- 16 Jan 2012 17:40
#13873792
So in other words, those 6 people were leaders of the movement and were Communists. This seems to contradict your claim that the J26 movement wasn't Communist.
Yes you've posted that quote before, but using that as "evidence" that they were not Communists is a different thing than saying it is evidence that Che was suspicious of the Marxist credentials of Fidel and co.
How is it nonsense? No wiki clearly claims that he was a Marxist before the attack. Once again I'll post the same quote that you've failed to address:
Your argument relies on him failing to mention socialism in his court speech, which is hardly "evidence" that he was not a socialist.
I have no idea why you're trying to hard to demonstrate that Castro was not a Marxist when there's plenty of reason to doubt that claim.
Right, and the History will absolve me speech was given in court in the context of his trial. It was not a political program and was made famous in retrospect.
This proves nothing. Why do you keep focusing only on "History Will Absolve Me" and nothing else? If your argument depends on that, it's quite weak considering it ignores the time period before that speech that I am referring to. Of course you've just ignored that part so far.
The political point is the same with the Trotskyist perspective of just about any Marxist-Leninist revolution/state: it's not real socialism because Trotsky wasn't one of their theoretical founders, thus their analysis is flawed, etc.
And the wiki quote I posted above couldn't be clearer. You seem unable to address it though:
This was before the attack on the Moncada.
Interestingly it's actually the same source
And no, you've yet to demonstrate "strong evidence" just quotes from people who "thought" that Castro "probably wasn't" a Communist, etc.
I'm familiar with this quote, and Marx even in this quote is focusing on the advanced West. This is precisely what Third World revolutionaries based their theories of revolution on: a focus on the periphery as the main challenge to the West, not the opposite (which is what Marx had focused on, and likewise the Workers movement up until about WWI)
No, Marxism is the theory first developed by Marx and Engels, then advanced by folks like Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. This is hardly a controversial claim whatsoever and it's odd that you would dispute it, especially as someone who is such a close follower of a Marxist who wasn't Marx yourself.
And Mao did understand Marxism quite well actually, have you ever read "On Contradiction"?
How does any of this contradict what I've said?
Well if the impossibility is about building socialism in one country, then no amount of reforms that a Trotskyist would claim to be able to implement would have any affect then no?
If you answer is simply "international revolution!" then you should be even less critical of Cuba that has been one of the most internationalist revolutions so far.
Where have I "re-written" Marxism?
Aka "I don't know!"
Right, and Cuba's reforms are also meant to be a retreat, what's your point?
The citations on the very article that I've been referencing constantly?
The citations are quite clear, page numbers are listed. I don't actually have either of those books do you?
daft punk wrote: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.
So in other words, those 6 people were leaders of the movement and were Communists. This seems to contradict your claim that the J26 movement wasn't Communist.
Yes you've posted that quote before, but using that as "evidence" that they were not Communists is a different thing than saying it is evidence that Che was suspicious of the Marxist credentials of Fidel and co.
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?
How is it nonsense? No wiki clearly claims that he was a Marxist before the attack. Once again I'll post the same quote that you've failed to address:
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.
Your argument relies on him failing to mention socialism in his court speech, which is hardly "evidence" that he was not a socialist.
I have no idea why you're trying to hard to demonstrate that Castro was not a Marxist when there's plenty of reason to doubt that claim.
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". "
Right, and the History will absolve me speech was given in court in the context of his trial. It was not a political program and was made famous in retrospect.
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?
This proves nothing. Why do you keep focusing only on "History Will Absolve Me" and nothing else? If your argument depends on that, it's quite weak considering it ignores the time period before that speech that I am referring to. Of course you've just ignored that part so far.
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.
The political point is the same with the Trotskyist perspective of just about any Marxist-Leninist revolution/state: it's not real socialism because Trotsky wasn't one of their theoretical founders, thus their analysis is flawed, etc.
And the wiki quote I posted above couldn't be clearer. You seem unable to address it though:
wiki, same as above wrote: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.
This was before the attack on the Moncada.
Very strong evidence not suspicion. Now, show me what sources clearly state he was a Marxist.
Interestingly it's actually the same source
And no, you've yet to demonstrate "strong evidence" just quotes from people who "thought" that Castro "probably wasn't" a Communist, etc.
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
I'm familiar with this quote, and Marx even in this quote is focusing on the advanced West. This is precisely what Third World revolutionaries based their theories of revolution on: a focus on the periphery as the main challenge to the West, not the opposite (which is what Marx had focused on, and likewise the Workers movement up until about WWI)
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.
No, Marxism is the theory first developed by Marx and Engels, then advanced by folks like Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. This is hardly a controversial claim whatsoever and it's odd that you would dispute it, especially as someone who is such a close follower of a Marxist who wasn't Marx yourself.
And Mao did understand Marxism quite well actually, have you ever read "On Contradiction"?
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.
How does any of this contradict what I've said?
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.
Well if the impossibility is about building socialism in one country, then no amount of reforms that a Trotskyist would claim to be able to implement would have any affect then no?
If you answer is simply "international revolution!" then you should be even less critical of Cuba that has been one of the most internationalist revolutions so far.
you do like re-writing Marxism dont you?
Where have I "re-written" Marxism?
the urban working class!
Aka "I don't know!"
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.
Right, and Cuba's reforms are also meant to be a retreat, what's your point?
prove this
The citations on the very article that I've been referencing constantly?
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.
The citations are quite clear, page numbers are listed. I don't actually have either of those books do you?
- By Potemkin
- By Puffer Fish