembly, a citizen must be approved by three separate organs of the state - the National Candidacy Commission, the Municipal Candidacy Commission and the Municipal Assembly of People's Power. It is pretty much impossible, for anyone who is not an avowed fan of the regime to be nominated with this process is place. If you get 8 years for writing your views down you have zero chance of getting elected.

There are similarities between the two, yet you are not willing to call the bourgeois UK state a "dictatorship" even though it has many of the same features that you claim make Cuba a dictatorship in terms of the electoral process. This to me demonstrates a bias you are bringing to the argument and your strange criteria for what constitutes a Democracy.

My arse. I do not call the UK a dictatorship because to do so would be stupid. It does not have many of the same features as Cuba.

In the UK you can state your views, campaign on them, form parties and stand in elections. And socialist do this. In Cuba you cant do any of that and socialists get sent to jail for even writing this down.

Quote:
Basically in Cuba if you arselick the dictatorship you might get a minor role in government, if you criticise it's privilege and lack of democracy and say it needs to be changed even in private you get jailed for years.



Ah, more of the "yes it is!!!" kind of "argument"

what?

Quote:
I told you what he did he had an unpublished manuscript saying Cuba is not socialist and calling for an end to the privilege of the bureaucracy and dictatorship, calling for genuine democratic socialism. He was a popular Marxist who was guilty of honesty.

You think you can just ignore stuff like that. You have blinkers on.



I think you mean "blinders" here. And can you not write something without loaded rhetoric? The idea that his crime was "being honest" assumes quite a bit about the situation before a real examination of what happened.

He was an honest man, he dared to say what he thought. It landed him in jail.

blinker

Pronunciation: /ˈblɪŋkə/
noun

1 (blinkers) chiefly British a pair of small leather screens attached to a horse’s bridle to prevent it seeing sideways and behind and being startled.
something which prevents someone from gaining a full understanding of a situation: we are having a fresh look at ourselves without blinkers

Quote:
Cuba is ruled by a bureaucratic caste



Bureaucracy itself is not a class though, so how (under a Marxist analysis) could it be a ruling class? The claim that the bureaucracy is a ruling class is a non-Marxist explanation of what Cuba is.

I said caste not class.

bureaucratic caste cuba
About 3,710,000 results (0.26 seconds)

Quote:
Of course it isnt unique. Trotsky, Lenin, Luxemburg, Marx, Engels, all the Bolsheviks up to 1924, all said the revolution had to be international. Even in spring 1924 Stalin said revolution must be international.

What was unique about Trotsky was that he predicted world revolution starting in Russia, ie a backward country. And he was also unique in calling for the overthrow of the Duma/Provisional Government.

Also he was unique more or less in his analysis of Stalinism and fascism.



Except even you just pointed out how Trotsky had praised Gramsci's analysis of fascism that predated his.

Yes, but Trotsky wrote all the stuff explaining that the KPD was on a course for disaster.

1931:

"Germany is now passing through one of those great historic hours upon which the fate of the German people, the fate of Europe, and in significant measure the fate of all humanity, will depend for decades."

"Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!"

shame that message didnt get through the thick skulls of the Stalinist leadership.

Quote:
after 1919 the blame lies with the KPD and in 1923 also lies with Stalin and Zinoviev.



Some of the blame yes, but also with the composition of the working class movement itself and how it developed. It's of course very un-Marxist (which is not important to some of course) to blame certain individuals instead of classes and overall compositions of organizations.

Empty words. The situation had no guarantee but it had a good chance. The subjective factor is the vital ingredient in any revolutionary situation. Just two people made the Russian revolution happen, Lenin and Trotsky. Without them it is unlikely the October revolution would have happened. Of course you need the objective conditions first - they were there. If anything Trotsky was a bit late in realising. What the KPD did was call a revolution and then cancel it. There is nothing worse. The masses lost any faith in them and so they had fascism instead. Well done.

uote:
As I said, some good people in the CPs sort of moved away from Stalinism but never got to discover Trotsky, mainly because he was in jail all the time from 1926-37 when he died.

Do you know that Gamsci's grandson found a letter by Gramsci's wife that said Gramsci had "intentionally prevented from attending a meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Italy on the Trotsky-Stalin split, he being thought to be on the outs with the new Soviet leaders. "



Whether people were "good" or not is obviously quite subjective and a kind of political judgement that is very meaningless.

Hmm the way you've quoted this was done with poor grammar and is getting in the way of your point. Does it mean that he was prevent from attending the meeting or that he decided not to? Perhaps you should be more clear in your posts. (I wouldn't usually harp on these kinds of things, but since you like to claim you have superior English skills, I feel that you should be held to your own standards)

It is blatantly obvious that I meant to write "been" in front of the quote for fuck's sake.

Quote:
He became one after the revolution.



And your point?

Castro was not a socialist so it's not so surprising that Cuba isnt socialist.

Quote:
How far Castro would have moved towards ‘domestic Marxist solutions’ and whether this would have resulted in a break with landlordism and capitalism is open to debate. What is indisputable is that the crude, threatening blunders of the US administration at the time speeded up the process of the elimination of capitalism and drove Castro into the arms of Moscow. The Russia Stalinists for their part had no prior knowledge of the main figures in the Cuban Revolution, or of where the Cuban Revolution was going. Like most other observers their conclusion, correct as it happens, despite what Lorimer says, was that the leaders of the 26 July Movement were pretty typical of Latin American revolutionaries in the past. Alexander Alexiev, a KGB agent, who was instructed to make contact with Castro and Guevara, wrote that he was originally



And what is the point of all of this either? You even claim that there was a process of the elimination of capitalism in progress and that the US simply made it accelerate. What exactly is that supposed to prove again? And what is the relevance of what the Russians knew or didn't know versus what Marxists like Che Guevara, Raul Castro, etc. knew?

I'm not even sure what your point/argument about Castro is here. You keep saying that "he wasn't originally a Communist!" as if it's some revelation. The problem with your harping on the point is that it is very well known that he wasn't as left-leaning originally as Raul and Che until the revolution. So you're not really saying anything new or controversial with that claim.

The point is that Castro wasnt trying to establish socialism and seeing as he runs the country its hardly surprising that it isnt socialist.

The fact that the Russians didnt know who he was is important because this was about the only Stalinist state where the Stalinists were barely involved. It was America which forced Castro to go to the Russians.

You say it is common knowledge that Castro wasn't a communist but on the thread I did specifically you spent weeks arguing against it, even claiming that he might have been a closet Marxist. You did agree that he may well not have been a s left wing as some of the others.

The point of that thread was to establish facts, such as the fact that Castro was not a socialist never mind a Marxist with a clear strategy like Lenin and Trotsky. It's obvious from the fact that he led a guerilla war in the countryside, that is not a Marxist tactic.

The subjective factor is crucial. This had been the tragedy of the 20th century. The one revolution not contaminated with Stalinism still ended up in the Stalinist camp.

[KurtFF8]

Well America is only a bourgeois democracy, but at least Trotskyists can explain their views and stand in elections. They can't in Cuba.

So whether or not Trotskyists can run in elections is the measure of whether a country is a democracy or not?

I would be in favour of that if Trotskyists could as well. It's democracy. The Bolsheviks allowed everyone their say except the black hundreds who were terrorist/fascist. That's why we are in favour of free speech for fascists within reason. Ban people from saying their stuff and you have a dictatorship. If Cuba was genuine democratic socialism you wouldnt need to worry about capitalists having their say.

Cuba has also been under siege since the revolution, so there are very real subversive elements trying to undermine the state in Cuba. This is something that has escaped your analysis that is more focused on whether Trotskyists are in power or not.

It's almost as if you would be happier if Cuba became a bourgeois democratic state because a 4th internationalist group would be able to flyer there.

You seem to have a very short memory considering we discussed this over and over. I must have said it about 10 times by now.

Hmm perhaps I did. I suppose I was mixing up the National and provincial/municipal elections (something you also had done of course when you weren't aware of which election results you were even posting about)

democracy is not just about voting, its about free speech and so on, none of which happens in Cuba.

Of course this is just false. You've cited one example, although even in that you're argument is essentially that he was "jailed for being honest" instead of explaining it in more detail.

The National Candidates are selected by people who have been selected by people who have been selected by the public. This is several steps away from direct choice. Plus, nobody can state their views except that they support the revolution. Basically it's taken for granted that they are not gonna oppose the regime in any significant way. The final choice is made by the Candidacy Commission. The people in that are selected by various bodies:

You realize that those organizations are made up pf the public, right? And yes it is indeed "several steps away" just like the judicial selection process in the US, or the impeachment process, etc. Yet you don't call the US a dictatorship now do you?

Confederation of Cuban Workers (Central de Trabajadores de Cuba)
· Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (Comités de Defensa de la Revolución)
· Federation of Cuban Women (Federación de Mujeres Cubanas)
· National Association of Small Farmers (Asociación Nacional de Agricultores Pequeños)
· University Students' Federation (Federación Estudiantil Universitaria)
· Federation of Secondary School Students (Federación de Estudiantes de la Enseñanza Media)

These are all controlled by the CP.

Source? Can you actually demonstrate how these are just puppets of the CP?

In other words, to get to be proposed as a deputy to the National Assembly, a citizen must be approved by three separate organs of the state - the National Candidacy Commission, the Municipal Candidacy Commission and the Municipal Assembly of People's Power. It is pretty much impossible, for anyone who is not an avowed fan of the regime to be nominated with this process is place

Just like in any bourgeois democracy where anti-state forces are suppressed, I don't see why it's okay in the UK or the US but not Cuba. Just look at the Panthers in the US for example.

My arse. I do not call the UK a dictatorship because to do so would be stupid. It does not have many of the same features as Cuba.

In the UK you can state your views, campaign on them, form parties and stand in elections. And socialist do this. In Cuba you cant do any of that and socialists get sent to jail for even writing this down.

So you prefer "bourgeois democracy" to a "deformed workers state"? This is similar to the arguments that many idealist anarchists I've argued with about Cuba. Their liberal bourgeois ideology tends to come shining through on these questions as is the case here with you.

To you, it seems bourgeois idealism seems more important than real human development.

He was an honest man, he dared to say what he thought. It landed him in jail.

Again this is just your rhetoric, you're not really saying anything of value here.

blinker

Pronunciation: /ˈblɪŋkə/

Oh a British term In the US it would be blinder, which is where the confusion came from.

I said caste not class.

bureaucratic caste cuba
About 3,710,000 results (0.26 seconds)

Ah even less Marxian of you once more. Under the Marxist conception of the state, a state is defined as an instrument of class rule, not "social caste" rule. If you are attempting to appeal to a non-Marxist definition of what kind of state and mode of production Cuba is, that's fine. But don't pretend you're being a Marxist if you have to appeal to these kinds of things at least.

Yes, but Trotsky wrote all the stuff explaining that the KPD was on a course for disaster.

1931:

"Germany is now passing through one of those great historic hours upon which the fate of the German people, the fate of Europe, and in significant measure the fate of all humanity, will depend for decades."

"Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!"

shame that message didnt get through the thick skulls of the Stalinist leadership.

The German Revolution had long been defeated by 1931.

Empty words. The situation had no guarantee but it had a good chance. The subjective factor is the vital ingredient in any revolutionary situation. Just two people made the Russian revolution happen, Lenin and Trotsky. Without them it is unlikely the October revolution would have happened. Of course you need the objective conditions first - they were there. If anything Trotsky was a bit late in realising. What the KPD did was call a revolution and then cancel it. There is nothing worse. The masses lost any faith in them and so they had fascism instead. Well done.

No, the Bolsheviks and the masses of Russia made it happen. They acknowledged that revolutionaries don't make revolution, but intervene in revolutionary situations. And there were more figures in the Party than Lenin and Trotsky of course.

And I agree that the KPD failed, I don't know what exactly you're arguing with or how what I'm saying is full of "empty words" when I don't even necessarily disagree with you here. I think you're just so caught up on ad hom. attacks that you are just prepared to disagree with anything I say, regardless of the content.

It is blatantly obvious that I meant to write "been" in front of the quote for fuck's sake.

Perhaps you should stop trying to appeal to your previous excellent English skills then?

Castro was not a socialist so it's not so surprising that Cuba isnt socialist.

How does this follow at all? So your argument is:
-Castro was not originally a Communist
-Therefore Cuba did not become a Socialist state

You realize that using logic 101 that this does not follow. It is not even a coherent argument.

The point is that Castro wasnt trying to establish socialism and seeing as he runs the country its hardly surprising that it isnt socialist.

As I just pointed out, this is not a coherent argument.

The fact that the Russians didnt know who he was is important because this was about the only Stalinist state where the Stalinists were barely involved. It was America which forced Castro to go to the Russians.

You say it is common knowledge that Castro wasn't a communist but on the thread I did specifically you spent weeks arguing against it, even claiming that he might have been a closet Marxist. You did agree that he may well not have been a s left wing as some of the others.

I still don't understand how what the Russians knew or didn't know is relevant. Why is their lack of involvement even important for your point? You have not explained this, you've simply said "They didn't know about Castro, therefore they weren't involved." This is quite tautological and isn't really saying anything.

It was indeed common knowledge that his brother, Che, and the rest of the J26M were more Left than he was, although he changed leading up to the revolution and through the revolutionary process. This is like how Trotsky moved away from the Mensheviks through the revolutionary experience of the Russian struggle. Would you say that Trotsky "wasn't a real Bolshevik because at the time of the 1905 revolution he was a Menshevik"? Because that's the logic you're trying to apply to Castro here (although your claims of his lack of Marxism are of course false)

The point of that thread was to establish facts, such as the fact that Castro was not a socialist never mind a Marxist with a clear strategy like Lenin and Trotsky. It's obvious from the fact that he led a guerilla war in the countryside, that is not a Marxist tactic.

The subjective factor is crucial. This had been the tragedy of the 20th century. The one revolution not contaminated with Stalinism still ended up in the Stalinist camp.

Of course this ignores the fact that Castro did in fact become a Marxist. Much like how Trotsky became a Bolshevik on the eve of the Bolshevik revolution.

And in what way is guerilla war in the countryside not a "Marxist tactic"? You do know that it was also being coordinated alongside a general strike in the urban areas that was violently suppressed and put down right?

Your only critique of the Cuban revolution seems to be that it "was Stalinist" yet you seem to either know little about it or can't move past rhetorical denunciations of it.

By the way, since you like Wikipedia as a source, it seems you are just flat out wrong about when he moved towards Marxism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_cast ... .80.931950

[daft punk]

So whether or not Trotskyists can run in elections is the measure of whether a country is a democracy or not?

of course

Cuba has also been under siege since the revolution, so there are very real subversive elements trying to undermine the state in Cuba. This is something that has escaped your analysis that is more focused on whether Trotskyists are in power or not.

It's almost as if you would be happier if Cuba became a bourgeois democratic state because a 4th internationalist group would be able to flyer there.

Kurt, talk to me about the privileges the elite have. Justify that.

Hmm perhaps I did. I suppose I was mixing up the National and provincial/municipal elections (something you also had done of course when you weren't aware of which election results you were even posting about)

I was 99% sure. I'm the sort of person who doesn't like to say 100% sure on stuff. Now I am 100% sure.

Of course this is just false. You've cited one example, although even in that you're argument is essentially that he was "jailed for being honest" instead of explaining it in more detail.

Ah, I see, all the other left Marxists can go round saying whatever they want but just this one bloke who hadnt even published got 8 years for writing his views down. I did explain it in detail. I said exactly what he was jailed for. Writing stuff down.

You realize that those organizations are made up pf the public, right? And yes it is indeed "several steps away" just like the judicial selection process in the US, or the impeachment process, etc. Yet you don't call the US a dictatorship now do you?

and thats like saying the house of lords is selected by the public. Its just nonsense. Im bored with this now, gonna call time on this debate pretty soon.

Source? Can you actually demonstrate how these are just puppets of the CP?

The regime locks you up for years for writing you views on a piece of paper, even if it never leaves your house! This is the sort of place where people keep their thoughts to themselves and say what is expected of them. They had loads of local meetings as a show of democracy for the trade union, to get peoples views, and most people talked as if they were voicing the wishes of the regime, eg how to maximise production rather than issues that would normally concern workers. It's a bit like the national elections with the union. There is the local level where ordinary people go and say what every good Cuban must say, then the good revolutionaries they elect go up to the next level and then the next, with a couple of thousand delegates choosing the leaders. The regime has dismissed at least one leader however, ignoring the 'democratic' process. That was a few years ago, not sure if it has changed.

Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, well, what do you think? They spy on the masses for the regime. Most of the population are in it. They spy on each other. A 2006 Amnesty International report noted CDR involvement in repeated human rights violations that included verbal as well as physical violence.

Maybe try reading some article from Cubans living in America who are still left wingers, socialists. Ordinary Cubans. You get odd glimpses of them questioning things

"The legitimacy of the role of delegate has been eroded by the centralist practices of the Cuban State (which denies these local representatives any control over resources by concentrating these at higher levels). This breakdown also results from the lack of autonomy of local institutions of the municipal government and community groups and from the intrusive approach of the Cuban Communist Party (CCP) in all settings of public life.

It makes no difference that legislation prohibits the Party from interfering in the proceedings of Municipal Assemblies. On occasion, the core of a neighborhood’s CCP —consisting of old-guard devotees who have proven their loyalty to the Revolution— receive “mysterious orders” to encourage the election of a particular candidate.

In other instances, the Party might pressure the Candidacy Commission (made up of members of mass organizations) to undermine some initiative that emerges from the grassroots – with the aging veterans basing themselves on their supposed “ideological trustworthiness.”"

eg
http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=18241

Just like in any bourgeois democracy where anti-state forces are suppressed, I don't see why it's okay in the UK or the US but not Cuba. Just look at the Panthers in the US for example.

when did I say it was ok? But as a Trotskyist I have not been jailed like I would in Cuba.

So you prefer "bourgeois democracy" to a "deformed workers state"? This is similar to the arguments that many idealist anarchists I've argued with about Cuba. Their liberal bourgeois ideology tends to come shining through on these questions as is the case here with you.

To you, it seems bourgeois idealism seems more important than real human development.

did I say I prefer bourgeois democracy? I dont remember saying that. You are talking bollocks, dont put words in my mouth. I am defending the Cuban revolution. It's Castro who's bringing capitalism in. I'm saying it needs to get more democratic and equal to survive.

Ah even less Marxian of you once more. Under the Marxist conception of the state, a state is defined as an instrument of class rule, not "social caste" rule. If you are attempting to appeal to a non-Marxist definition of what kind of state and mode of production Cuba is, that's fine. But don't pretend you're being a Marxist if you have to appeal to these kinds of things at least.

"bureaucratic caste" site:www.marxists.org/
About 264 results (0.17 seconds)

Funny, you recently said I was ignoring important Marxists like Mandel.

Mandel said "I could accept Hearse and Packer’s position that a stalinist or neo-stalinist party is one which subordinates the interests of revolution (i.e. of the working class) in its country, to those of any state bureaucracy (defined as a hardened bureaucratic caste exercising state power in a workers state) – whether the Russian, Chinese, Yugoslav or Vietnamese one."

Anyway, I dont understand what you were on about just then, loads of people describe it as a caste, certainly all the Trots. It is not a class it is a bureaucracy. The nearest Marx got to describing it was "old filthy business".

The German Revolution had long been defeated by 1931.

fuck me I know that, tell that to Ingliz, to the Stalinists. You are so missing the point. The Stalinist refused to work with the SPD because they believed world revolution was about to happen at precisely the wrong time.

But these two parties could have stopped the fascists.

No, the Bolsheviks and the masses of Russia made it happen. They acknowledged that revolutionaries don't make revolution, but intervene in revolutionary situations. And there were more figures in the Party than Lenin and Trotsky of course.

And I agree that the KPD failed, I don't know what exactly you're arguing with or how what I'm saying is full of "empty words" when I don't even necessarily disagree with you here. I think you're just so caught up on ad hom. attacks that you are just prepared to disagree with anything I say, regardless of the content.

Who acknowledged that? In Spain Trotsky commented that not one but ten revolutions could have been made, but the leadership was lacking. In fact the anarchist leader proudly announced that they did not take power when the could, for ideological reasons! This was just before they joined a capitalist-Stalinist government!

Oh my aching sides.

How many wasted events, Chile 1973, Paris 1968, Iran 1979, I could go on all day. Of course you need the objective conditions. And when they happen you need the leadership, or it all goes pear shaped.

How does this follow at all? So your argument is:
-Castro was not originally a Communist
-Therefore Cuba did not become a Socialist state

You realize that using logic 101 that this does not follow. It is not even a coherent argument.

There has never been a socialist state, not even with the brilliant leadership of Lenin and Troytsky, let alone someone who said "I am not a Communist".

I still don't understand how what the Russians knew or didn't know is relevant. Why is their lack of involvement even important for your point?

most revolutions had Stalinism involved in some way. Cuba did not. The general policy of the Comintern after 1934 was class collaboration with capitalism. Sometimes leaders were pushed by the masses into ignoring Moscow to some extent.

My point is that all these 'communist' countries happened by accident, they were all intended to be capitalist. Cuba is just different because it went that way even without much Stalinist involvement.

It was indeed common knowledge that his brother, Che, and the rest of the J26M were more Left than he was, although he changed leading up to the revolution and through the revolutionary process. This is like how Trotsky moved away from the Mensheviks through the revolutionary experience of the Russian struggle. Would you say that Trotsky "wasn't a real Bolshevik because at the time of the 1905 revolution he was a Menshevik"? Because that's the logic you're trying to apply to Castro here (although your claims of his lack of Marxism are of course false)

Trotsky was a Marxist in 1905 and the first person to consider socialist revolution in Russia, 12 years ahead of Lenin. Some of the others in J26M were sort of commies like Che, they were full of all sorts.

I already quoted you this, try reading it:

"In his book ‘Che Guevara’, Jon Lee Anderson makes the following comment:

"In general, Che already viewed Fidel’s July 26 colleagues [during the guerrilla struggle in the Sierra Maestra] as hopelessly bound by their middle-class upbringings and privileged educations to timid notions of what their struggle should achieve, and he was correct in thinking they held views very divergent from his own. Lacking his Marxist conception of a radical social transformation, most saw themselves as fighting to oust a corrupt dictatorship and to replace it with a conventional Western democracy. Che’s initial reaction to the urban leaders reinforced his negative presentiments. ‘Through isolated conversations,’ he wrote in his diary, ‘I discovered the evident anti-communist inclinations of most of them’".40"

http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/Cuba/cu2.html

Do you know that the author had full access to Cuba's archives plus exclusive co-operation from Che's widow? He also had Che's unpublished diaries and other new documents.

He is saying that the July 26 Movement was not all communists. He is writing what Che thought. So you are wrong again.

I already told you this twice.

Of course this ignores the fact that Castro did in fact become a Marxist. Much like how Trotsky became a Bolshevik on the eve of the Bolshevik revolution.

And in what way is guerilla war in the countryside not a "Marxist tactic"? You do know that it was also being coordinated alongside a general strike in the urban areas that was violently suppressed and put down right?

Your only critique of the Cuban revolution seems to be that it "was Stalinist" yet you seem to either know little about it or can't move past rhetorical denunciations of it.

By the way, since you like Wikipedia as a source, it seems you are just flat out wrong about when he moved towards Marxism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_cast ... .80.931950

I cant believe what you just wrote. I've never heard anything so ludicrous.

Trotsky was a Marxist revolutionary from around 1898 when at the age of 19 he was arrested and sent to jail. He escaped in 1902 and in 1905 he ran the Patrograd soviet in the revolution. He tried to get the Mensveviks and Bolsheviks to reunite (they split in 1903). He said Russia would have to more or less skip capitalist stage and a revolution could happen there if aided by other countries. In 1917 Lenin agreed with this and convinced the other Bolsheviks (who were very reluctant) in April and a couple of months later Trotsky was in the top four voted onto the Bolshevik CC. While Lenin was still in hiding trotsky ran the Patrograd soviet and got all the soldiers to defect and support the revolution, so the final insurrection was pretty insignificant event, it was a two week process before, not a storming of the winter Palace.

Castro on the other hand ran his petty-bourgois peasant revolution in complete contrast to Marxist methods of working with the workers, without even claiming to be a communist. Denying it in fact. I think it was nearly two years after before he said he was trying to build socialism, after America forced his hand.

Your comparison is utterly ludicrous.

I call Cuba Stalinist because it is run by a privileged bureaucracy which dictates from the top down, despite some pretence at democracy. They adopted a Stalinist model because America fucked them off.

Your link says nothing. He read the usual bits and bobs like Lenin yeah, that doesnt make him a Marxist.

Yeah of course later I guess he liked to make out he was always a Marxist, but I have clearly proved that his closest comrades didnt think he was, and he said he wasnt. Plus as I say the Russians didnt know who he was so he obviously wasnt a Stalinist.

[KurtFF8]

This is getting old.

of course

Wow. What a bizarre criterion.

Kurt, talk to me about the privileges the elite have. Justify that.

Which privileges are those?

I was 99% sure. I'm the sort of person who doesn't like to say 100% sure on stuff. Now I am 100% sure.

Of course you were.

Ah, I see, all the other left Marxists can go round saying whatever they want but just this one bloke who hadnt even published got 8 years for writing his views down. I did explain it in detail. I said exactly what he was jailed for. Writing stuff down.

That's what you keep claiming, yes.

The regime locks you up for years for writing you views on a piece of paper, even if it never leaves your house! This is the sort of place where people keep their thoughts to themselves and say what is expected of them. They had loads of local meetings as a show of democracy for the trade union, to get peoples views, and most people talked as if they were voicing the wishes of the regime, eg how to maximise production rather than issues that would normally concern workers. It's a bit like the national elections with the union. There is the local level where ordinary people go and say what every good Cuban must say, then the good revolutionaries they elect go up to the next level and then the next, with a couple of thousand delegates choosing the leaders. The regime has dismissed at least one leader however, ignoring the 'democratic' process. That was a few years ago, not sure if it has changed.

Ignoring this first sentence which is just a continuation of a single case, the rest of what you wrote seems quite in line with what I said actually.

Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, well, what do you think? They spy on the masses for the regime. Most of the population are in it. They spy on each other. A 2006 Amnesty International report noted CDR involvement in repeated human rights violations that included verbal as well as physical violence.

CDRs are actually local groups that have lots of participation of the public. They are similar to neighborhood associations in a way.

The article you quoted doesn't quite debunk what I said either, just claims that the mass organizations are involved in the process (although they just use the term "interfere"). This is nothing counter to what I was saying.

when did I say it was ok? But as a Trotskyist I have not been jailed like I would in Cuba.

Trotskyists didn't face repression in the US and the UK?

did I say I prefer bourgeois democracy? I dont remember saying that. You are talking bollocks, dont put words in my mouth. I am defending the Cuban revolution. It's Castro who's bringing capitalism in. I'm saying it needs to get more democratic and equal to survive.

You keep favorable comparing the political systems of bourgeois countries to Cuba as an example of the issues with Cuba. You also keep appealing to bourgeois conceptions of "freedom" for institutional democracy.

I've never seen you defend the Cuban revolution. You talk about how it was never intended to be socialist, it isn't a workers' democracy, etc.

"bureaucratic caste" site:www.marxists.org/
About 264 results (0.17 seconds)

Funny, you recently said I was ignoring important Marxists like Mandel.

Mandel said "I could accept Hearse and Packer’s position that a stalinist or neo-stalinist party is one which subordinates the interests of revolution (i.e. of the working class) in its country, to those of any state bureaucracy (defined as a hardened bureaucratic caste exercising state power in a workers state) – whether the Russian, Chinese, Yugoslav or Vietnamese one."

Anyway, I dont understand what you were on about just then, loads of people describe it as a caste, certainly all the Trots. It is not a class it is a bureaucracy. The nearest Marx got to describing it was "old filthy business".

How do you reconcile this claim with your earlier claim that it was not a Marxist revolution. Did the working class ever become the ruling class in Cuba in your opinion?

fuck me I know that, tell that to Ingliz, to the Stalinists. You are so missing the point. The Stalinist refused to work with the SPD because they believed world revolution was about to happen at precisely the wrong time.

But these two parties could have stopped the fascists.

How am I "missing the point"? The point is that the German Revolution failed long before "Stalin ruined everything" or even came to power.

How many wasted events, Chile 1973, Paris 1968, Iran 1979, I could go on all day. Of course you need the objective conditions. And when they happen you need the leadership, or it all goes pear shaped.

Agreed

There has never been a socialist state, not even with the brilliant leadership of Lenin and Troytsky, let alone someone who said "I am not a Communist".

How is this a response to what I said? Are you denying that what I laid out is your argument?

Trotsky was a Marxist in 1905 and the first person to consider socialist revolution in Russia, 12 years ahead of Lenin. Some of the others in J26M were sort of commies like Che, they were full of all sorts.

I never claimed he wasn't a Marxist at the time.

I already quoted you this, try reading it:

"In his book ‘Che Guevara’, Jon Lee Anderson makes the following comment:

Okay I did read it, and it seems to simply be false. Fidel was a Marxist by this time and long before it. Whether Che was critical of the middle class upbringing of Fidel or not is a different question. (And it's amazing how many times the term "Trotsky" shows up on that article, that's embarrassing)

He is saying that the July 26 Movement was not all communists. He is writing what Che thought. So you are wrong again.

I already told you this twice.

So why is this one quote (perhaps even taken out of context) from Anderson more valid than the various other sources that clearly demonstrate otherwise?

Trotsky was a Marxist revolutionary from around 1898 when at the age of 19 he was arrested and sent to jail. He escaped in 1902 and in 1905 he ran the Patrograd soviet in the revolution. He tried to get the Mensveviks and Bolsheviks to reunite (they split in 1903). He said Russia would have to more or less skip capitalist stage and a revolution could happen there if aided by other countries. In 1917 Lenin agreed with this and convinced the other Bolsheviks (who were very reluctant) in April and a couple of months later Trotsky was in the top four voted onto the Bolshevik CC. While Lenin was still in hiding trotsky ran the Patrograd soviet and got all the soldiers to defect and support the revolution, so the final insurrection was pretty insignificant event, it was a two week process before, not a storming of the winter Palace.

And he was a Menshevik who had split with Lenin at one point, but the point is that this changed.

Castro on the other hand ran his petty-bourgois peasant revolution in complete contrast to Marxist methods of working with the workers, without even claiming to be a communist. Denying it in fact. I think it was nearly two years after before he said he was trying to build socialism, after America forced his hand.

This is false, Castro worked with Left wing groups long before he became a rural fighter. And you have failed to demonstrate what was "non-Marxist" of the J26M's methods. Or how their alliance with Communists was "fake" or not valid enough for you to claim it to be Leftist.

I call Cuba Stalinist because it is run by a privileged bureaucracy which dictates from the top down, despite some pretence at democracy. They adopted a Stalinist model because America fucked them off.

There is of course no such thing as a "Stalinist mode of production" however. Marxist link the base and superstructure of a society. You seem unable to account for what class is the ruling class of Cuba or how that class (whichever class it is) came to power.

Your link says nothing. He read the usual bits and bobs like Lenin yeah, that doesnt make him a Marxist.

Yeah of course later I guess he liked to make out he was always a Marxist, but I have clearly proved that his closest comrades didnt think he was, and he said he wasnt. Plus as I say the Russians didnt know who he was so he obviously wasnt a Stalinist.

It shows that he became a Marxist before the attack on the barracks and worked with Left wing groups before he even became a lawyer. What exactly would have been "more valid" of him to be a Marxist? Joining the party that you already don't like?

The section I pasted demonstrates how your claims are simply false and you have demonstrated nothing to contradict those accounts. All you've provided are people who through second hand accounts "felt that he was just a nationalist." This is hardly a major debunking of the actual experiences Fidel had prior to the revolution.

[ingliz]

Its just nonsense

Is it?

"Cuban Political System

Cuba is a republic with a centralised socialist system of government closely identified with the workers.

The structure of the State of the Republic of Cuba is as follows:

1. National Assembly of People's Power
2. Council of State
3. Council of Ministers
4. Provincial and Municipal Governments
5. Judiciary System

Political power rests with the National Assembly of People's Power, which nominates the Council of Ministers, the highest executive body. Its executive committee is composed of the president, the first vice-president and the vice-presidents of the Council of Ministers.

The National Assembly of People's Power is composed of deputies elected by secret and direct popular vote, for periods of five years. It sits regularly twice a year. Between sittings of the Assembly the 31-member Council of State, elected from members of the National Assembly, takes over its function.

The members of the National Assembly elect provincial and regional executive committees.

Municipal elections are held every two and half years, while Provincial and National elections, every five years.

Electoral System

The Cuban democratic system is regulated by Chapter XIV of the Constitution of the Republic, which establishes that in every election and referendum the vote is free, equal and secret. Each voter has the right to only one vote. All Cubans 16 years old and above have the right to vote.

All citizens, men and women, who fully enjoy their political rights can be elected, including the members of the Armed Forces and other military institutions.

For its political and administrative division, Cuba has 14 provinces and 169 municipalities. These are in turn divided into 13,865 electoral constituencies, which are the bases for the elections. The voters directly propose the candidates and elect their Representatives to the Municipal Assemblies of the People's Power.

Electoral History and Process

The National Assembly of People's Power (Parliament), the highest legislative power, is elected every five years. From its members the Council of State is elected, which acts on behalf of the National Assembly, between sessions. The National Assembly also appoints the Council of Ministers. In 1992, the Parliament approved changes to the electoral system, which would strengthen public control over the government. Henceforth, the deputies to the National Assembly and the delegates to the Provincial Assembly were to be elected through free and direct ballot.

People's Councils were added to the governmental structure in 1988 and were renewed in 1993. Delegates are elected at the constituency level, they represent the area in which they work and have authority to develop the production and service industries, and to meet the people's needs.

Municipal Administrative Councils consist of elected representatives who work with delegates from social and economic organizations. These Councils can demand that these organizations fulfill their duties to the community.

Ricardo Alarcón, president of the National Assembly, believes that the democratic nature of the National Assembly has been improved, since to be elected you must be nominated by your community. Inherent in the system is the voter's right to recall delegates who are not fulfilling their mandate. This in conjunction with the fact that 99% of those eligible voted on February 24th 1993 reflects the people's active participation in their election process.

Nomination Assemblies are convened within constituencies to propose and elect candidates. There is no intervention by the Communist Party in the process. The Candidacy Commission draws up lists of candidates for delegates to the Provincial Assemblies and for deputies to the National Assembly. These Commissions are made up of representatives of trade unions, students, farmers and women's groups.

In 1998 were elected to the 5th Legislature 601 deputies, among them 282, representing the 46.92%, are base delegates, 145 work in centers of production and services, 31 are linked to the health system, 33 to the educational system, 26 to research institutes, 30 come from trade union, 25 from mass and social organisations, 7 are students, 3 are religious ministers, 14 are writers, artists and culture workers, 16 come from mass media, 35 are members of the armed forces, 67 are officials of the Communist Party and the Union of Communist Youth. The 27.62 % of the Deputies are women and 4.33% are young people under 30 years.

National Assembly of the People's Power

The Assembly is the only in the Republic that is invested with constituent and legislative authority. It holds two regular sessions a year, which are public unless the Assembly itself votes to hold them behind closed doors for reasons of state.

The Assembly, a one-chamber Parliament, originated from the nation-wide elections held in 1976, with a turn-out, in the first electoral round, of 95.2% of the voters and of 94.9% in the second round. Elected officials, according to the procedures established by law, met for the first time on December 2, that year, thus formally setting up the Cuban Parliament.

The Constitution of the Republic of Cuba, approved in a Referendum on February 14, 1976 when 98% of the voters turned out, empowered the National Assembly as the supreme body of State power, representing and expressing the sovereign will of all the people.

Its deputies are elected every five years, and among them they elect their President, Vice President and Secretary, as well as the 31 members of the Council of State, whose President is the Head of State and Government. However, the Council of State must report to the National Assembly on all its work and tasks. The National Assembly from among its members elects the 31 members of the Council of State; their terms expire when a new Assembly is elected.

The National Assembly has the power to amend the Constitution, pass, amend, and repeal laws, debate and approved national plans for economic development, the State budget, credit and financial programs, the guidelines for domestic and foreign policies, as well as to elect the Council of Ministers, the Presidency, the members of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General Office of the Republic.

It, too, hears the reports from national government and administration agencies and can also grant amnesties. Its members do not receive any economic or personal perquisites and carry out their legislative duties together with their usual work, for which they get their salaries.

The National Assembly convenes twice a year in ordinary periods of sessions. It has, though, permanent commissions to look after issues of legislative interest.

Among its permanent or temporary commissions are those in charge of issues concerning the economy, the sugar industry, food production, industries, transportation and communications, constructions, foreign affairs, public health, defense and interior order.

The National Assembly also has permanent departments that oversee the work of the Commissions, Local Assemblies of the People's Power, International Relations, Judicial Affairs and the Administration.

Council of State

This collegiate body is the highest representative of the Cuban state in national and international matters. The Council of State represents the National Assembly of the People's Power (a one-chamber Parliament) when the legislative house is in recess, it puts into practice its agreements and does any other work the Assembly may assign it.

Functions of the Council of State:

Convenes the National Assembly's extraordinary sessions

Fixes the date for Parliament elections

Issues decrees-law when the National Assembly is not in session

Makes general and mandatory interpretations of existing laws, when necessary

Takes the legislative initiative

Does whatever is necessary to hold referendum when the National Assembly so decides it

Calls for national mobilisation when the country's defence so requires and takes on the power of declaring war in case of aggression or of negotiating peace when the National Assembly is not in session and it cannot be summoned on urgent and safety bases

Replaces, at the President's request, the members of the Council of Ministers when the National Assembly is in recess

Gives general instructions to the courts through the Governing Council of the People's Supreme Court

Gives instructions to the Attorney General Office of the Republic

The National Assembly elects the Council of State from among its members and the elected body must report to the legislative body on all its work.

The President of the Council of State is the Head of Government and State.

Council of Ministers

The Council of Ministers is Cuba's top executive and administrative body and as such it is the Republic's Government. The Head of State and Government and the First Vice President chair it, and it includes other vice presidents, the secretary, the ministers and the administrators of national agencies.

The Council's most important body is its Executive Committee, chaired by the President, the First Vice President and the other vice presidents, who control and coordinate the work of the ministries and the administration's central bodies.

The Council is responsible of putting into practice the agreements the National Assembly reaches on the country's political, economic, cultural, scientific and social endeavor. It also proposes general plans for economic and social development and once passed by the National Assembly it directs and oversees their implementation.

It also directs the country's foreign policy and its relations with other governments; approves international treaties before passing them over for ratification of the Council of State; directs and oversees foreign trade; elaborates the State budget and watches over its implementation. The Council of Ministers enforces laws and puts into effect agreements the National Assembly reaches and the laws and decrees the Council State passes.

It must report periodically on all its work to the National Assembly.

Its President, the First Vice President, six Vice Presidents, the Secretary, and 27 ministers head the Council of Ministers.

Provincial and Municipal Assemblies

Cuba is divided in 15 provinces, a special municipality under the supervision of the central government and 169 municipalities subordinate to their respective provincial authorities.

The Assemblies of representatives of the People's Power are the top political bodies of power of the State at municipal and provincial levels according to the Constitution.

Local officials have the highest authority for exercising their state functions. They hold local governments and through the bodies of power they create they run production and economic enterprises and the services, and try to meet the health, economic, cultural, educational and recreation needs of the people under their jurisdiction.

These provincial and municipal governments also contribute to the development and implementations of economic, social and cultural plans within their territories, which are not directly subordinate to them. By law, for the exercise of their functions the local Assemblies rely on the initiative and participation of the people and work closely with social and political organizations.

They are also represented in the People's Councils, set up in cities, towns, neighborhoods, villages and rural areas, with the authority to carry out their functions in their localities and are an extension of the governing bodies of the People's Power.

The members of the People's Councils come from the representatives elected at the local constituencies, and they should elect their leaders. Members of the most important local organizations and institutions can also be part of them.

Once set up, the Municipal Assemblies (21 days after the representatives are elected) and Provincial bodies (15 days later) choose from among their members by secret and direct vote their presidents and vice presidents, who immediately take on their posts.

Only the voters can recall a delegate, and they may exercise this night at any time. Each Assembly elects the President and the Vice-president of the Government.

Judiciary

Judicial power rests with the People's Supreme Court, which is elected by, and accountable to, the National Assembly. All judges, from the highest to the lowest, are elected by the respective Popular Power Assemblies; in other words, the Supreme Court judges are elected by the National Assembly; the provincial judges by provincial assemblies and the municipal judges by municipal assemblies.

The People's Supreme Court comprises a president, a vice president, and all professional and lay judges and is structured as follows: the Whole, the State Council, criminal, civil, administrative, labor, crimes-against-the-state and military courts.

The judicial system is based on the principle that all judges, professional or lay, are independent and are subject only to the law, and all professional or lay judges are elected, accountable and can be replaced."

[daft punk]

I'm just gonna briefly summarise as I wrote a load and lost it.

1. Your wiki source was very vague. It mentions books by Bourne and Coltman, both of whom confirmed that Castro said he was not a communist even after the revolution.

"Both of these authors show that Castro was not a conscious Marxist at this time. Coltman comments that in Castro’s famous speech after the failed attack on the Moncado barracks in 1953 - "History will absolve me" - in what was "to become the most sacred text of a Communist regime, there was no mention of Marx or Lenin or even of the word socialism". Gott shows that while Jose Marti, an inspiration for the Cuban revolutionaries, was a heroic fighter for Cuba’s national liberation, he was hostile to the ideas of Karl Marx. Yet, "Cuba under Castro became a Communist country where nationalism was more significant than socialism, where the legend of Marti proved more influential than the philosophy of Marx".

Even shortly after the revolution in 1959, when visiting the US and speaking to students in Princeton, Castro attributed its success to the widespread hatred of Batista’s secret police, as well as to the fact that the rebels "had not preached class war". Defenders of Castro ascribe these statements to ‘adroit tactics’, calculated to fool Cuban public opinion, particularly the liberal bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, and imperialism. The same motives are ascribed to Castro’s invocation of Franklin D Roosevelt’s regime in the US, in the 1930s, as a ‘model’ for Cuba. Yet even if this was the case - which is highly dubious - it shows the lack of understanding of the Cuban revolutionaries of the methods and the social forces required to make a socialist revolution, which should be the most conscious act in human history. "

http://www.socialistworld.net/print/1550

2. The wealth of the bureaucracy - hard to prove but we do know there are luxurious houses with swimming pools, internet, satellite TV, luxury hospitals and so on. Even if they are for foreigners it's not very socialist spirited, and everyone knows the bureaucracy are gonna go to the nice hospitals not the grotty ones.

any points I missed just remind me





variety, the spice of life, Cuban style

[KurtFF8]

I'm just gonna briefly summarise as I wrote a load and lost it.

Oh man that's the worst. This happened to me once but for some reason firefox had saved what I had written, I was very please. But all too often when this happens, it is lost and is quite frustrating so I can relate.

1. Your wiki source was very vague. It mentions books by Bourne and Coltman, both of whom confirmed that Castro said he was not a communist even after the revolution.

Yet you seem to only have one source: socialistworld.net

The first paragraph you quoted doesn't demonstrate how Castro wasn't a Communist, it simply makes the claim. As for the point about Jose Marti: it doesn't follow that because Marti was not necessarily a Marxist that Castro therefore wasn't. That's quite awful logic. (And of course Marti did read Marx, although was not a Marxist).

And this doesn't even address the period in which I brought up in the wiki article about the time before the baracks attack.

2. The wealth of the bureaucracy - hard to prove but we do know there are luxurious houses with swimming pools, internet, satellite TV, luxury hospitals and so on. Even if they are for foreigners it's not very socialist spirited, and everyone knows the bureaucracy are gonna go to the nice hospitals not the grotty ones.

But if they are for tourists, which I'm assuming they are, it is because of the rising tourism industry, not necessarily for domestic use by officials. I do think that the tourism industry is dangerous for Cuba as it can lead to more disparity on the Island though.

But yes, as you point out: it is hard to prove. So you probably shouldn't go around passionately claiming it to be true.

And those two pictures don't prove a thing.

[daft punk]

What I have shown is that Castro said he wasn't a communist, none of his colleagues thought he was, and Che didnt think the rest of them were either. It was not a communist movement. It did not follow Marxist strategy, it did not have Marxist aims. I have a whole separate thread on this and have pointed you to a detailed article or two quoting many sources close to Castro and Che. You have a wiki article that vaguely says he read a few books. He read widely.

My two photos prove that there are poor people in Cuba and there are huge luxury mansions with swimming pools. Tourists get 5 star luxury including the internet and satellite tv. They have beaches ordinary Cubans arent allowed on. They have special hospitals and so on, special supermarkets. It's like apartheid. They even have a different currency.

You think the bureaucracy get none of these perks too?

You have a country with no freedom of speech and massive inequality between what ordinary Cubans and the huge luxury for foreigners. What are the chances that the Cuban elite dont share that?

Why do you think the military and the party are all so loyal? Think about it. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to work it out.

These luxury hotels etc are owned by the military. General Julio Casas set up the main holiday company under Gaviota Tourism. These bring in millions of dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Casas_Regueiro

"Corps General Julio Casas Regueiro (February 18, 1936 – September 3, 2011) was a Cuban politician. He was a Vice-President of the Council of State and the Minister of Defense.

Previously, Regueiro was the Deputy Minister of MINFAR in charge of Economic Activity and was in charge of Cuba's holding company, GAE SA, which is the holding company for the commercial activities belonging to MINFAR, the Cuban Armed Forces Ministry. It manages much of Cuba's lucrative tourist industry (such as the company Gaviota) along with agriculture, import-export businesses, retail stores and other enterprises."

[KurtFF8]

What I have shown is that Castro said he wasn't a communist, none of his colleagues thought he was, and Che didnt think the rest of them were either. It was not a communist movement. It did not follow Marxist strategy, it did not have Marxist aims. I have a whole separate thread on this and have pointed you to a detailed article or two quoting many sources close to Castro and Che. You have a wiki article that vaguely says he read a few books. He read widely.

Actually you never quoted Castro. You've only quoted second hand accounts of second hand accounts of people saying the they didn't think he was.

In reality, it has been demonstrated that he was an a Marxist activist long before the revolution.

Che's involvement and planning (a significant and important factor for the revolution) was directly based on a Marxist analysis as well as Raul's.

My two photos prove that there are poor people in Cuba and there are huge luxury mansions with swimming pools. Tourists get 5 star luxury including the internet and satellite tv. They have beaches ordinary Cubans arent allowed on. They have special hospitals and so on, special supermarkets. It's like apartheid. They even have a different currency.

The first photo (which is not sourced by the way) does not demonstrate that anyone actually lives in that place. For all we know it could be a public meeting spot that was once the site of a rich pre-revolutionary mobster.

The rest of your claims are equally unsourced.

You think the bureaucracy get none of these perks too?

You seem to think so, you also seem to have no evidence however.

Why do you think the military and the party are all so loyal? Think about it. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to work it out.

But it does take a little bit of evidence or validity.

These luxury hotels etc are owned by the military. General Julio Casas set up the main holiday company under Gaviota Tourism. These bring in millions of dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Casas_Regueiro

"Corps General Julio Casas Regueiro (February 18, 1936 – September 3, 2011) was a Cuban politician. He was a Vice-President of the Council of State and the Minister of Defense.

Previously, Regueiro was the Deputy Minister of MINFAR in charge of Economic Activity and was in charge of Cuba's holding company, GAE SA, which is the holding company for the commercial activities belonging to MINFAR, the Cuban Armed Forces Ministry. It manages much of Cuba's lucrative tourist industry (such as the company Gaviota) along with agriculture, import-export businesses, retail stores and other enterprises."

All this shows is that the tourism industry is stated owned, what's your point?

[daft punk]

Actually you never quoted Castro. You've only quoted second hand accounts of second hand accounts of people saying the they didn't think he was.

In reality, it has been demonstrated that he was an a Marxist activist long before the revolution.

Che's involvement and planning (a significant and important factor for the revolution) was directly based on a Marxist analysis as well as Raul's.

Yes I have, I have posted this several times:

Szulc is a particularly important witness. In writing his book he was given unprecedented access to Fidel Castro. He writes:

"On the issue of communism in Cuba, endlessly raised with [Castro] in Washington, he repeated time after time that ‘we are not Communists’, that if there happened to be any Communists in his government ‘their influence is nothing’, and that he did not agree with Communism. To reassure Americans during the post-victory transition period, pending ultimate consolidation, Castro announced that Cuba would not confiscate foreign-owned private property (which meant mainly American-owned concerns), and indeed would seek additional investments to provide new jobs." 43

http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/Cuba/cu2.html

No Che was not using Marxist analysis, if he was he would have gone into the cities and organised the workers like Lenin and Trotsky did. He read some Marx, Engels, Lenin, even Stalin in his youth, but was not politically active. He got more politicised to the end of his motorcycle trip with his friend. Even on his second tour with a different friend after his exams he was a traveller and adventurer not a revolutionary. However he was surrounded by revolutionary events wherever he went and he was sympathetic to the poor and their struggles.

In La Paz he lived a double life, spending time in cafes with revolutionaries and then going to upper class parties, in fact he got an invitation received wedding of Greek shipping tycoon, Aristotle Onassis.

The first photo (which is not sourced by the way) does not demonstrate that anyone actually lives in that place. For all we know it could be a public meeting spot that was once the site of a rich pre-revolutionary mobster.

The rest of your claims are equally unsourced.

Kurt it is common knowledge that you can go to Cuba and rent these luxury villas. They are built for tourists. The military runs them. Do you think they dont get any perks with $ millions rolling in?

Go there for yourself and see

http://www.cubaluxuryvillas.com/

"Villa Isis
This luxury home "Villa Raul" for rent has a gorgeous swimming pool, 2 luxury suites, each with its own private facilities and air conditoner. Daily Breakfast and Dinner. Security box in room included. This mansion offers all the service you would expect at home. Miramar location, Havana City"





Villa Raquel

http://www.cubaluxuryvillas.com/images/photos/houses/ph1144354029.jpg

These are from a holiday website. Book a ticket, go there, and see they really exist for yourself. You wont meet any Cubans on the tourists private beaches though. Unless one of the CP elite is there.

Code: Select all"(Reuters) - President Raul Castro has put Colonel Hector Oroza Busutin in charge of Cuban Export-Import Corporation, or CIMEX, Cuba's largest commercial corporation, as part of his campaign to increase efficiency and reduce corruption.

The state-owned company that Oroza will run has operations ranging from banking to jewelry stores, but there is little detailed information available on its more than 80 companies and 25,000 employees.

What follows comes from the CIMEX web page, www.cimexweb.com, and the last annual information released by the company covering 2006, when revenues were $1.3 billion, with 48 percent of that coming from retail operations and the rest from its other businesses."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/09/2 ... 5320100927



Cuban Opposition Denounces More Than 250 Political Arrests in November
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politi ... -november/

"Cubans hail a private property revolution

State controls are whittled back as Raúl Castro abolishes the ban on buying and selling houses"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... del-castro

How long will it be before the Cuban elite goes mainstream capitalist?

"Even the Cuban ruling elite sometimes goes outside of Cuba for the best medical care. Fidel Castro, in July, 2006 brought in a Spanish doctor during his health crisis. Vice Minister of Health Abelardo Ramirez went to France for gastric cancer surgery. The neurosurgeon who is Chief of CIMEQ Hospital (reportedly one of the best in Cuba) went to England for eye surgery and returns periodically for checkups."
http://propagandapress.wordpress.com/20 ... ko-banned/

""As described in reftel, the best medical institutions in Cuba are reserved for foreigners with hard currency, members of the ruling elite and high-ranking military personnel. These institutions, with their intended patient clientele in parentheses, include: Clinica Central Cira Garcia (diplomats & tourists), Centro Internacional de Investigaciones Restauracion Neurologica (foreigners & military elite), Centro de Investigaciones Medico Quirurgicas (military & regime elite), Clinica de Kohly (Primer Buro Politico & Generals of the Ministry of Interior), and the top floors of the Hermanos Ameijeiras Hospital (foreigners) and Frank Pais Hospital (foreigners). These institutions are hygienically qualified, and have a wide array of diagnostic equipment with a full complement of laboratories, well-stocked pharmacies, and private patient suites with cable television and bathrooms.

4. (C) Below are first-hand observations from USINT’s Foreign Service Health Practitioner’s (FSHP) impromptu and unauthorized (by the GOC) visits to major Havana hospitals where average Cubans receive their healthcare, and from conversations with Cubans in many walks of life."

Doctors at the exclusive Cimeq hospital in western Havana are accustomed to handling the delicate health problems of Cuba's communist elite.

It was here last weekend, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt, that they battled for several hours to save the life of the regime's most important patient, Fidel Castro. Unable to stem intestinal bleeding with drugs, the country's top surgeons performed an emergency operation on the veteran leader.

To all but a handful of trusted doctors and his closest lieutenants, President Castro's medical condition has been shrouded in mystery, described as a "state secret" in words attributed to the dictator until, on Friday, the health minister, José Ramón Balaguer, said he was recovering and "will be back with us soon".

The 79-year-old president is understood to have undergone surgery on Saturday at Cimeq before being wheeled back from the operating theatre to the floor reserved for him and his 75-year-old brother, Raúl. The facility is in the district of Siboney, home to Cuba's most prestigious scientific research complex and near Gen Castro's official residence in a tightly guarded military zone.

The Cuban leader received treatment on a par with the best in the world. But most Cubans, reliant on the supposedly universal health system, have to pay for even basic drugs such as aspirin and the equivalent of £30 for "extras" such as X-rays.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1525734 ... -life.html

[KurtFF8]

http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/Cuba/cu2.html

No Che was not using Marxist analysis, if he was he would have gone into the cities and organised the workers like Lenin and Trotsky did. He read some Marx, Engels, Lenin, even Stalin in his youth, but was not politically active. He got more politicised to the end of his motorcycle trip with his friend. Even on his second tour with a different friend after his exams he was a traveller and adventurer not a revolutionary. However he was surrounded by revolutionary events wherever he went and he was sympathetic to the poor and their struggles.

In La Paz he lived a double life, spending time in cafes with revolutionaries and then going to upper class parties, in fact he got an invitation received wedding of Greek shipping tycoon, Aristotle Onassis.

I'm sorry but an anti-Castro political website is not a valid source. And why is what he said to the United State trying to assure there wouldn't be aggression to Cuba inherently proof of how he wasn't a Marxist? Of course he would try to underplay the Marxists in his organization when talking to the US.

There's nothing "more Marxist" about organizing in the cities versus the country side" This is what is called "vulgar Marxism." The rebels were made up of rural workers fighting against capitalist agribusiness. You haven't even really addressed how a rural insurgency is "not Marxist." Was Mao's insurgency also "not Marxist" (whatever that means)?

And as I said earlier, the July 26th movement had links to urban organizations that were organizing with workers directly (and the general strike was violently put down, leaving the rural rebels to be the sole chance for the revolution)

Kurt it is common knowledge that you can go to Cuba and rent these luxury villas. They are built for tourists. The military runs them. Do you think they dont get any perks with $ millions rolling in?

Right, for tourists. So this, in other words, is absolutely irrelevant to your claim that they are for state officials.

Unless one of the CP elite is there.

Source?

Cuban Opposition Denounces More Than 250 Political Arrests in November
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politi ... -november/

You've got to be kidding me? You're seriously using Fox News as your source now?

"Cubans hail a private property revolution

State controls are whittled back as Raúl Castro abolishes the ban on buying and selling houses"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... del-castro

Relevance?

How long will it be before the Cuban elite goes mainstream capitalist?

They haven't even gone through half of what China has.

"Even the Cuban ruling elite sometimes goes outside of Cuba for the best medical care. Fidel Castro, in July, 2006 brought in a Spanish doctor during his health crisis. Vice Minister of Health Abelardo Ramirez went to France for gastric cancer surgery. The neurosurgeon who is Chief of CIMEQ Hospital (reportedly one of the best in Cuba) went to England for eye surgery and returns periodically for checkups."
http://propagandapress.wordpress.com/20 ... ko-banned/

Not only are the things in this long discredited but the source is the US government.

For someone who claims to be a Marxist, you rely not only on bourgeois liberal idealism in your definition of what democracy is, but you even have to use right wing reactionary media and the US government for your sources of information.

[daft punk]

daft punk wrote:

http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/Cuba/cu2.html

No Che was not using Marxist analysis, if he was he would have gone into the cities and organised the workers like Lenin and Trotsky did. He read some Marx, Engels, Lenin, even Stalin in his youth, but was not politically active. He got more politicised to the end of his motorcycle trip with his friend. Even on his second tour with a different friend after his exams he was a traveller and adventurer not a revolutionary. However he was surrounded by revolutionary events wherever he went and he was sympathetic to the poor and their struggles.

In La Paz he lived a double life, spending time in cafes with revolutionaries and then going to upper class parties, in fact he got an invitation received wedding of Greek shipping tycoon, Aristotle Onassis.



I'm sorry but an anti-Castro political website is not a valid source. And why is what he said to the United State trying to assure there wouldn't be aggression to Cuba inherently proof of how he wasn't a Marxist? Of course he would try to underplay the Marxists in his organization when talking to the US.

You are talking rubbish. Socialist World is very favourable towards Che. But it tells the facts. And a pro Castro website wouldnt be very objective would it? Socialist World is not anti-Castro anyway, it is simply critical of his methods. They support Cuba and the 'socialism' it has as progressive. They just say it needs democracy to survive and improve.

You say of course Castro would try to underplay Marxists when talking to the US. Not if he was a Marxist he wouldnt. Anyway, you keep changing your mind, you admitted at one point that Castro wasnt a Marxist before the revolution, said it was common knowledge, later you changed your mind on the basis of some vague bit in wiki that said he had read a bit.

There's nothing "more Marxist" about organizing in the cities versus the country side" This is what is called "vulgar Marxism." The rebels were made up of rural workers fighting against capitalist agribusiness. You haven't even really addressed how a rural insurgency is "not Marxist." Was Mao's insurgency also "not Marxist" (whatever that means)?

And as I said earlier, the July 26th movement had links to urban organizations that were organizing with workers directly (and the general strike was violently put down, leaving the rural rebels to be the sole chance for the revolution)

As a Marxist you are an abysmal failure. I have shown in this forum how in September 1917 Lenin correctly came to agree with Trotsky that it would be a workers government. This successfully split the poor peasants from the rural bourgeois, in 1918. Prior to October 1917 the poor peasants had NOT fought against the rural bourgeois.

Your grasp of Marxism is utterly hopeless. A Marxist approach would be to focus on organising the industrial workers.

In Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels classified the peasants as the lower ranks of the middle class who would sink into the proletariat. They say the peasants "fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history." In the first chapter they mention the peasants 3 times and proletariat 40 times. Now I understand that you cant see any significance in numbers like this but you really should. Again in the second chapter peasants are mentioned once and proletariat 22 times. So peasants 4, proletariat 62. Do you see a bit of emphasis here?

Marx said that in backward countries, ie mainly peasant countries, socialism was impossible. This was the basic position of the Bolsheviks up to April 1917. Only Trotsky envisaged socialist revolution in backward countries. Actually Marx did mention the possibility once, and said that it would have to be backed up by advanced countries or it wouldnt work. However this was a brief mention in a forward to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto.

Mao was a Marxist, sort of, but no his revolution was not done in a Marxist way at all. In fact his ambition in 1945 was to build capitalism not socialism. He was a stagist, as were the Stalinists, who believed that they should build up the economy with capitalism for several decades before thinking about socialism.

Castro seems to have been simply wanting Cuba to be democratic and not ruled by American capital. Why are you so hung up on simplistic and false beliefs? I have given you all the info you need.

Do you know that Mao wanted China to be capitalist? He said so clearly. That is stagist not proper Marxist. Lenin broke from that in 1917. The October revolution was based on a rejection of stagism. Who was a better Marxist, Lenin or Mao? At least Russia was democratic for a few months.

Right, for tourists. So this, in other words, is absolutely irrelevant to your claim that they are for state officials.

loads of anecdotal evidence that the bureaucracy get these perks. I already mentioned proof eg the hospital treatment of some of the leaders. The military runs the tourist industry. Castro runs the military. The people get no say in anything. The tourists get luxury and the people get very little, poverty basically. Half of them were malnourished until recently.

Do you not see the irony? In the 1950s Cuba was a dictatorship run as a playground for rich foreigners while the masses lived in poverty.

Now Cuba is a dictatorship run as a playground for rich foreigners while the masses lived in poverty.



"One of my colleagues, who is frequently in Spain, related the following story: a well-known singer, a dissident from Cuba, recently appeared on Spanish television. With tears in her eyes she spoke of the privileges which existed in Cuba. She reported that party bureaucrats who were sick got single rooms in the hospitals, i.e., enjoyed privileges. All those who heard the program could only think "look at the privileges they have in Cuba!""

http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/1937/lecture3.htm

The CWI said Castro was not particularly privileged

"Castro himself, despite the recent absurd claims of Forbes magazine that he was one of the richest men on the planet, is not personally corrupt, and does not lead an overtly privileged existence. But the problem is not just of one man or a small number of men and women, devoted to maintaining the planned economy, but the fact that real power is in the hands of a top-down elite."
http://www.socialismtoday.org/104/cuba.html

However we do know he had state of the art medical treatment and a Spanish doctor was flown in to examine him.

"Spanish surgeon examines Castro

Castro seemed frail during his last TV appearance in October
A leading Spanish surgeon has gone to Havana to examine the ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro and decide whether he needs another operation.

A Madrid health official said a top surgeon, Dr Jose Luis Garcia Sabrido, had gone there in response to Cuban requests for help. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6208451.stm

You are helping the demise of the Cuban revolution. It will be taken over by American tourist companies and the bureaucrats will become capitalists.

You've got to be kidding me? You're seriously using Fox News as your source now?

the story was from EFE, the leading Spanish language news agency and the fourth largest news agency in the world.

Not only are the things in this long discredited but the source is the US government.

For someone who claims to be a Marxist, you rely not only on bourgeois liberal idealism in your definition of what democracy is, but you even have to use right wing reactionary media and the US government for your sources of information.

"MEXICO CITY, Dec. 26 — A Spanish surgeon who examined Fidel Castro last week said Tuesday that the 80-year-old Cuban president did not have cancer and could return to work after recovering from the intestinal surgery he had last summer.
Sergio Barrenechea/European Pressphoto Agency

Dr. José Luis García Sabrido at his news conference Tuesday in Madrid on Fidel Castro’s health.

“His physical activity is excellent, his intellectual activity intact,” the doctor, José Luis García Sabrido, head of surgery at Gregorio Marañón Hospital in Madrid, said at a news conference in Madrid. “I’d say fantastic. He’s recovering from his previous operation.”

This is the first time since Mr. Castro dropped out of public view in the summer that a medical expert outside the Cuban government has commented on his health.

Cuban officials have said Mr. Castro’s condition is a state secret.

United States intelligence officials have said Mr. Castro is not long for this world, especially after he failed to appear at a weeklong celebration of his birthday, held this month.

Speculation has been rampant in Washington and among Cuban exiles in Miami that Mr. Castro, a leftist icon who has thumbed his nose at the White House for nearly five decades, has colon cancer.

The director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, told The Washington Post this month that American intelligence agencies believed that Mr. Castro was “terminally ill” and that he would be dead in “months, not years.” Other American intelligence officials have said they believe that Mr. Castro is dying of cancer.

On Tuesday, a spokesman for Mr. Negroponte, Ross Feinstein, said the director had nothing to add to his earlier assessment.

Dr. García Sabrido, who examined Mr. Castro in Cuba last week, said the intestinal bleeding that prompted the handing of power to his brother Raúl and small group of cabinet ministers in the summer did not stem from a malignancy. He added that Mr. Castro could make a full recovery, but “required muscular rehabilitation and a strict diet.”

“He does not have cancer, he has a problem with his digestive system,” Dr. García Sabrido told reporters in Madrid. “President Castro has no malign inflammation. It’s a benign process in which he has had a series of complications.”

The surgeon flew to Havana last week with medical equipment not available in Cuba to determine whether Mr. Castro needed further surgery. In keeping with Havana’s wishes, he did not say specifically what ailed Mr. Castro."

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-12-24/worl ... s=PM:WORLD

irrefutable proof, a public statement by the doctor.

[KurtFF8]

You are talking rubbish. Socialist World is very favourable towards Che. But it tells the facts. And a pro Castro website wouldnt be very objective would it? Socialist World is not anti-Castro anyway, it is simply critical of his methods. They support Cuba and the 'socialism' it has as progressive. They just say it needs democracy to survive and improve.

You say of course Castro would try to underplay Marxists when talking to the US. Not if he was a Marxist he wouldnt. Anyway, you keep changing your mind, you admitted at one point that Castro wasnt a Marxist before the revolution, said it was common knowledge, later you changed your mind on the basis of some vague bit in wiki that said he had read a bit.

I said anti-Castro, not anti-Che (although they both held very similar political views, so to be favorable to one and discount the other doesn't make too much sense).

So why is an ad hom. attack on a source valid only if it's pro-Castro, but if a critical site is anti-Castro, it's just "using facts"? This is contradictory logic you're appealing to, once again.

And in terms of underplaying the Marxism of the revolution, at that stage it was very fragile, that seems to be quite obvious.

And I've been quite consistent in saying that it was common knowledge that Che and Raul were more Marxist than Fidel, that part is indeed common knowledge. But Castro didn't move from a right-wing Nationalist to Left wing Marxist overnight. He was quite clearly a Marxist before.

And it's funny that wikipedia is all of the sudden invalid, even though you're entire argument about the lack of Cuban democracy is based on a small section of a wikipedia article (that turns out to not even actually support your claims). So when is wikipedia valid?

As a Marxist you are an abysmal failure. I have shown in this forum how in September 1917 Lenin correctly came to agree with Trotsky that it would be a workers government. This successfully split the poor peasants from the rural bourgeois, in 1918. Prior to October 1917 the poor peasants had NOT fought against the rural bourgeois.

Your grasp of Marxism is utterly hopeless. A Marxist approach would be to focus on organising the industrial workers.

This is simply a personal attack without any actual substance (which is not new coming from you). As I mentioned, and as you ignored, there was organization of industrial workers in conjunction with the rural rebellion. There was a general strike (that was crushed) at the time of the revolution. why do you keep ignoring that?

In Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels classified the peasants as the lower ranks of the middle class who would sink into the proletariat. They say the peasants "fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history." In the first chapter they mention the peasants 3 times and proletariat 40 times. Now I understand that you cant see any significance in numbers like this but you really should. Again in the second chapter peasants are mentioned once and proletariat 22 times. So peasants 4, proletariat 62. Do you see a bit of emphasis here?

Marx said that in backward countries, ie mainly peasant countries, socialism was impossible. This was the basic position of the Bolsheviks up to April 1917. Only Trotsky envisaged socialist revolution in backward countries. Actually Marx did mention the possibility once, and said that it would have to be backed up by advanced countries or it wouldnt work. However this was a brief mention in a forward to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto.

Cute, I knew you'd find a way to irrelevantly praise Trotsky here.

I'm familiar with what the Manifesto says about peasants. You, however, have yet to actually attempt to apply this to the Cuban revolution.

Mao was a Marxist, sort of, but no his revolution was not done in a Marxist way at all. In fact his ambition in 1945 was to build capitalism not socialism. He was a stagist, as were the Stalinists, who believed that they should build up the economy with capitalism for several decades before thinking about socialism.

Castro seems to have been simply wanting Cuba to be democratic and not ruled by American capital. Why are you so hung up on simplistic and false beliefs? I have given you all the info you need.

Do you know that Mao wanted China to be capitalist? He said so clearly. That is stagist not proper Marxist. Lenin broke from that in 1917. The October revolution was based on a rejection of stagism. Who was a better Marxist, Lenin or Mao? At least Russia was democratic for a few months.

For someone who sits there ant tries to condescend to people about being "a good Marxist" you seem confused about what the term really means.

How can a revolution be done in "a Marxist way" exactly? Marxism is a method of analysis. That analysis can be used to help guide political action, but there has obviously been quite some disagreement within the analysis. The stagism that some Communists appealed to they got from Marx of course.

You claim about Castro here is of course just not backed up by any sources.

And Mao was a Leninist you know.

loads of anecdotal evidence that the bureaucracy get these perks. I already mentioned proof eg the hospital treatment of some of the leaders. The military runs the tourist industry. Castro runs the military. The people get no say in anything. The tourists get luxury and the people get very little, poverty basically. Half of them were malnourished until recently.

Do you not see the irony? In the 1950s Cuba was a dictatorship run as a playground for rich foreigners while the masses lived in poverty.

Now Cuba is a dictatorship run as a playground for rich foreigners while the masses lived in poverty.

You would think with loads of anecdotal evidence that you would be able to locate some of that evidence eh?

Again, a bunch of false claims without any backing here.

You have yet to demonstrate how state ownership over the tourism industry is equal to them living in luxury. This is the same logic that folks have tried to use to accuse Fidel of being "rich":
-The Cuban government owns the property
-Castro is the head of government
-So Castro owns the property

This logic is of course quite awful and nonsensical. Using that same logic, Obama is a "trillionare"

The CWI said Castro was not particularly privileged

Yep.

However we do know he had state of the art medical treatment and a Spanish doctor was flown in to examine him.

And?

You are helping the demise of the Cuban revolution. It will be taken over by American tourist companies and the bureaucrats will become capitalists.

What on Earth are you talking about.

the story was from EFE, the leading Spanish language news agency and the fourth largest news agency in the world.

And the way the article is written it seems pretty clearly to be anti-Communist

irrefutable proof, a public statement by the doctor.

Also completely irrelevant to what you were replying to.

[daft punk]

I said anti-Castro, not anti-Che (although they both held very similar political views, so to be favorable to one and discount the other doesn't make too much sense).

I was writing about Che and you said "I'm sorry but an anti-Castro political website is not a valid source. And why is what he said to the United State trying to assure there wouldn't be aggression to Cuba inherently proof of how he wasn't a Marxist? Of course he would try to underplay the Marxists in his organization when talking to the US."

They didnt hold similar views, Che was a bit of a commie and Castro was not. Socialist World is not 'anti-Castro' or 'pro-Che'. It is objective about both and gives both critical support.

So why is an ad hom. attack on a source valid only if it's pro-Castro, but if a critical site is anti-Castro, it's just "using facts"? This is contradictory logic you're appealing to, once again.

You said Socialist World is anti-Castro not me, and it is a stupid thing to say.

And in terms of underplaying the Marxism of the revolution, at that stage it was very fragile, that seems to be quite obvious.

What are you saying? That a Marxist should pretend not to be one? I hope you are not saying that as that would be a very un-Marxist thing to say.

And I've been quite consistent in saying that it was common knowledge that Che and Raul were more Marxist than Fidel, that part is indeed common knowledge. But Castro didn't move from a right-wing Nationalist to Left wing Marxist overnight. He was quite clearly a Marxist before.

He wasnt clearly a Marxist because none of his comrades thought he was a Marxist. He didnt become one overnight, he didnt become one period. However about 2 years after the revolution when America was on the attack but Russia was prepared to offer some aid, and when he had problems with the right wing of his party, he did claim to be one.

And it's funny that wikipedia is all of the sudden invalid, even though you're entire argument about the lack of Cuban democracy is based on a small section of a wikipedia article (that turns out to not even actually support your claims). So when is wikipedia valid?

My argument that Cuba is not democratic has quoted lots of sources so dont say it was just wiki, that is bullshit.

Quote:
As a Marxist you are an abysmal failure. I have shown in this forum how in September 1917 Lenin correctly came to agree with Trotsky that it would be a workers government. This successfully split the poor peasants from the rural bourgeois, in 1918. Prior to October 1917 the poor peasants had NOT fought against the rural bourgeois.

Your grasp of Marxism is utterly hopeless. A Marxist approach would be to focus on organising the industrial workers.



This is simply a personal attack without any actual substance (which is not new coming from you). As I mentioned, and as you ignored, there was organization of industrial workers in conjunction with the rural rebellion. There was a general strike (that was crushed) at the time of the revolution. why do you keep ignoring that?

It is not a personal attack it is an attack on the idea that a peasant rebellion can achieve socialism which goes completely against what Marx and Engels said as I demonstrated.

I dont think there was much contact between J26M and the urban workers. I already quoted Che speaking of his distrust for the urban leaders.

In fact Che went so far as to say:

""In underdeveloped Latin America the arena for armed struggle must be basically the countryside."

and he rebuked those who

"Dogmatically assert that the struggle of the masses is centred in urban movements, totally forgetting the immense participation of the people from the countryside in the life of all the underdeveloped countries of Latin America."

That is not to say that Castro relied exclusively on the peasants. But the main struggle was the guerilla war and Castro did not organise the workers.

Again Che spells it out:

"The guerrilla fighter is above all an agrarian revolutionary. He interprets the desire of the great peasant masses to be owners of the land, of the means of production, of the livestock, of all they have yearned for over the years, of what makes up their lives and also will be their grave"

Of course the workers supported the guerillas. But in Russia Lenin and Trotsky based themselves on the urban working class, whereas in Cuba Castro and Che did not. The fact that they came to power via a guerilla war shaped the whole movement. And a strange set of circumstances means that Castro, who wanted Cuba to be capitalist, had to take over the industry.

Cute, I knew you'd find a way to irrelevantly praise Trotsky here.

I'm familiar with what the Manifesto says about peasants. You, however, have yet to actually attempt to apply this to the Cuban revolution.

It is not irrelevant, Lenin and Trotsky did the workers thing, Castro and Che did the peasant thing. The Communist Manifesto said do the workers thing.

It's pretty fucking simple.

For someone who sits there ant tries to condescend to people about being "a good Marxist" you seem confused about what the term really means.

How can a revolution be done in "a Marxist way" exactly? Marxism is a method of analysis. That analysis can be used to help guide political action, but there has obviously been quite some disagreement within the analysis. The stagism that some Communists appealed to they got from Marx of course.

You claim about Castro here is of course just not backed up by any sources.

And Mao was a Leninist you know.

My claim about Castro has been done to death. I have about a thousand solid sources, you have a vague bit from wiki that says Castro read a bit of Marx when he was young. Great, I read Erich von Daniken, doesnt mean I believe aliens lived on our planet.

I have given you a link to an article stuffed with poof that

"until the end of the war and the beginning of 1959, no one believed Fidel was a Communist"

Carlos Franqui was a close collaborator but was famously removed from a picture for later opposing Castro's methods

http://www.11points.com/images/doctoreddictators/castro.jpg

Quote:
However we do know he had state of the art medical treatment and a Spanish doctor was flown in to examine him.



And?

so he at least gets privileged medical treatment

Quote:
You are helping the demise of the Cuban revolution. It will be taken over by American tourist companies and the bureaucrats will become capitalists.



What on Earth are you talking about.

Raul is introducing capitalism not democratic socialism. Your misguided support will do nothing useful.

Quote:
irrefutable proof, a public statement by the doctor.



Also completely irrelevant to what you were replying to.

It proves that Castro gets privileged medical treatment.

[KurtFF8]

I was writing about Che and you said "I'm sorry but an anti-Castro political website is not a valid source. And why is what he said to the United State trying to assure there wouldn't be aggression to Cuba inherently proof of how he wasn't a Marxist? Of course he would try to underplay the Marxists in his organization when talking to the US."

They didnt hold similar views, Che was a bit of a commie and Castro was not. Socialist World is not 'anti-Castro' or 'pro-Che'. It is objective about both and gives both critical support.

Ah so you admit your post had nothing to do with mine then. And I'd be interested to see how you can demonstrate how your Party is "objective" in terms of analyzing Che and Fidel.

You said Socialist World is anti-Castro not me, and it is a stupid thing to say.

You've constantly attacked sources in this thread, yet you keep appealing to a politically loaded source.

I hope you are not saying that as that would be a very un-Marxist thing to say.

How is that an "un-Marxist" thing to say? And of course we're talking about dealing with the United States directly, not the revolution in general here.

My argument that Cuba is not democratic has quoted lots of sources so dont say it was just wiki, that is bullshit.

Although wiki seems to have been your main source, and other than that you've appealed mostly to political organizations that are anti-Cuba, which is even less valid than wiki.

It is not a personal attack it is an attack on the idea that a peasant rebellion can achieve socialism which goes completely against what Marx and Engels said as I demonstrated.

No, it's pretty much an ad hom.

I dont think there was much contact between J26M and the urban workers. I already quoted Che speaking of his distrust for the urban leaders.

Right, obviously the J26 Movement focused on the rural areas, I never claimed that they put faith into the urban revolt. And if one is to measure the success of each, it's quite obvious that the rural revolt was more successful.

Of course the workers supported the guerillas. But in Russia Lenin and Trotsky based themselves on the urban working class, whereas in Cuba Castro and Che did not. The fact that they came to power via a guerilla war shaped the whole movement. And a strange set of circumstances means that Castro, who wanted Cuba to be capitalist, had to take over the industry.

What Lenin and Trotsky did strategically in Russia in 1917 is not a blueprint for what needed to be done in Cuba in the late 1950s. That isn't an appeal to Marxism, but an appeal to what some Marxist revolutionaries did.

And of course you've yet to really demonstrate that Castro really wanted Cuba to be capitalist in the first place, and especially have failed to demonstrate that that's what he wanted at the time of the revolution.

It is not irrelevant, Lenin and Trotsky did the workers thing, Castro and Che did the peasant thing. The Communist Manifesto said do the workers thing.

It's pretty fucking simple.

And you accuse others of having a weak grasp on Marxism.

Was Mao also not a Communist?

My claim about Castro has been done to death. I have about a thousand solid sources, you have a vague bit from wiki that says Castro read a bit of Marx when he was young. Great, I read Erich von Daniken, doesnt mean I believe aliens lived on our planet.

You're right that your claim has been made many times, and remains unconvincing. Your sources have not demonstrated what you're claiming in the slightest. And you have yet to demonstrate why the wiki article is a lie (which is what you seem to be claiming)

I have given you a link to an article stuffed with poof that

"until the end of the war and the beginning of 1959, no one believed Fidel was a Communist"

Carlos Franqui was a close collaborator but was famously removed from a picture for later opposing Castro's methods

This demonstrates an overall theme in which you look for arguments against the Cuban revolution: you appeal to counter-revolutionary sources constantly. A good example of this was when I quoted Castro, and you berated me because of the source. Then you turned around and quoted Human Rights Watch whose Chairman was on the Council of Foreign Relations!

so he at least gets privileged medical treatment

Does this happen in the UK, which you claim is Democratic? (hint: yes)

Raul is introducing capitalism not democratic socialism. Your misguided support will do nothing useful.

He has indeed introduced some capitalist reforms. So did Lenin with the NEP

It proves that Castro gets privileged medical treatment.

Which in turn doesn't really prove anything else.

[daft punk]

Ah so you admit your post had nothing to do with mine then. And I'd be interested to see how you can demonstrate how your Party is "objective" in terms of analyzing Che and Fidel.

you quoted me talking about Che but started talking about it being anti-Castro. It is objective because it states the facts unlike you who states a load of twaddle. One minute you say everyone knows Castro wasnt a communist, what's new blah blah blah and the next you claim he was an ardent Marxist by the time he was just out of his nappies.

Ok get going on how you never said that, i cant wait.

You've constantly attacked sources in this thread, yet you keep appealing to a politically loaded source.

The only source you had was that bloke who wrote that book and I found a review saying that he never analyses how democratic Cuba actually is.

In what way is Socialist World politically loaded? It is socialist. That's it. If Cuba was socialist they would say so. They still support Cuba even though it's not socialist. It's called critical support. You dont fall down and pray just cos a leader says he is socialist. Castro says he is a socialist but its easy to talk the talk.

Cuba is not democratic and is run by a bureaucratic elite. Its blatantly obvious.

How is that an "un-Marxist" thing to say? And of course we're talking about dealing with the United States directly, not the revolution in general here.

Marx: "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working Men of All Countries, Unite! "

Although wiki seems to have been your main source, and other than that you've appealed mostly to political organizations that are anti-Cuba, which is even less valid than wiki.

wiki is not my main source except for describing the structure of the electoral process which after a dozen attempts you finally understood involves a choice of one candidate in the national 'elections'.

Right, obviously the J26 Movement focused on the rural areas, I never claimed that they put faith into the urban revolt. And if one is to measure the success of each, it's quite obvious that the rural revolt was more successful.

Well it would be if no-one was leading the urban workers. Dont tell fuser about that. Anyway, successful in establishing a dictatorship over a poor country yeah.

What Lenin and Trotsky did strategically in Russia in 1917 is not a blueprint for what needed to be done in Cuba in the late 1950s. That isn't an appeal to Marxism, but an appeal to what some Marxist revolutionaries did.

And of course you've yet to really demonstrate that Castro really wanted Cuba to be capitalist in the first place, and especially have failed to demonstrate that that's what he wanted at the time of the revolution.

I have demonstrated that a thousand times and given you a link to a detailed article which quotes from many sources close to Che and Castro.

In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels talked about the workers leading a revolution. Marx never talked about a peasant revolution.
None of Castro's comrades thought he was a communist. He publicly said he wasnt. He allied with right and left until 1960.

Quote:
It is not irrelevant, Lenin and Trotsky did the workers thing, Castro and Che did the peasant thing. The Communist Manifesto said do the workers thing.

It's pretty fucking simple.



And you accuse others of having a weak grasp on Marxism.

Was Mao also not a Communist?

Mao was a Stalinist and made mistakes. However a lot of his problems were caused by Stalin himself. Mao also succeeded in establishing a dictatorship which now is going capitalist as Cuba will.

Mao said he wanted to establish capitalism, not socialism. His plan to establish capitalism failed. The Stalinist state he ended up establishing was not what he or Stalin wanted, they wanted capitalism.

That was not Marxism.

You're right that your claim has been made many times, and remains unconvincing. Your sources have not demonstrated what you're claiming in the slightest. And you have yet to demonstrate why the wiki article is a lie (which is what you seem to be claiming)

My sources clearly demonstrate the point as has been clearly proved to you many times. I am gonna give up on you kurt, it's a waste of time.

I never said wiki was lying I said reading a couple of books proves very little. I went to Church every week for 16 years but I am not a believer in God.

Nor do I believe aliens carved out the Mayan tunnels.

This demonstrates an overall theme in which you look for arguments against the Cuban revolution: you appeal to counter-revolutionary sources constantly. A good example of this was when I quoted Castro, and you berated me because of the source. Then you turned around and quoted Human Rights Watch whose Chairman was on the Council of Foreign Relations!

How can a close comrade of Castro's be a counter-revolutionary source? What about the quotes from Che, various biographers with access to unseen data and Che's widow etc?

Do you know Franqui edited the official paper Revolución? He was kicked out of Cuba in 1967 for dissident views.

In his book he wrote

"To bid farewell to 1959 and to greet the new and, as we would soon see, decisive 1960, we had an official dinner in the Habana-Libre. The mix at our table was a bit odd: Fidel, Celia, my wife, Margot, and I. Then two guests of "Revolución," Giselle Halimi and Claude Faux, French writes and lawyers, friends of Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, who would themselves soon visit the island. "

sounds like a right counter-revolutionary doesnt he?

In his other book the editorial review goes...

"As propaganda director of Castro's guerrilla movement and official archivist of the Cuban Revolution, Franqui had access to a great deal of documentary material, including letters and interviews, in addition to his own diaries. Here, he has formed that material into a diary of the revolution, 1953-59, rather than a revolutionary's diary. His motivation, he says, was to establish a true record in the face of official historical rewriting; but though he left Cuba in 1968 (why, is unexplained), his composite diary turns out to be flattering too. While a lot of ink is spent on the details of guerrilla activity (listings of supplies received or needed, recapitulations of battles won and lost), Castro--and his strength of will--predominate."

oh, so counter-revolutionary.


At that time things were in the balance and the USA's action would be critical.

6 months later Russia offered to buy all the sugar boycotted by America.


useful timeline of Cuba here btw

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/ti ... 4.htm#fran

ok, I'm bored now.

[KurtFF8]

you quoted me talking about Che but started talking about it being anti-Castro. It is objective because it states the facts unlike you who states a load of twaddle. One minute you say everyone knows Castro wasnt a communist, what's new blah blah blah and the next you claim he was an ardent Marxist by the time he was just out of his nappies.

Ok get going on how you never said that, i cant wait.

The point is that we were talking about Castro, and you moved to some quote about Che. A sudden subject change (which is certainly not uncommon for you).

The only source you had was that bloke who wrote that book and I found a review saying that he never analyses how democratic Cuba actually is.

In what way is Socialist World politically loaded? It is socialist. That's it. If Cuba was socialist they would say so. They still support Cuba even though it's not socialist. It's called critical support. You dont fall down and pray just cos a leader says he is socialist. Castro says he is a socialist but its easy to talk the talk.

Cuba is not democratic and is run by a bureaucratic elite. Its blatantly obvious.

And you have yet to refute a single thing he wrote in his article that I referenced.

Socialist world is an organ of the CWI which has a particular political stance on Cuba. It's just as valid for me to quote Liberation News as a source then, which you would of course attack because it is an organ of the PSL.

And you just keep making these claims about it not being democratic, citing your own party as a source which shows a certain kind of dogmatism.

Marx: "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working Men of All Countries, Unite! "

I'm familiar with this, what's your point?

wiki is not my main source except for describing the structure of the electoral process which after a dozen attempts you finally understood involves a choice of one candidate in the national 'elections'.

And your source on elections actually ended up supporting my argument, not the other way around.

Well it would be if no-one was leading the urban workers. Dont tell fuser about that. Anyway, successful in establishing a dictatorship over a poor country yeah.

Well why don't you enlighten me about the urban movement if I'm so wrong about it?

I have demonstrated that a thousand times and given you a link to a detailed article which quotes from many sources close to Che and Castro.

In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels talked about the workers leading a revolution. Marx never talked about a peasant revolution.
None of Castro's comrades thought he was a communist. He publicly said he wasnt. He allied with right and left until 1960.

Your "sources" are simply second hand accounts that hint and speculate that Fidel was not a Communist. That's pretty much it. You, on the other hand, take those hints and that speculation to be indisputable evidence: when in fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary of your claims that your original sources don't even address

And your weak attempts to appeal to the Manifesto to dispute the Cuban revolution are pointless and irrelevant. There was more development (even in Marx's own thought) since the Manifesto.

Mao was a Stalinist and made mistakes. However a lot of his problems were caused by Stalin himself. Mao also succeeded in establishing a dictatorship which now is going capitalist as Cuba will.

Mao said he wanted to establish capitalism, not socialism. His plan to establish capitalism failed. The Stalinist state he ended up establishing was not what he or Stalin wanted, they wanted capitalism.

That was not Marxism.

Mao lead a peasant revolution and did so using a Marxist analysis. Regardless of whether there were "mistakes" or not does not take away from the fact that Mao was clearly a Communist (and the same holds true of Cuba and Castro in this case).

And when did Mao say he wanted to establish Capitalism and not socialism. Was this before or after the Cultural Revolution? (Also how do you account for Mao inspiring the Cultural Revolution if he was so anti-Socialist?)

How is what Mao did "not Marxism" according to you?

My sources clearly demonstrate the point as has been clearly proved to you many times. I am gonna give up on you kurt, it's a waste of time.

I never said wiki was lying I said reading a couple of books proves very little. I went to Church every week for 16 years but I am not a believer in God.

Nor do I believe aliens carved out the Mayan tunnels.

Ah the old: if I say something enough times maybe it will become the truth technique.

The wikipedia article clearly claims that Fidel was a Marxist in that era. Either you think this is false (or a lie) or you think the sources or bad. Either way you have yet to demonstrate how wikipedia was inaccurate on this point in the slightest.

Please demonstrate what parts of the article are inaccurate.

In particular:

Castro had begun to move further to the left in his political views, being influenced by the writings of prominent Marxists like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin. In doing so, he came to see the problems facing Cuba as being an integral part of capitalist society, or the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", rather than as simply the failings of corrupt politicians. Coming to believe the Marxist idea that true political change could only be brought about by a revolution led by the working class, Castro set about visiting Havana's poorest neighbourhoods, witnessing the nation's huge social and racial inequalities, and became active in the University Committee for the Struggle against Racial Discrimination

Although his political views were further left than the Partido Ortodoxo, Castro believed that those parties on the far left, namely the PSP, were too unpopular to achieve a revolutionary leftist movement in Cuba, and for this reason stuck with the Ortodoxo. Seeing himself as the heir to Chibás, Castro wanted to run for Congress in the June 1952 elections, but senior party members feared his radical reputation and refused to nominate him. Instead he gained the support of enough Ortodoxo members in Havana's poorest districts to be nominated as a candidate for the House of Representatives, and put all his energies into campaigning

Although Castro's political ideology was that of revolutionary socialism, he avoided an alliance with the communist PSP, fearing that this would frighten away the social moderates who were members of the Movement,[99] but did keep in contact with some of the PSP's members, who included his brother and fellow conspirator Raúl.[100] He would later relate that the members of the Movement were on the whole simply anti-Batista, and few had strong socialist or anti-imperialist views, something which Castro attributed to "the overwhelming weight of the Yankees' ideological and advertising machinery" which he felt had suppressed class consciousness amongst Cuba's working class.

etc

Sounds a bit more than "he read a book or two" to me. Are these claims false or inaccurate?

How can a close comrade of Castro's be a counter-revolutionary source? What about the quotes from Che, various biographers with access to unseen data and Che's widow etc?

You explicitly said that he was "removed from the picture...for opposing Castro." Also, Fidel's daughter is opposed to socialism and Fidel and does speaking engagements in Florida: does that make whatever she said a valid source?

You have yet to post any quotes that have demonstrated your claims to be true in the first place

At that time things were in the balance and the USA's action would be critical.

6 months later Russia offered to buy all the sugar boycotted by America.


useful timeline of Cuba here btw

I'm familiar with the timeline.

ok, I'm bored now.

You often say that when your argument gets weaker.

[daft punk]

The point is that we were talking about Castro, and you moved to some quote about Che. A sudden subject change (which is certainly not uncommon for you).

you never understand the connection between things. We were debating how much of a communist Castro was and how much the J26M was. I said that Che didnt think Castro was a communist, and didnt think that much of most of the J26M either, or the urban leaders. To reinforce my point I showed that even Che himself was not really an active Marxist before joining the revolutionaries. Franqui did however think that Che, Raul Castro, Camilo, Ramiro, Celia, Haydée, and some comandantes and other collaborators were Communists.

You need to read the article at Socialist World. Here is another bit:

"Furthermore, Castro’s five measures, which would have been proclaimed had he conquered the Moncada Barracks in 1953, were extremely modest and were in no way incompatible with the continuation of capitalism in Cuba. Hugh Thomas, the noted historian of the Cuban Revolution, comments:

"This programme could not in itself be described as supporting any single political philosophy…It concentrated on the aspects of Cuban society which Castro himself knew – farming and education, housing and social conditions. The plans must have been Castro’s own, and it seems likely that he did not consult anyone… Indeed, what seems surprising is the modesty of Castro’s approach towards the sugar problem. Workers’ shares and profits; encouragement of Cuban ownership (already increasing); guaranteed 55 percent colono participation in cane production (already normal); movement towards a colonia between 150 acres and (say) 1,000 acres – all this was scarcely radical and by itself would not have fulfilled the demand that Cuba should become internationally independent." 35

Thomas goes on:

"Castro made much of the cry of Yara and Baire, of Martí and Maceo: Castro might know something of Marx, might regard those who did not know Lenin as ignoramuses, but he evidently knew Martí much better. Like others before him, he saw himself indeed as Martí, the young man who forced the different groups opposed to Spain into a single movement, the man of heroic phrases as well as deeds, speaker and soldier, enemy of tyrants par excellence, incorruptible renewer. Castro embarked on the Moncada attack without indeed a very carefully worked-out ideology, only a desire to overthrow the ‘tyrant’ Batista and also move on to destroy the whole rotten society, the institutionalised ‘normal’ violence of old Cuba, of which Batista was a symptom not a cause." 36

During the imprisonment that followed the failure of the Moncada attack, as Franqui has pointed out, Castro read Lenin as dozens of other national liberation leaders had done before him and since. This did not mean that by the time that the guerrilla struggle had been launched that he had developed a worked out Marxist ideology with a clear programme and perspective. As mentioned before, in his interview with Herbert Matthews he declared:

"You can be sure that we have no animosity towards the United States and the American people… we are fighting for a democratic Cuba and an end to the dictatorship. We are not anti-military... for we know the men are good and so are many of the officers." 37

Hugh Thomas goes on to state:

"’Anti-imperialism’ and even ‘democratic’ might of course mean anything. It is clear that Matthews himself saw Castro as a social democrat; but it is not of course certain that this was how Castro saw himself." 38"

http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/Cuba/cu2.html

I have quoted bits and bobs but you should really read the whole thing to get a clear picture which is that the historians and the other revolutionaries all though that Castro probably wasn't a communist.

What we do know is that he didn't follow a clear worked out Marxist programme like Lenin and Trotsky did.

"Guevara himself, an unimpeachable source, declared in October 1960:

"The principal actors of this revolution have no coherent viewpoint.""
same source, Socialist World

So we do know that the revolution was done mainly in the countryside which is at odds with what Marx envisaged. In fact Marx said the peasants were "not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary".

Lenin adopted Trotsky's view in September 1917 to call for a workers government as opposed to a workers and peasants one. The idea was to exclude the rural bourgeoisie, to split the poor peasants away from them.

What was different about Cuba which made all this irrelevant? What made the countryside the main arena? There is nothing in the works of Marx and Engels advocating this. Nothing in the works of Lenin.

Marx never envisaged communism being established via a guerilla army.

And you have yet to refute a single thing he wrote in his article that I referenced.

Socialist world is an organ of the CWI which has a particular political stance on Cuba. It's just as valid for me to quote Liberation News as a source then, which you would of course attack because it is an organ of the PSL.

And you just keep making these claims about it not being democratic, citing your own party as a source which shows a certain kind of dogmatism.

We have established what the electoral process is. You get a choice of one candidate in the national elections. We have established that you cannot campaign on a political platform at any level and if you write stuff about Cuba needing democratic socialism you get locked away even if nobody has read it.

The CWI's stance on Cuba is a Marxist one, so the CWI supports Cuba, with some criticism. Constructive criticism.

Try reading the CWI, it's far better than the PSL.

What do you think about the Cuban government's slashing of 500,000 state jobs?

Your source, Peter Roman, mentions that 60% of municipal delegates are CP members, but only 15% of the population are. He says Dominguez says it is because government critics cannot exchange points of view or information, or associate. He says Ritter also says the CP has a monopoly and uses its influence to get the right candidates. He says he and Dilla reject these claims. But his evidence is patchy and thin. Only 4 out of 23 people mentioned party affiliation, well, it goes without saying!

I'm familiar with this, what's your point?

If Castro was a Marxist he would not deny it.

And your source on elections actually ended up supporting my argument, not the other way around.

No, you continually denied that there was only one candidate to choose from in national elections but you were shown to be wrong.

Well why don't you enlighten me about the urban movement if I'm so wrong about it?

what about it?

Your "sources" are simply second hand accounts that hint and speculate that Fidel was not a Communist. That's pretty much it. You, on the other hand, take those hints and that speculation to be indisputable evidence: when in fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary of your claims that your original sources don't even address

And your weak attempts to appeal to the Manifesto to dispute the Cuban revolution are pointless and irrelevant. There was more development (even in Marx's own thought) since the Manifesto.

My sources:
Castro quoted in Hugh Thomas, ‘Cuba – The Pursuit of Freedom’,
Che Guevara, The Essence of Guerrilla Struggle,
Carlos Franqui, Family Portrait with Fidel
Franqui, ‘Journal de la révolution cubaine’, quoted by Janette Habel, Cuba: the Revolution in Peril
KS Karol - author of Guerrillas in power: the course of the Cuban Revolution
Jon Lee Anderson, "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life"
Tad Szulc, "Fidel a Critical Portrait"
Che Guevara and the Cuban Revolution

Anderson had access to Che's widow and his unpublished diaries.

Szulc interviewed Castro several times.

Mao lead a peasant revolution and did so using a Marxist analysis. Regardless of whether there were "mistakes" or not does not take away from the fact that Mao was clearly a Communist (and the same holds true of Cuba and Castro in this case).

And when did Mao say he wanted to establish Capitalism and not socialism. Was this before or after the Cultural Revolution? (Also how do you account for Mao inspiring the Cultural Revolution if he was so anti-Socialist?)

How is what Mao did "not Marxism" according to you?

How did he lead a peasant revolution using a 'Marxist analysis'?

He said this in 1945:

"Some people fail to understand why, so far from fearing capitalism, Communists should advocate its development in certain given conditions. Our answer is simple. The substitution of a certain degree of capitalist development for the oppression of foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism is not only an advance but an unavoidable process. It benefits the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie, and the former perhaps more. It is not domestic capitalism but foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism which are superfluous in China today; indeed, we have too little of capitalism."

"Our general programme of New Democracy will remain unchanged throughout the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that is, for several decades."

The wikipedia article clearly claims that Fidel was a Marxist in that era. Either you think this is false (or a lie) or you think the sources or bad. Either way you have yet to demonstrate how wikipedia was inaccurate on this point in the slightest.

Please demonstrate what parts of the article are inaccurate.

In particular:

Wiki wrote:
Castro had begun to move further to the left in his political views, being influenced by the writings of prominent Marxists like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin. In doing so, he came to see the problems facing Cuba as being an integral part of capitalist society, or the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", rather than as simply the failings of corrupt politicians. Coming to believe the Marxist idea that true political change could only be brought about by a revolution led by the working class, Castro set about visiting Havana's poorest neighbourhoods, witnessing the nation's huge social and racial inequalities, and became active in the University Committee for the Struggle against Racial Discrimination

I have already dealt with this. The sources are Coltman and Bourne.

"Coltman comments that in Castro’s famous speech after the failed attack on the Moncado barracks in 1953 - "History will absolve me" - in what was "to become the most sacred text of a Communist regime, there was no mention of Marx or Lenin or even of the word socialism". "
http://www.socialistworld.net/print/1550

Bourne also confirms this

why do I have to repeat everything over and over? Read the embedded link it is very clear Bourne does not think Castro regarded himself as a communist, he read all sorts and was mainly interested in Lenin as a person. He says Castro thought of himself as a sort of genius above ideology.

Quote:
Although his political views were further left than the Partido Ortodoxo, Castro believed that those parties on the far left, namely the PSP, were too unpopular to achieve a revolutionary leftist movement in Cuba, and for this reason stuck with the Ortodoxo. Seeing himself as the heir to Chibás, Castro wanted to run for Congress in the June 1952 elections, but senior party members feared his radical reputation and refused to nominate him. Instead he gained the support of enough Ortodoxo members in Havana's poorest districts to be nominated as a candidate for the House of Representatives, and put all his energies into campaigning

well the PSP had supported Batista! Of course they were unpopular.

Quote:
Although Castro's political ideology was that of revolutionary socialism, he avoided an alliance with the communist PSP, fearing that this would frighten away the social moderates who were members of the Movement,[99] but did keep in contact with some of the PSP's members, who included his brother and fellow conspirator Raúl.[100] He would later relate that the members of the Movement were on the whole simply anti-Batista, and few had strong socialist or anti-imperialist views, something which Castro attributed to "the overwhelming weight of the Yankees' ideological and advertising machinery" which he felt had suppressed class consciousness amongst Cuba's working class.



etc

Sounds a bit more than "he read a book or two" to me. Are these claims false or inaccurate?

Few of the movement had strong socialist views. Exactly.

Yes he read a book or two, he read about Hannibal's defeat of the Romans, he read Rommel's memoirs and Mein Kampf. He read St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Rousseau, Thomas Paine.

The PSP supported Batista but was banned in 1952. They opposed J26M until just before the revolution's victory. They settled their differences with J26M in mid 1958 when Rodriguez was sent to meet them.

[KurtFF8]

you never understand the connection between things. We were debating how much of a communist Castro was and how much the J26M was. I said that Che didnt think Castro was a communist, and didnt think that much of most of the J26M either, or the urban leaders. To reinforce my point I showed that even Che himself was not really an active Marxist before joining the revolutionaries. Franqui did however think that Che, Raul Castro, Camilo, Ramiro, Celia, Haydée, and some comandantes and other collaborators were Communists.

So you end this paragraph with a bold which is something that contradicts your earlier claims.

Also the rest of what you've quoted seems to be based on an assumption that Castro was not a Marxist going into the Moncada attack, but the sources cited in the wiki article clearly demonstrate that Castro was a Marxist much before the Moncada attack.

Your Party's publication is trying to make a political point here, nothing more.

I have quoted bits and bobs but you should really read the whole thing to get a clear picture which is that the historians and the other revolutionaries all though that Castro probably wasn't a communist.

So your source has a suspicion that Fidel was not a Communist, yet there are sources out there clearly demonstrating that he was a Marxist. Which is to be taken more serious?

same source, Socialist World

Of course: you keep quoting the source that has your own political line.

So we do know that the revolution was done mainly in the countryside which is at odds with what Marx envisaged. In fact Marx said the peasants were "not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary".

Marx also thought that the revolution would take place first in the most advanced countries: does that make the Russian revolution "non-Marxist"?

Marx never envisaged communism being established via a guerilla army.

Marxism is not about what Marx did or didn't write. You realize that the role of the peasantry was perhaps one of the more important developments in Marxism for the 20th century right? (e.g. Mao)

We have established what the electoral process is. You get a choice of one candidate in the national elections. We have established that you cannot campaign on a political platform at any level and if you write stuff about Cuba needing democratic socialism you get locked away even if nobody has read it.

The CWI's stance on Cuba is a Marxist one, so the CWI supports Cuba, with some criticism. Constructive criticism.

Try reading the CWI, it's far better than the PSL.

What do you think about the Cuban government's slashing of 500,000 state jobs?

Your source, Peter Roman, mentions that 60% of municipal delegates are CP members, but only 15% of the population are. He says Dominguez says it is because government critics cannot exchange points of view or information, or associate. He says Ritter also says the CP has a monopoly and uses its influence to get the right candidates. He says he and Dilla reject these claims. But his evidence is patchy and thin. Only 4 out of 23 people mentioned party affiliation, well, it goes without saying!

No, we've established what your take on the electoral process is. You keep ignoring the majority of the process in Cuba and focusing on one chamber of course.

CWI does take a particular form of Marxist critics of Cuba, but that doesn't mean it has a monopoly on a Marxist analysis of Cuba. Interestingly if you google "Marxist analysis of Cuba" the second thing that comes up is a PSL article.

As for what I think of the job loss, the article I just linked to has a pretty good explanation in my opinion.

And your last paragraph isn't really saying anything. Even if the Party did influence elections more (and it's already quite astonishing that it has as little influence as it does) what would that demonstrate?

If Castro was a Marxist he would not deny it.

Perhaps if we were to engage in an overly simplistic reading of Marx, yes. But in the real world, there is quite a gap between 1848 and 1959.

No, you continually denied that there was only one candidate to choose from in national elections but you were shown to be wrong.

Because you were never clear that you were only interested in the national level. At other levels, this is not the case as I've pointed out. You didn't even know what level you were talking about for a long time. (Which also leads me to believe you didn't even know about the different levels of elections at the beginning of this discussion)

what about it?

Well you seem to be focusing on the urban movement of Cuba, yet you have yet to actually bring its composition up. You claim there were no ties to the J26 Movement, but you have yet to point out who the urban movement was.

How did he lead a peasant revolution using a 'Marxist analysis'?

He said this in 1945:

"Some people fail to understand why, so far from fearing capitalism, Communists should advocate its development in certain given conditions. Our answer is simple. The substitution of a certain degree of capitalist development for the oppression of foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism is not only an advance but an unavoidable process. It benefits the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie, and the former perhaps more. It is not domestic capitalism but foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism which are superfluous in China today; indeed, we have too little of capitalism."

"Our general programme of New Democracy will remain unchanged throughout the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that is, for several decades."

So before the Cultural Revolution. And this is not in any way inconsistent with Marx or Lenin (NEP) of course.

And what is your take on the Cultural Revolution?

I have already dealt with this. The sources are Coltman and Bourne.

"Coltman comments that in Castro’s famous speech after the failed attack on the Moncado barracks in 1953 - "History will absolve me" - in what was "to become the most sacred text of a Communist regime, there was no mention of Marx or Lenin or even of the word socialism". "
http://www.socialistworld.net/print/1550

Right, it was a speech he gave on trial. Has anyone claimed otherwise? Bourne is also a source for how Castro was a Marxist long before the 1953 attack, so whats your point? Castro was never in the PSP.

why do I have to repeat everything over and over? Read the embedded link it is very clear Bourne does not think Castro regarded himself as a communist, he read all sorts and was mainly interested in Lenin as a person. He says Castro thought of himself as a sort of genius above ideology.

You have to repeat yourself because you don't pay attention to contrary arguments, you think that repeating something will eventually make it true. As I said, Bourne and Coltman are also listed to sources for this:

Castro had begun to move further to the left in his political views, being influenced by the writings of prominent Marxists like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin. In doing so, he came to see the problems facing Cuba as being an integral part of capitalist society, or the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", rather than as simply the failings of corrupt politicians. Coming to believe the Marxist idea that true political change could only be brought about by a revolution led by the working class, Castro set about visiting Havana's poorest neighbourhoods, witnessing the nation's huge social and racial inequalities, and became active in the University Committee for the Struggle against Racial Discrimination.[73][74]

How do you reconcile that claim with your claims? Is what I've just quoted misleading?

well the PSP had supported Batista! Of course they were unpopular.

And was then repressed by Batista after their support dwindled.

Few of the movement had strong socialist views. Exactly.

Yes he read a book or two, he read about Hannibal's defeat of the Romans, he read Rommel's memoirs and Mein Kampf. He read St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Rousseau, Thomas Paine.

The PSP supported Batista but was banned in 1952. They opposed J26M until just before the revolution's victory. They settled their differences with J26M in mid 1958 when Rodriguez was sent to meet them

So you ignored what I said and are pretending to be responding to it here pretty much.

[daft punk]

So you end this paragraph with a bold which is something that contradicts your earlier claims.

No it is not a contradiction. 6 people named and a few others who he reckoned were commies.

"In his book ‘Che Guevara’, Jon Lee Anderson makes the following comment:

"In general, Che already viewed Fidel’s July 26 colleagues [during the guerrilla struggle in the Sierra Maestra] as hopelessly bound by their middle-class upbringings and privileged educations to timid notions of what their struggle should achieve, and he was correct in thinking they held views very divergent from his own. Lacking his Marxist conception of a radical social transformation, most saw themselves as fighting to oust a corrupt dictatorship and to replace it with a conventional Western democracy. Che’s initial reaction to the urban leaders reinforced his negative presentiments. ‘Through isolated conversations,’ he wrote in his diary, ‘I discovered the evident anti-communist inclinations of most of them’".40"

usual link.

Anderson has access to Che's widow and his unpublished diaries.

Franqui was not a communist anyway.

Also the rest of what you've quoted seems to be based on an assumption that Castro was not a Marxist going into the Moncada attack, but the sources cited in the wiki article clearly demonstrate that Castro was a Marxist much before the Moncada attack.

Your Party's publication is trying to make a political point here, nothing more.

What nonsense. Wiki says he read widely, that's all.

My source is what Castro said, or would have said, the speech he prepared, which did not mention socialism.

What the fuck are you talking about "the rest of what you've quoted seems to be based on an assumption that Castro was not a Marxist going into the Moncada attack" - this makes no sense. My article says Castros plans were not incompatible with the continuation of capitalism. How much clearer do you want it?

So your source has a suspicion that Fidel was not a Communist, yet there are sources out there clearly demonstrating that he was a Marxist. Which is to be taken more serious?

is this nonsense supposed to be serious? I have had it with this discussion. This is a fucking waste of time. Your bit from wiki says he became a Marxist but it offers no proof, and the links are Coltman and Bourne.

"Coltman comments that in Castro’s famous speech after the failed attack on the Moncado barracks in 1953 - "History will absolve me" - in what was "to become the most sacred text of a Communist regime, there was no mention of Marx or Lenin or even of the word socialism". "

Bourne also confirms this

So Coltman and Bourne both say that Castro's famous speech didnt mention socialism. Yet you still persist with a couple of lines from wiki which have no evidence whatsoever?

Your Party's publication is trying to make a political point here, nothing more.

and what would that be?

This subject has been done to death.

Show me the exact words which "clearly demonstrate that Castro was a Marxist much before the Moncada attack."

There are none.

So your source has a suspicion that Fidel was not a Communist, yet there are sources out there clearly demonstrating that he was a Marxist. Which is to be taken more serious?

Very strong evidence not suspicion. Now, show me what sources clearly state he was a Marxist.

Marx also thought that the revolution would take place first in the most advanced countries: does that make the Russian revolution "non-Marxist"?

Marx: "If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development. "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... eface-1882

wrong again

Marxism is not about what Marx did or didn't write. You realize that the role of the peasantry was perhaps one of the more important developments in Marxism for the 20th century right? (e.g. Mao)

This is just embarrassing to red quite frankly. Marxism is not about what Marx wrote, it is about what Mao wrote? You think Mao knew better than Marx?

He didn't know how to achieve socialism did he? His heart was in the right place but basically he was pretty clueless as a Marxist. His plan was to establish capitalism and that failed. Trotsky warned time and again of the mistakes being made in China. Millions died as a result of Stalinist policies. A million died in the Jiangxi soviet. 35,000 CCP members were killed in 1927. Both lots killed by the KMT who were backed by Stalin.

CWI does take a particular form of Marxist critics of Cuba, but that doesn't mean it has a monopoly on a Marxist analysis of Cuba. Interestingly if you google "Marxist analysis of Cuba" the second thing that comes up is a PSL article.

As for what I think of the job loss, the article I just linked to has a pretty good explanation in my opinion.

Hilarious, your article says

"Cuba is a socialist country in the popular understanding of the term (ie not really socialist). It is not functioning according to the dynamics and tendencies of capitalist production, although it cannot escape the vicissitudes of the global economy. It is a planned economy. Its (sic) government was created by a dynamic multi-class revolution that smashed the old state apparatus and broke apart the capitalist state institutions: the army, police, courts and prisons. Although the revolutionary leadership that initiated the armed struggle against the old Batista regime was not a proletarian communist party, but rather a multi-class formation—the July 26 Movement—the new revolutionary state that came into existence after 1959 represented the class interests of the workers and poorest peasants. "

Almost making sense, unlike what you have been saying Kurt.

"Do the mass layoffs signal the beginning of an NEP-style reform, which is unknown at this time, or the creation of a hybrid economy that substantially diminishes the state or public sector in favor of the private sector? "

The NEP was a temporary retreat after WW1, a civil war and a famine was taking place. . It carried dangers. Stalin carried it on too long.

The private sector in Cuba will not be a temporary boost so starving peasants. It is the state passing 500,000 workers to the private sector. What is shows is the failure of the regime to develop the economy. It shows the impossibility of building socialism in one country. It shows yet again that a top down bureaucracy cannot develop a planned economy long term.

Perhaps if we were to engage in an overly simplistic reading of Marx, yes. But in the real world, there is quite a gap between 1848 and 1959.

you do like re-writing Marxism dont you?

Well you seem to be focusing on the urban movement of Cuba, yet you have yet to actually bring its composition up. You claim there were no ties to the J26 Movement, but you have yet to point out who the urban movement was.

the urban working class!

So before the Cultural Revolution. And this is not in any way inconsistent with Marx or Lenin (NEP) of course.

And what is your take on the Cultural Revolution?

Utter nonsense. Lenin's aim was a workers socialist government which would have to repress the capitalist class. After 4 years of war, civil war and famine they adopted a TEMPORARY RETREAT, the NEP.

Mao planned IN ADVANCE to have CAPITALISM in alliance with the BOURGEOISIE for many DECADES.

You are comparing chalk and cheese and saying they are the same.

It really is quite incredible.

Bourne is also a source for how Castro was a Marxist long before the 1953 attack

prove this

How do you reconcile that claim with your claims? Is what I've just quoted misleading?

show me some SOLID evidence! This is a statement by a wiki writes which claims that Clotman and Bourne say this, where are the solid quotes???

Find proof or retract.