[KurtFF8]

No it isnt the first time and no it isnt unclear. I asked you several questions. You never bothered to answer any of them.

You asked me a bunch of questions about what happened to East Germany you never asked my opinion about what happened in East Germany. It's only a few posts up, if you need to refresh your memory.

I never rely solely on a link alone, and the only time I will post a link without a summary or quote is if I think someone might read it, if it's not long and they are asking questions, or occasionally just for info for anyone interested, a sort of bookmark if you like.

I asked for your opinion and you gave me a link. This is not debating, and is poor posting, you should know better.

Noted, I will be sure to ignore most of the articles you recommend as well.

[CounterChaos]

What works much better is if the workers own the means of production, like for example the anarchosyndicalists propose.

I agree - no ruling elite and motivation as well. Exactly what I envisioned in my utopian dream.

[daft punk]

Quote: No it isnt the first time and no it isnt unclear. I asked you several questions. You never bothered to answer any of them.



You asked me a bunch of questions about what happened to East Germany you never asked my opinion about what happened in East Germany. It's only a few posts up, if you need to refresh your memory.

Quote:
I never rely solely on a link alone, and the only time I will post a link without a summary or quote is if I think someone might read it, if it's not long and they are asking questions, or occasionally just for info for anyone interested, a sort of bookmark if you like.

I asked for your opinion and you gave me a link. This is not debating, and is poor posting, you should know better.



Noted, I will be sure to ignore most of the articles you recommend as well.

I know what I asked and if I ask you a question I am asking your opinion, if I wanted someone else's opinion I would look on google.

You just quoted me answering the other bit, I come here to debate not to post links. Links are support, bookmarks, and background.

I have stated that people criticising Castro get put in jail. This is not democracy. You gave a link to a paper but it was long and that is no good, you have to quote or summarise. Otherwise you are not debating.

Tell me in your own words why you think Cuba is democratic. Paste some concise paragraphs with links as support. That is the way to do it.

[KurtFF8]

I have stated that people criticising Castro get put in jail. This is not democracy. You gave a link to a paper but it was long and that is no good, you have to quote or summarise. Otherwise you are not debating.

You have not backed up your statement about Castro putting people in jail for criticism, however. You have also yet to demonstrate what your standards of "democracy" are and how Cuba fails to meet those standards.

Tell me in your own words why you think Cuba is democratic. Paste some concise paragraphs with links as support. That is the way to do it.

I would imagine I've explained this before but perhaps not recently. Cuba's government is selected through a process of mass participation by the population. So, at the municipal level for example, there are a minimum of two candidates and the people of that district engage directly with the candidates over issues and choose who they want to represent them based on that kind of process. The Party does not actually interfere in the electoral process (and is bared from doing so). The level of participation is much higher than in the US (including turnout).

But the real issue here is that you seem to be basing your conception of "democracy" in Cuba on a very typical Western media-centric notion of how Cuba is instead of any real critical analysis.

[daft punk]

Cuban prisoners sew mouths shut in protest at not being freed in mass pardon

Protests hit prisons around Cuba today as inmates irate at not being among those to be freed in a large government pardon vented frustration, some even sewing their mouths shut, a key dissident said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ardon.html

He estimated Cuba's prison population at 70,000-80,000, noting that the pardons benefited perhaps four percent of the total. Many of those freed had been convicted of minor offenses, he added.

http://therealcuba.com/

Are donated school buses being used to transport dissidents to jail, instead of children to school?

Dec. 18 - The so called Pastor for Peace, better known as Pastors for Dictators, have been conducting yearly caravans to donate school buses and other items that they classify as "humanitarian aid" to the Castro brothers.

But it seems that the "humanitarian aid" is being used for very inhuman purposes by the Cuban dictators.

This is the flyer used by the Pastors for Peace for their 2011 caravan:

But what are the Castro brothers doing with the donated buses? Are they using them to transport Cuban children to their schools?

It doesn't seem so.

A video just released about the brutal detention of several dissidents in the city of Palma Soriano on December 12, shows that the Castro brothers are using the donated school buses to transport protesting dissidents to jail.

Here are two photos taken from that video:

Brutal repression against dissidents in Palma Soriano caught on tape

Dec. 17 - Video of Castro's guards arresting and beating Cuban dissidents on December 12, 2011 in the city of Palma Soriano.

The dissidents were pushed inside and taken to prison in what looks like a school bus like the ones used in the United States, probably one of those donated by the so called "Pastors for Peace" to the Cuban dictator.

ok this is probably a right wing site but the facts are still there.

more

The Miami Herald
Sun, Jan. 22, 2006

Mob attacks on Castro's critics are increasing



"While the government paints them as spontaneous acts by committed socialists, Cuba-watchers say they are part of a concerted campaign by the Cuban government to quell opposition. Dissidents also have reported evictions, detentions, random acts of violence, 40 arrests and some confrontations with semi-official groups of tough men known as Rapid Response Brigades. "

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/hum ... ts/mob.htm

bit of stuff relating to my other thread...

Castro had not revealed any Communist leanings in the decade since coming to power, but soon after the Bay of Pigs, Castro declared himself a Marxist-Leninist. Some historians have argued that the aggressive ploys of the U.S. government were fundamental in pushing the Cuban government into the arms of the American enemy in the Cold War, the Soviet Union and its Eastern bloc of potential trading partners. The USSR was only too eager to develop a strategic relationship with an ideological opponent of Washington in the backyard of the United States. By the end of the 1980s, the USSR dominated Cuban trade and provided Cuba with subsidies worth an estimated $5 billion annually.

http://travel.nytimes.com/frommers/trav ... wanted=all

I think it might be a misprint actually and should say the decade before coming to power. Castro's first socialist comments were about a year after coming to power.

Jailing of Cuban dissidents denounced

Activists and groups advocating individual freedom in Cuba denounced the jailing in maximum security prisons of three peaceful opponents, including Ivonne Malleza Galano, who this year carried out a series of daring street protests.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/27/2 ... unced.html

wiki describes the National Elections:

Candidates for the National Assembly are chosen by Candidacy Commissions chaired by local trade union officials and composed of elected representatives of "mass organisations" representing workers, youth, women, students and farmers. The Candidacy Commissions produce slates of recommended candidates for each electoral district. The final list of candidates, one for each district, is drawn up by the National Candidacy Commission, taking into account criteria such as candidates’ popularity, merit, patriotism, ethical values and “revolutionary history.”

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

So in other words, you can only stand for national elections if selected by the Commission. And in the election itself you get to vote for ONE CANDIDATE.

Democracy, choice of one, like it. Or Lump it.

[Negotiator]

I agree that cuban "democracy" is pretty laughable ... but I have to say its sadly not that much worse than what I know about, for example, the USA.

Is choosing between two candidates, who will also very likely do pretty much the same things, really democracy ?!?

[KurtFF8]

So DP, your sources are wikipedia and an anti-Castro website, the miami herald and a blog. That's quite sad and shows the weakness of your position.

I'm willing to accept those as valid sources if you're willing to accept the Granma, ecured.cu, and cubadebate.cu as valid sources.

[daft punk]

all you posted so far is a link to the first page of a pdf, which I replied to with a review of the bloke's book.

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.

Cuba
Threat of capitalist restoration

02/11/2010

New pro-capitalist measures introduced by Raul Castro

Tony Saunois, CWI

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4639



"Fidel Castro justifiably defended the gains of the revolution in 2008 when he pointed out that since the revolution life expectancy has been raised by nearly 19 years. Average life expectancy in Cuba today is 77.5. Infant mortality stands at 6 per 1,000 in the first year of birth - slightly worse than Canada. 30,000 doctors are working in more than 40 different countries. A highly effective free health system and free education were introduced. Illiteracy was abolished within the first few years of the revolution. These conquests were maintained even during the “special period”.

Many of these gains would be reversed with the counter revolution and restoration of capitalism."




"The revolution in Cuba in 1959/60 eventually resulted in capitalism and landlordism being snuffed out and a centralised planned economy being established. However, despite enjoying overwhelming support from the workers and peasants this did not result in a regime of genuine workers’ democracy being established. Instead, a bureaucratic state apparatus was constructed. This was in contrast to the workers’ and peasants democracy which took power in Russia in 1917 under the leadership of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks.

A bureaucratic state apparatus was established which Fidel Castro rested on. Despite enjoying overwhelming support this regime ruled in a top down administrative manner. It did not rule in the same brutally repressive manner as the Stalinist regime which eventually emerged in Russia following the isolation of the revolution and Lenin’s death in 1924. The mass purges, and cult of the personality of Stalin’s Russia have not been a feature of Castro’s Cuba. However, repression of minorities and dissidents did take place. Apart from some political opponents there was repression of gays and lesbians, something which Fidel Castro has now admitted was a “mistake”.

The lack of a genuine democratic check, control and management of the economy by the working class, essential to develop the economy and society, meant that the economy although planned, was run in a bureaucratic, administrative manner, with increasing inefficiencies, corruption and wastage emerging as a result. "


"A planned economy needs democratic control and checks at each stage and level if it is to fully function and develop. Without this, bureaucratic privileges, and top down administrative methods, which result in waste, inefficiency and corruption flourish which eventually leads to stagnation and regression. These features were present from the beginning of the Cuban regime following the revolution in 1959 however they have now assumed ever increasing proportions, as the crisis has intensified. Leon Trotsky warned of this danger in relation to the former Soviet Union when he posed the question - “Will the bureaucrat devour the workers’ state, or will the working class clean up the bureaucrat”. "

see link for full article obviously

[KurtFF8]

all you posted so far is a link to the first page of a pdf, which I replied to with a review of the bloke's book.

I have the full PDF and have offered to send it to you. You ignored this so please don't complain that you can't see the full article, that is your own choice.

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.

I'm also not too interested in what the CWI has to say on the issue in all honesty. Although even their title mentions the thread of capitalist restoration which of course assumes that there is not capitalism currently for there to be the threat of its return. This seems to be a different position than what you hold so it's odd you would appeal to such a position.

It's sad that organizations like the CWI and yours seem unable to write about any subject with the seemingly mandatory reference to something Trotsky said.

[daft punk]

I have the full PDF and have offered to send it to you. You ignored this so please don't complain that you can't see the full article, that is your own choice.

offering to send a massive long pdf is not debating. Debating is where you write something of interest.

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.

Oh yes it is.

So, they have more than one candidate to choose from in national elections? Support that claim. I already gave mine which you have not commented on specifically.

Although there is only one candidate per seat, candidates must obtain the support of 50% of voters to be elected. If a candidate fails to gain 50% of the vote, a new candidate must be chosen. So far this has never happened for the National Assembly, because the candidates put forward by the candidacy commissions usually get at least 84% support.

Candidates for the National Assembly are chosen by Candidacy Commissions chaired by local trade union officials and composed of elected representatives of "mass organisations" representing workers, youth, women, students and farmers. The Candidacy Commissions produce slates of recommended candidates for each electoral district. The final list of candidates, one for each district, is drawn up by the National Candidacy Commission, taking into account criteria such as candidates’ popularity, merit, patriotism, ethical values and “revolutionary history.”

Here is your proof

SANDINO


Caridad del Rosario Diego Bello


97.11

Jesús Prieto Medina


96.79

MANTUA


José Ramón Escandell Rodríguez


98.56

Rubén Remigio Ferro


95.90

MINAS DE MATAHAMBRE


Luis Manuel Castanedo Smith


94.42

Iraida Hernández Machín


93.01

VIÑALES


Adalberto Fernández Jiménez


96.27

Gonzalo Rodríguez Pérez


97.93

LA PALMA


Magalys Piñeiro Ravelo


97.71

Lorenzo Toledo Gutiérrez


96.89

BAHÍA HONDA


Ana Eumelia Caballero Ollero


97.76

Olga Lidia Tapia Iglesias


95.78

CANDELARIA


Ángel López Mirabal


95.75

Alejandrina Naite Cabezas


96.39

SAN CRISTÓBAL


Carlos Manuel Cardoso Ortega


95.87

Jaime Alberto Crombet Hernández-Baquero


95.74

Caridad Piloto Hernández


96.33

Manuel Torres Pérez


95.28

LOS PALACIOS


Sergio Regino Mena Núñez


97.85

Pedro Miguel Asterio Pérez Betancourt


95.58

CONSOLACIÓN DEL SUR


María del Carmen Concepción González


95.96

Fermina Guzmán Plasencia


95.17

Abel Enrique Prieto Jiménez


96.22

Olga Lidia Regueira Rabeiro


95.29

PINAR DEL RÍO


Distrito 1


José Antonio Díaz Duque


95.85

Juan Aníbal Escalona Reguera


95.34

María Elena González González


96.63

Distrito 2


Ernesto Barreto Castillo


95.44

Luisa Ferrer Domínguez


95.04

Ronal Suárez Ramos


93.64

http://www.granma.co.cu/secciones/candi ... utados.htm




One candidate per seat. As I said and you denied, without offering any support. I dunno why I bother sometimes.

They dont lock people up for criticising Castro? I just gave you photos, reports, eyewitness accounts etc.

tell me why do you think Cuba ranks 169th worst in the world for press freedom? Out of 173? Below China (which bans CWI reporters), Vietnam, and Iran?

Why is this? Why are only 4 countries worse?

How many political executions have there been? Thousands. The Cuban American National Foundation states that since the revolution 12,000 political executions have taken place.

In August 1981, the Marxist historian Ariel Hidalgo was apprehended and accused of ‘incitement against the social order, international solidarity and the Socialist State’ and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.[28]:75 In September 1981, he was transported from State Security Headquarters to the Carbó-Serviá (forensic) ward of Havana Psychiatric Hospital where he stayed for several weeks.[28]:76

wiki
source


This book is BMA which means rock solid, in fact I know someone in the BMA.

8 years jail for a Marxists eh?

I'm also not too interested in what the CWI has to say on the issue in all honesty. Although even their title mentions the thread of capitalist restoration which of course assumes that there is not capitalism currently for there to be the threat of its return. This seems to be a different position than what you hold so it's odd you would appeal to such a position.

It's sad that organizations like the CWI and yours seem unable to write about any subject with the seemingly mandatory reference to something Trotsky said.

Why do you think the CWI is taking a different position to me by talking about the threat of capitalist restoration?

I never said Cuba is capitalist, I said it is not socialist.

Why is it sad to mention that Trotsky predicted capitalist restoration in the USSR when discussing the possibility of it in Cuba? The reasons are the same, Trotsky explained it well. Why not learn from the past? I am trained in geology so Marxism is instinctive for me, everything is a product of the past and to see where things are going you have to see where they came from. Dialectical materialism means exactly that. A geologist looks at a rock and tells you what happened 300 million years ago. A Marxist looks at Cuba and tells you what Trotsky said about bureaucratically deformed workers states, about Casto not being a socialist, and the history of Cuba involving political prisoners.

[KurtFF8]

offering to send a massive long pdf is not debating. Debating is where you write something of interest.

Please don't complain about not being able to see the whole article then.

And you have a very bizarre notion of what qualifies as being "of interest." You tend to get "bored" when people point out contradictions in your posts. (aka: unwilling to address those contradictions)

Oh yes it is.

And this is what I'm talking about when I say it's difficult to take your posts seriously.

So, they have more than one candidate to choose from in national elections? Support that claim. I already gave mine which you have not commented on specifically.

I provided you an entire academic article that explains the electoral process of Cuba in great detail. It explains the process from the municipal level where the level of engagement by the population is quite high to the National Assembly.

From the article quoting Fidel:

Cuban President Fidel Castro commented on the municipal delegate election process in a speech celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution (1989: 80-81):

Regarding our electoral system - and the institutions of the revolution are so often called into question -the way delegates are nominated in the electoral districts, which are the foundations for all the state's power, I believe our electoral system is also unique. This is so because the party does not nominate candidates to be delegates, there must be more than one candidate and not more than eight, and they are nominated by the people without any participation by the party. The party doesn't say we nominate this candidate or that one; it is the people who do the nominating. That doesn't exist in any other country. . . . If the people were counterrevolutionary, if the majority of the people were counted revolutionary, all they need do would be to nominate coun- terrevolutionaries and the majority of the delegates would be counterrevolu- tionaries opposed to the revolution and socialism.

How is that less "proof" than whatever it is that you quoted?

And how do the results you posted prove what you claim? And which elections were those you're citing?

They dont lock people up for criticising Castro? I just gave you photos, reports, eyewitness accounts etc.

No, you cited anti-Cuban websites and wikipedia. That is as valid in this argument as citing the granma.

tell me why do you think Cuba ranks 169th worst in the world for press freedom?

According to whom?

This book is BMA which means rock solid, in fact I know someone in the BMA.

8 years jail for a Marxists eh?

You haven't even made an argument in defense of whatever he was accused of doing so how is this even relevant?

I never said Cuba is capitalist, I said it is not socialist.

Then, in your opinion, what mode of production is dominant in Cuba?

A Marxist looks at Cuba and tells you what Trotsky said about bureaucratically deformed workers states, about Casto not being a socialist, and the history of Cuba involving political prisoners.

Although most Marxists are not Trotskyists and don't need to quote him for everything. The Cuban and Russian revolutions were quite distinct from one another, so to use what he said about Russia in the 1920s to try to explain the whole social structure of Cuba in the second half of the 20th century doesn't simply easily follow.

[daft punk]

Please don't complain about not being able to see the whole article then.

And you have a very bizarre notion of what qualifies as being "of interest." You tend to get "bored" when people point out contradictions in your posts. (aka: unwilling to address those contradictions)

False. Nobody has ever pointed out a contradiction in my posts.

I provided you an entire academic article that explains the electoral process of Cuba in great detail. It explains the process from the municipal level where the level of engagement by the population is quite high to the National Assembly.

From the article quoting Fidel:

You provided my with a link which means nothing. If Cuba is democratic, explain how it is, and quote support.

From the article quoting Fidel:

Castro is gonna say it's democratic isnt he.

How is that less "proof" than whatever it is that you quoted?

And how do the results you posted prove what you claim? And which elections were those you're citing?

Because I posted concrete facts - the election results. And they prove that there was only one candidate for each district. They were all over the country, I just posted a bit of it. I think they were National elections. Its the local elections where you get more than one candidate. I already explained the process. The national candidates are picked by a committee.

"National elections

Cuba's national legislature, the National Assembly of People's Power, has 609 members who sit for five-year terms. Members of the National Assembly represent multiple-member constituencies (2 to 5 members per district), with one Deputy for each 20,000 inhabitants. The most recent elections to the National Assembly were held on 24 February 2008.

Although there is only one candidate per seat, candidates must obtain the support of 50% of voters to be elected. If a candidate fails to gain 50% of the vote, a new candidate must be chosen. So far this has never happened for the National Assembly, because the candidates put forward by the candidacy commissions usually get at least 84% support."


"614 candidates (one candidate per seat). Up to 50% of the candidates must be chosen by the Municipal Assemblies. The candidates are otherwise proposed by nominating assemblies, which comprise representatives of workers, youth, women, students and farmers as well as members of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, after initial mass meetings soliciting a first list of names. The final list of candidates is drawn up by the National Candidature Commission taking into account criteria such as candidates' merit, patriotism, ethical values and revolutionary history.[1][2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_ ... _elections

wiki explains:

Political parties and elections
Main articles: List of political parties in Cuba and Elections in Cuba

Suffrage is afforded to Cuban citizens resident for two years on the island who are aged over sixteen years and who have not been found guilty of a criminal offense. Cubans living abroad are denied the right to vote. The national elections for the 609 members of the National Assembly of People's Power are held according to this system, and the precepts of the 1976 Constitution. From 1959 to 1976 there was no legislative branch. In 1992 the Constitution was reformed to allow direct vote to elect the members to the National Assembly, but the candidates are pre-screened by the Communist Party. There was only one candidate for each seat in the January 19th, 2003 election. The system[2] works as a stepping ladder: neighbors meet to propose the candidates to the Municipal Assemblies. The candidates do not present any political platform, but only their resumes. Then the municipal candidates elected in each neighborhood elect the Municipal Assembly members. The Municipal Assembly members in turn elect the Provincial Assembly members, who in turn elect the national Assembly members. Then direct vote is cast so the people can ratify or not the decanted members that appear in the final step. From 1959 to 1992, the Cuban people were not afforded the right to vote for the members of the legislative power. The executive power is elected by the National Assembly. There is no vote for the President or the Prime Minister. Political parties besides the Communist Party of Cuba exist within the country legally since 1992. Nevertheless, the Constitutional reform of 1992 that granted their right to exist, at the same time denied their right to gather or publicize their existence, The most important of these are the Christian Democratic Party of Cuba, the Cuban Socialist Democratic Current, the Democratic Social-Revolutionary Party of Cuba, the Democratic Solidarity Party, the Liberal Party of Cuba and the Social Democratic Co-ordination of Cuba.

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

You haven't even made an argument in defense of whatever he was accused of doing so how is this even relevant?

He is a Marxist historian. He taught adult workers at a school near Havana. Students would go to his house to discuss Marxism and politics. He was popular. Some of his stuff was published by the bureaucracy but he gradually came to the conclusion that Cuba was not what Marx had in mind. One of his students wanted to leave the country and sought his protection - he faced down a stone throwing mob. This got him arrested in 1980. He was freed but later arrested again in 1981.

"He was taken to a psychiatric hospital, then to the state security headquarters and eventually brought to trial. He was accused, convicted, and sentenced to eight years under Section 5 (titled “Enemy Propaganda”) of Article 108-1 of the Cuban penal code, which punishes any person “who incites against the social order, international solidarity or the socialist State by means of oral or written propaganda, or any other form.”

At this political trial, which was ignored, as is usual, by the Cuban press, Hidalgo was only allowed to say few words at the conclusion of the proceedings. Predictably, the “evidence” presented at his very brief trial, which lasted only one session, consisted of members of the local neighborhood defense committee who testified about Hidalgo’s “talking too much.” The prosecution chose not to mention that, while searching his house before the trial, police found and took away his unpublished manuscript entitled “Cuba, The Marxist State and the ‘New Class’: A Dialectical Materialist Study.” In this essay Hidalgo attempts to demonstrate that a new ruling class has taken over in Cuba as well as in the other “socialist” countries. He argues that just as in the capitalist countries, the only course for the working class is to rise up, take over the new state, and establish its own rule."

"Hidalgo spent the first fourteen months in jail in deplorable conditions—solitary confinement in a dark, tiny, and filthy cell in the Combinado del Este prison near Havana. Conditions then became less extreme. He was moved to a regular cell, and his wife, although not his daughter, could visit him once a month for two hours. She was allowed to bring him some types of food (e.g., sweets, powdered milk, bread), but no writing or reading materials. Since August 1984, however, even these monthly visits have been prohibited. Hidalgo has rejected the “rehabilitation” that might further improve prison conditions for him or even permit his release. He still stands by his convictions, in particular that in Cuba, the rest of Latin America, and elsewhere in the world, the socialist revolution he believes is necessary cannot survive without socialist democracy. Unfortunately, he was not among those released when Jesse Jackson recently visited Cuba. Like so many others in Cuba, Chile, South Africa, and indeed throughout the world, he remains imprisoned for his political principles. "

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false

Then, in your opinion, what mode of production is dominant in Cuba?

mostly a planned economy.

Although most Marxists are not Trotskyists and don't need to quote him for everything. The Cuban and Russian revolutions were quite distinct from one another, so to use what he said about Russia in the 1920s to try to explain the whole social structure of Cuba in the second half of the 20th century doesn't simply easily follow.

wrong. All Marxists are Trotskyists. Stalinists claim to be Marxists but are obviously not. They claim Russia etc were socialist and that is a lie.

Marx and Engels - internationalism
Stalinism - socialism in one country, sabotage of revolutions in other countries

Marx and Engels - socialism is democratic and ultimately the state fades away
Stalinism - no democracy, the state gets bigger and bigger (except after purges).

Yes the two revolutions were different, one was led by two major-league Marxists and the other was led by a petty bourgeois nationalist who wanted Cuba to be like America. In fact Castro was backed by the CIA initially.

http://www.amazon.com/Fidel-Critical-Po ... 0380808889

"Never before has any biographer had such close access to Fidel Castro as did Tad Szule. The outcome of a long, direct relationship, this riveting portrait reveals astonishing and exclusive information about Cuba, the revolution, and the notorious, larger-than-life leader who has ruled his country with an iron fist for more than forty years.

Only Tad Szule could bring Fidel to such vivid life--the loves and losses of the man, the devious tactics of the conspirator, the triumphs and defeats of the revolutionary leader who challenged an American president and brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster.

From Jesuit schools to jungle hideouts and the Palace of the Revolution, here is Fidel...The Untold Story."


read the reviews, and learn some stuff.

"With Castro's cooperation (which included many hours of taped conversation), interviews with scores of his friends and associates, and access to Cuban archives, this former New York Times foreign correspondent has produced the first major biography of one of the most puzzling and little-known world leaders of our day. Material includes an analysis of Castro's relationship with the Cuban Communist Party before the revolution, details on the CIA's initial support and later assassination attempts, and convincing suggestions on how the Bay of Pigs affair led directly to the Cuban missile crisis. The author characterizes the Cuban revolution of the 1960s as "to a very large degree the story of Fidel Castro's and John Kennedy's impact on each other." Szulc's admiration for the Cuban leader is vast: Castro is "a virtuoso of politics" and "a master of strategy and tactics as well as a master of timing." So rich is the material Szulc marshalls in his support that readers less enamored of Castro will find it hard to deny these and other sweeping statements."

"Tad Szulc has written the best book on Castro that I have ever read. There is no doubt that he has done a great job in interviewing Castro himself and a load of other people.

It is remarkable that the author has been allowed to get as close to Castro as is the case in this book - but there is still something missing about Castros childhood. But I guess that Castro hasn't been interested in telling that story.

The story about the Cuban revolution and Castro as leader under and after the fighting in the Sierra mountain is great, and I think that the reader is given a very varied picture of Castro.

One of the important themes in the book is Castro's communism. Is he a communist or a Fidelista? When did he became a communist (if ever)? And what was the reasons for Castro to turn out as he did? The author tries to answer the questions and it is obvious that Castro himself are not quite sure when and if he turned into a communist."

[KurtFF8]

False. Nobody has ever pointed out a contradiction in my posts.

Except of course your claim that I was distorting your words I demonstrated to be false.

You provided my with a link which means nothing. If Cuba is democratic, explain how it is, and quote support.

(For someone who brags about having clear/excellent English...)

I did support it, you just aren't willing to accept my sources. And I have explained it in this post and in the other one, the process of elections from the local to the national level is full of debate and participation. The article I referenced goes into much detail about this.

Castro is gonna say it's democratic isnt he.

Well HRW certainly isn't going to. If the source is important to you, why are you relying on an organization whose chairman was in the Council on Foreign Relations

If the position one holds in society says something about a claim, please don't try to take HRW's claims seriously then.

Because I posted concrete facts - the election results. And they prove that there was only one candidate for each district. They were all over the country, I just posted a bit of it. I think they were National elections. Its the local elections where you get more than one candidate. I already explained the process. The national candidates are picked by a committee.

For posting the "concrete facts" about the election results: you seem quite ignorant of what they actually mean and don't even know which elections you're talking about. If you don't even know what elections they were, how can they be evidence for your argument?

And only a portion of the national assembly candidates are picked by the organs of people's power (which by the way are mass organizations that themselves have much participation from the population).

And as wiki even explains, the municipal assemblies choose the candidates, and the people choose the municipal candidates. This is much like the days in the United States where the Senate was appointed by the state government, or in the UK or many parliamentary systems where the parliament chooses the executive for instance (as in Cuba)

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

I'm not sure of what you've posted that debunks anything I've said here.

He is a Marxist historian. He taught adult workers at a school near Havana. Students would go to his house to discuss Marxism and politics. He was popular. Some of his stuff was published by the bureaucracy but he gradually came to the conclusion that Cuba was not what Marx had in mind. One of his students wanted to leave the country and sought his protection - he faced down a stone throwing mob. This got him arrested in 1980. He was freed but later arrested again in 1981.

Interestingly what you've posted doesn't go into what he was accused of and simply implies that he was arrested for his book but no argument is made that this was the case.

mostly a planned economy.

Right, but you seem to believe that it is not socialist or capitalist. It would seem that using a Marxist analysis that it should be easy to point out which of those two modes of production dominates the island. A "planned economy" is not the same kind of category as socialist or capitalist, as both modes of production require some planning. For example, India had much planning but still developed a capitalist economy.

wrong. All Marxists are Trotskyists. Stalinists claim to be Marxists but are obviously not. They claim Russia etc were socialist and that is a lie.

This is the most absurd claim I've seen you make so far. Engles, Kautsky, Lenin, Luxembourg, etc. were not Trotskyists. Most of the prominent Marxists of the 20th century were also not Trotskyists (the most obvious cases being Gramsci, Lukács, Althusser, The entirety of the New Left/Frankfurt School, etc. etc. etc.)

The rest of your post is very over simplistic to say the least.

Yes the two revolutions were different, one was led by two major-league Marxists and the other was led by a petty bourgeois nationalist who wanted Cuba to be like America. In fact Castro was backed by the CIA initially.

I'm not sure how that book or the reviews you posted are relevant whatsoever. The July 26th movement was explicitly anti-capitalist from the outset and later developed ties to the Communist Party (at the time, the PSP) and various other revolutionary anti-capitalist movements on the island. Fidel was indeed originally simply a nationalist, but then became a Marxist. This is well documented and not a controversial claim and has very little relevance to what we're discussing.

[Dagoth Ur]

Daft Punk - trying to finish the job Stalin started with an icepick.

[daft punk]

Except of course your claim that I was distorting your words I demonstrated to be false.

No you didnt

daft punk wrote:
You provided my with a link which means nothing. If Cuba is democratic, explain how it is, and quote support.

(For someone who brags about having clear/excellent English...)

What do you not understand about that?

I did support it, you just aren't willing to accept my sources. And I have explained it in this post and in the other one, the process of elections from the local to the national level is full of debate and participation. The article I referenced goes into much detail about this.

The only thing I remember is you posting a link to a page of an article and a couple of vague statements. I dont care. Cuba is not socialist and not democratic. If you think otherwise convince me or dont bother.

Well HRW certainly isn't going to. If the source is important to you, why are you relying on an organization whose chairman was in the Council on Foreign Relations

If the position one holds in society says something about a claim, please don't try to take HRW's claims seriously then.

Where did you get this pathetic conspiracy theory-type fact from? Who cares? HRW criticises all countries including America. They criticise America for torture, for indefinite detention.

For posting the "concrete facts" about the election results: you seem quite ignorant of what they actually mean and don't even know which elections you're talking about. If you don't even know what elections they were, how can they be evidence for your argument?

And only a portion of the national assembly candidates are picked by the organs of people's power (which by the way are mass organizations that themselves have much participation from the population).

And as wiki even explains, the municipal assemblies choose the candidates, and the people choose the municipal candidates. This is much like the days in the United States where the Senate was appointed by the state government, or in the UK or many parliamentary systems where the parliament chooses the executive for instance (as in Cuba)

Are you saying they are not the national election results? My source was the official Communist Party of Cuba newspaper. It is headed

"Resultados finales de las elecciones del Poder Popular

NUESTROS DIPUTADOS"

Which Google translated as

"Final results of the elections of People's Power

Election of deputies

Tested and validated by the National Electoral Commission "

I'm pretty sure these are national election results. There is only one candidate per district as I said. The candidates are chosen by Candidacy Commissions. In the UK this selection is only done for the second chamber, the house of Lords, which Labour was gonna get rid of and then didnt. They have limited powers. In the UK, anyone can stand in a national election. In Cuba you get a choice of one, as I said from the start.

You say "only a portion of the national assembly candidates are picked by the organs of people's power". Half of the initial list of prospective candidates is chosen by people at local meetings, I already said this. The final list for national elections however is drawn up the the Candidacy Commission. There are between two and eight candidates at the municipal elections (it is usually two). Elections at all levels are directed by the National Electoral Commission. Candidates are not allowed to campaign or have a political platform. However at local nomination meeting it is usual to talk of a candidate's support for the revolution.

I'm not sure of what you've posted that debunks anything I've said here.

There is only one candidate per seat in the National Elections.

Interestingly what you've posted doesn't go into what he was accused of and simply implies that he was arrested for his book but no argument is made that this was the case.

He was charged with possession of 'enemy propaganda'. This was the unpublished manuscript in which he said a new ruling class had arisen in Cuba - the bureaucracy. source


You dont have to distribute stuff to get arrested, just writing it is an offence.

Quote:
mostly a planned economy.



Right, but you seem to believe that it is not socialist or capitalist. It would seem that using a Marxist analysis that it should be easy to point out which of those two modes of production dominates the island. A "planned economy" is not the same kind of category as socialist or capitalist, as both modes of production require some planning. For example, India had much planning but still developed a capitalist economy.

Cuba is a planned economy but it is not socialist. It is a deformed workers state. Deformed by a bureaucratic dictatorship. Capitalism is never a planned economy. India was capitalist and was not a planned economy. A planned economy is a publicly owned one in which there is no capitalist class. Cuba has no capitalist class. India had a capitalist class. It was a capitalist country ruled by a capitalist party with the backing of the Stalinist CP. I say was, I refer to the period before it went fully neo-liberal in 1990.

Quote:
wrong. All Marxists are Trotskyists. Stalinists claim to be Marxists but are obviously not. They claim Russia etc were socialist and that is a lie.



This is the most absurd claim I've seen you make so far. Engles, Kautsky, Lenin, Luxembourg, etc. were not Trotskyists. Most of the prominent Marxists of the 20th century were also not Trotskyists (the most obvious cases being Gramsci, Lukács, Althusser, The entirety of the New Left/Frankfurt School, etc. etc. etc.)

The rest of your post is very over simplistic to say the least.

Engels lived before Trotsky, he could not be a Trot. But what he said ties in with Totsky, not Stalin.

Engels said categorically that socialism could not be built in one country and that it had to be democratic. Lenin changed his mind in April 1917 and said that they needed to get rid of the provisional government. This was what Totsky had been saying all along. Nobody on the CC agreed with him at first. Stalin said nothing for 10 days, Kamanev slagged Lenin down.

Kautsky was slagged by Lenin. He was an ex-Marxist.

Luxemburg was close to Lenin and Trotsky. She wrote:

"What is in order is to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, the kernel from the accidental excrescencies in the politics of the Bolsheviks. In the present period, when we face decisive final struggles in all the world, the most important problem of socialism was and is the burning question of our time. It is not a matter of this or that secondary question of tactics, but of the capacity for action of the proletariat, the strength to act, the will to power of socialism as such. In this, Lenin and Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: “I have dared!”

This is the essential and enduring in Bolshevik policy. In this sense theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of political power and the practical placing of the problem of the realization of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labor in the entire world. In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to “Bolshevism.”"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxembu ... n/ch08.htm

I wouldnt call her a Trot because Trotskyism didnt really exist in her lifetime as such. She fully understood that the Russian revolution depended on Germany, even back then

"Let the German Government Socialists cry that the rule of the Bolsheviks in Russia is a distorted expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If it was or is such, that is only because it is a product of the behavior of the German proletariat, in itself a distorted expression of the socialist class struggle. "

Gramsci, what about him? Trotsky credits him with understanding fascism even before he did, but he was isolated and in jail. Some people eg Hosbawm try to say Gramsci was a reformist.

Frankfurt School? Erich Fromm said of Trotsky:

"In the midst of insecure exile, illness, cruel Stalinist persecution of his family, there is never a note of self-pity or even despair. There is objectivity and courage and humility.

This is a modest man; proud of his cause, proud of the truth he discovers, but not vain or self-centered. The words of admiration and concern in which he expresses himself about his wife are deeply moving. Just as was the case with Marx, here was the concern, understanding and sharing of a deeply loving man which shines through Trotzky’s diary. He loved life and its beauty. "

Lukacs also rejected Stalinism but sat on the fence about socialism in one country. Interestingly he survived Stalins purges in which 80% of Hungarians living in Russia were slaughtered. Later he was in the brief government of the Hungarian uprising. Well you supported the Russian tanks crushing that! He narrowly avoided execution for that.

Well these are New Left people who broke with Stalinism, didnt discover Trotsky and didnt join the capitalist parties. The New Left never really got anywhere. Actually some discovered Trotsky. Althusser was a Stalinist who tried to revise Marxism and failed.

I'm not sure how that book or the reviews you posted are relevant whatsoever. The July 26th movement was explicitly anti-capitalist from the outset and later developed ties to the Communist Party (at the time, the PSP) and various other revolutionary anti-capitalist movements on the island. Fidel was indeed originally simply a nationalist, but then became a Marxist. This is well documented and not a controversial claim and has very little relevance to what we're discussing.

Castro became a 'communist' after the revolution. The July 26th movement was not explicitly anti-capitalist. It is relevant because the man in power never intended to build socialism.

Daft Punk - trying to finish the job Stalin started with an icepick.

Why are you saying this? Obviously I am a Trotsky supporter, as I believe you once claimed to be. A socialist.

[KurtFF8]

No you didnt

I guess you just didn't bother to justify your baseless claim then. You claimed that I distorted your words, I demonstrated how I actually copied and pasted what you wrote: you didn't bother responding to that.

What do you not understand about that?

Granted it's most likely a typo, but an elementary mistake that someone who love to brag about superior English skills shouldn't make

You provided my with a link which means nothing. If Cuba is democratic, explain how it is, and quote support.

Not the first glaring error I've seen, but it's just the internet, not a big deal.

The only thing I remember is you posting a link to a page of an article and a couple of vague statements. I dont care. Cuba is not socialist and not democratic. If you think otherwise convince me or dont bother.

I posted an in depth study on the subject, offered to send it to you, quoted from it, etc. and you just "don't care" all of the sudden. As a matter of fact, I believe you are the one who brought the issue up. You even quoted a section of wikipedia that mostly appeals to my source!

Where did you get this pathetic conspiracy theory-type fact from? Who cares? HRW criticises all countries including America. They criticise America for torture, for indefinite detention.

It's not a conspiracy theory, but a fact. I actually just posted the link to the wikipedia article if you're interested. Are you denying the truth of my statement or denying the importance of that fact?

The point is: you said that what Fidel said shouldn't be considered proof because of his position as the head of state in Cuba. So I countered with pointing out the position that the head of HRW has within the American power structure as being in conflict with a "neutral independent organization" you claim they are.

So if appeals to authority matter in this context either: don't just discount what Fidel says because of his position, or don't use HRW as a source.

Are you saying they are not the national election results? My source was the official Communist Party of Cuba newspaper. It is headed

No, I'm saying that you didn't even know which level of government the elections were for, so how could they be proof of anything for your argument if you don't even know what elections you're talking about!

I'm pretty sure these are national election results. There is only one candidate per district as I said. The candidates are chosen by Candidacy Commissions. In the UK this selection is only done for the second chamber, the house of Lords, which Labour was gonna get rid of and then didnt. They have limited powers. In the UK, anyone can stand in a national election. In Cuba you get a choice of one, as I said from the start.

Does that make the UK a dictatorship as well?

You say "only a portion of the national assembly candidates are picked by the organs of people's power". Half of the initial list of prospective candidates is chosen by people at local meetings, I already said this. The final list for national elections however is drawn up the the Candidacy Commission. There are between two and eight candidates at the municipal elections (it is usually two). Elections at all levels are directed by the National Electoral Commission. Candidates are not allowed to campaign or have a political platform. However at local nomination meeting it is usual to talk of a candidate's support for the revolution.

Right, and how is this a counter-argument?

There is only one candidate per seat in the National Elections.

I will just copy and paste from Roman since you are uninterested in reading on it yourself

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
National Assembly deputies are elected by municipal assemblies from among candidates selected by the candidacy commissions and approved by the central committee of the party. There are two separate candidate lists, one made up of municipal delegates and the other of more or less distinguished citizens, including those with important government and/or party posts, and celebrities, for example, in sports and the arts. The majority of deputies (about 54 percent) elected are from the municipal delegate list, which gives significant representation in the highest organ of Cuban representative government to delegates who have very close ties to the people and who are also the most outspoken and active deputies. Most deputies receive no pay and regularly attend the sessions of the municipal assemblies that elected them, to which they must report periodically. Municipal assemblies have the power of recall over deputies they have elected...

My observation is that most citizens (especially in urban areas), while aware of the National Assembly debates (which are thoroughly reported in the press and have been carried live on television), do not know who their National Assembly deputies are, since citizens do not directly elect deputies and thus deputies mainly report and respond to the municipal assemblies

So while you are right that this is not a case of popular direct elections, there is a significant direct link between the process of selection here and the more local levels.

He was charged with possession of 'enemy propaganda'. This was the unpublished manuscript in which he said a new ruling class had arisen in Cuba - the bureaucracy. source


You dont have to distribute stuff to get arrested, just writing it is an offence.

Alright, well I'm not familiar with this case although I am familiar with the fact that Cuban censorship was certainly much stronger than it currently is (particularly in the 80s). I'm not aware of a country that doesn't engage in censorship though.

(Also you might want to use spell check if you want to keep bragging about "clear English skills")

Cuba is a planned economy but it is not socialist. It is a deformed workers state. Deformed by a bureaucratic dictatorship. Capitalism is never a planned economy. India was capitalist and was not a planned economy. A planned economy is a publicly owned one in which there is no capitalist class. Cuba has no capitalist class. India had a capitalist class. It was a capitalist country ruled by a capitalist party with the backing of the Stalinist CP. I say was, I refer to the period before it went fully neo-liberal in 1990.

Well as you know, I think there are some serious issues with the conception of a deformed workers state that we should perhaps start another thread on. And India had 5 year plans and engaged in quite a lot of planning to get to where they are, yet they also had a capitalist class. The presence or lack thereof a capitalist class is not what determines whether there is planning, but rather is what determines the character of production itself. (Nice random irrelevant jab at the "Stalinist CP" there by the way, especially considering you had praised them in another thread)

Engels lived before Trotsky, he could not be a Trot. But what he said ties in with Totsky, not Stalin.

Engels said categorically that socialism could not be built in one country and that it had to be democratic. Lenin changed his mind in April 1917 and said that they needed to get rid of the provisional government. This was what Totsky had been saying all along. Nobody on the CC agreed with him at first. Stalin said nothing for 10 days, Kamanev slagged Lenin down.

But Lenin did not argue for international revolution because of Trotsky.

Kautsky was slagged by Lenin. He was an ex-Marxist.

Right, but he was never a Trotskyist.

Luxemburg was close to Lenin and Trotsky. She wrote:

I wouldnt call her a Trot because Trotskyism didnt really exist in her lifetime as such. She fully understood that the Russian revolution depended on Germany, even back then

Indeed, she was not a "Trotskyist" such an attempted appropriation would be highly dishonest and confused. And just about every Communist militant at the time was anticipating the success of the German Revolution at the time, that doesn't really set her, Trotsky, or anyone apart too much.

Gramsci, what about him? Trotsky credits him with understanding fascism even before he did, but he was isolated and in jail. Some people eg Hosbawm try to say Gramsci was a reformist

Gramsci was by no means a Trotskyist (as a matter of fact, he helped to found the Marxist-Leninist Italian Communist Party) and was one of the more prominent Marxist thinkers of the 20th century. A pretty clear example of how your "All Marxists are Trotskyists" statement is false.

And I would of course disagree with Hobsbawm on that claim (Hobsbawm being another examples of a Marxist who is not a Trotskyist)

Frankfurt School? Erich Fromm said of Trotsky:

Do those quotes make Fromm a Trotskyist? And even if he was (which is not the case) the Frankfurt school was certainly not a Trotskyist school of though.

Lukacs also rejected Stalinism but sat on the fence about socialism in one country. Interestingly he survived Stalins purges in which 80% of Hungarians living in Russia were slaughtered. Later he was in the brief government of the Hungarian uprising. Well you supported the Russian tanks crushing that! He narrowly avoided execution for that.

Well these are New Left people who broke with Stalinism, didnt discover Trotsky and didnt join the capitalist parties. The New Left never really got anywhere. Actually some discovered Trotsky. Althusser was a Stalinist who tried to revise Marxism and failed.

So in other words, these are a bunch of counter-examples to your claim.

I would be interested to see how you think Althusser "failed" but that is a topic for a thread on its own (so in other words, if you're interested in discussing that, let's start a new thread)

Castro became a 'communist' after the revolution. The July 26th movement was not explicitly anti-capitalist. It is relevant because the man in power never intended to build socialism.

We've already been over this and how the "Castro wasn't a communist" claim doesn't really demonstrate anything of interest. You claim that the 26th of July Movement wasn't anti-capitalist, yet this is a baseless claim and a false claim.

[daft punk]

Does that make the UK a dictatorship as well?

The House of Lords bit yeah, but at least we have national elections in which anyone can stand and publicise their political views. Cuba does not.

Right, and how is this a counter-argument?

Because I just showed that Cubans do not have democracy. There are no parties campaigning on different issues. In Britain the Socialist Party can go on television and state it's views and try to win voters, in Cuba it would not be possible. You get a choice of one candidate to vote for. Cubans do get a choice of candidates at the first stage when they nominate local people on to the first rung but after that they get no say until they vote for or against the one candidate they are supplied with. They do not choose their MPs.

Quote:
There is only one candidate per seat in the National Elections.



I will just copy and paste from Roman since you are uninterested in reading on it yourself

Peter Roman in Representative Government in Socialist Cuba wrote:
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
National Assembly deputies are elected by municipal assemblies from among candidates selected by the candidacy commissions and approved by the central committee of the party. There are two separate candidate lists, one made up of municipal delegates and the other of more or less distinguished citizens, including those with important government and/or party posts, and celebrities, for example, in sports and the arts. The majority of deputies (about 54 percent) elected are from the municipal delegate list, which gives significant representation in the highest organ of Cuban representative government to delegates who have very close ties to the people and who are also the most outspoken and active deputies. Most deputies receive no pay and regularly attend the sessions of the municipal assemblies that elected them, to which they must report periodically. Municipal assemblies have the power of recall over deputies they have elected...

Finally you post the support I have been requesting. But how is it supposed to disprove that there is one candidate per seat? It doesn't mention the actual election, just the fact that the candidates are selected by the Candidacy Commissions which I already covered.

I repeat, there is one candidate for each seat. Voter get a choice of one. Even you admitted it by saying it was like the House of Lords. Only in Cuba that's all you get. No direct vote for MPs or the President.

ibid. wrote:
My observation is that most citizens (especially in urban areas), while aware of the National Assembly debates (which are thoroughly reported in the press and have been carried live on television), do not know who their National Assembly deputies are, since citizens do not directly elect deputies and thus deputies mainly report and respond to the municipal assemblies



So while you are right that this is not a case of popular direct elections, there is a significant direct link between the process of selection here and the more local levels.

Ah, so finally you admit I'm right. Yes there is some sort of link between the MPs and the local nominations. A very tenuous one. The local people nominate a couple of people who want to stand. No political campaigning is allowed except to say they support the revolution. These people go to the Municipal Assemblies. The members of the Municipal Assemblies elect the Provincial Assemblies and the Provincial Assemblies elect the National Assembly members. Half come from that and half come from other groups such as the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. The Candidacy Commissions draw up slates of recommended candidates for each electoral district. The final list of candidates, one for each district, is selected up by the National Candidacy Commission, taking into account criteria such as merit, patriotism, ethical values and revolutionary history.

Obviously you now understand that there is one candidate per seat.

Anyway, the democracy bit isnt just electing MPs like in Britain. It's about workers' participation in planning and decision making in industry. Its about soviets controlling what goes on. Involvement of the masses. In my opinion Cuba only pays lip service to all that. From what I can gather they do have a system where a committee of 3 decides on which workers to keep and which to move around. One of the three is picked by the management, one by the workers and one by the union. The unions of course are organs of the Communist Party. Cuba is ruled by a bureaucratic dictatorship.

The bureaucracy is an elite, with all the privileges that entails. Posh hospitals, cars, expensive restaurants.

"...François Maspero in his introduction to Janette Habel’s important book ‘Cuba – Revolution in Peril’? Both authors’ roots are probably closer to the DSP then to us. Habel is a leading member of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI). Maspero says he has "rejoined the Fourth International," presumably the USFI, which had illusions about Cuba in the early period of the revolution. Yet this is what he writes:

"Let’s face it – there is no point in mincing one’s words – democracy does not exist in Cuba. Human rights have not been and are not respected: at the worst moments, the figure of 80,000 political prisoners was reached. And nor are the rights to freedom of information, expression and movement respected." 86"

He also writes in relation to Karol, whose evidence Lorimer dismisses:

"Karol who, with the encouragement of Fidel Castro himself, had written a rigorous analysis of Castroite power that remains today the most honest and complete work of reference on the period, had a taste of [Castro’s wrath]. So too did René Dumont, who had talked agronomics and socialism with his usual outspokenness. Both were denounced by Fidel Castro as agents of the CIA, before a crowd of about 500,000 Cubans – who had heard another story." 87

The result of offending Castro through his well-documented criticisms resulted in Karol’s books and name being banned in Cuba."

http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/Cuba/cu4.html

read the article. It describes for example how a member of the bureaucracy fled to Spain, he had half a million dollars in his bank account!

Quote:
He was charged with possession of 'enemy propaganda'. This was the unpublished manuscript in which he said a new ruling class had arisen in Cuba - the bureaucracy. source


You dont have to distribute stuff to get arrested, just writing it is an offence.



Alright, well I'm not familiar with this case although I am familiar with the fact that Cuban censorship was certainly much stronger than it currently is (particularly in the 80s). I'm not aware of a country that doesn't engage in censorship though.

(Also you might want to use spell check if you want to keep bragging about "clear English skills")

Oh, how many countries give you 8 years in jail for writing your views down on paper?

Quote:
Cuba is a planned economy but it is not socialist. It is a deformed workers state. Deformed by a bureaucratic dictatorship. Capitalism is never a planned economy. India was capitalist and was not a planned economy. A planned economy is a publicly owned one in which there is no capitalist class. Cuba has no capitalist class. India had a capitalist class. It was a capitalist country ruled by a capitalist party with the backing of the Stalinist CP. I say was, I refer to the period before it went fully neo-liberal in 1990.



Well as you know, I think there are some serious issues with the conception of a deformed workers state that we should perhaps start another thread on. And India had 5 year plans and engaged in quite a lot of planning to get to where they are, yet they also had a capitalist class. The presence or lack thereof a capitalist class is not what determines whether there is planning, but rather is what determines the character of production itself. (Nice random irrelevant jab at the "Stalinist CP" there by the way, especially considering you had praised them in another thread

Start a thread by all means. A planned economy means no capitalist class. It does not include planning by capitalist leaders.
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/ ... ed-economy

But Lenin did not argue for international revolution because of Trotsky.

No they both argued it because of Marx and Engels. And because it was the only thing that made sense. It was unthinkable not to be internationalist up to 1924. Even early in 1924 Stalin was saying the revolution had to be international.

Indeed, she was not a "Trotskyist" such an attempted appropriation would be highly dishonest and confused. And just about every Communist militant at the time was anticipating the success of the German Revolution at the time, that doesn't really set her, Trotsky, or anyone apart too much.

Luxemburg was similar to Trotsky in that she warned of the dangers of bureaucratism. Her mistake was not not get the Communist Party going quick enough.

Gramsci was by no means a Trotskyist (as a matter of fact, he helped to found the Marxist-Leninist Italian Communist Party) and was one of the more prominent Marxist thinkers of the 20th century. A pretty clear example of how your "All Marxists are Trotskyists" statement is false.

He was a Stalinist, but one of the better ones.

So in other words, these are a bunch of counter-examples to your claim.

Fascinating. A handful of ex-Stalinists who didnt discover Trotsky.

I would be interested to see how you think Althusser "failed" but that is a topic for a thread on its own (so in other words, if you're interested in discussing that, let's start a new thread)

no that sounds boring

uote:
Castro became a 'communist' after the revolution. The July 26th movement was not explicitly anti-capitalist. It is relevant because the man in power never intended to build socialism.



We've already been over this and how the "Castro wasn't a communist" claim doesn't really demonstrate anything of interest. You claim that the 26th of July Movement wasn't anti-capitalist, yet this is a baseless claim and a false claim.

you need to read this

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

It is packed with proof that Castro wasnt a communist and he founded the July Movement. Read if ffs, I already debated all this on my original Cuba thread





"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’".

"Carlos Franqui was a heroic participant in the 26 July Movement and in the Cuban Revolution alongside Castro and Che Guevara. In the first period of the revolution he was responsible for ‘Castroite propaganda’ and was the organiser of the ‘Congress of Intellectuals’ in Havana at the end of 1967. Given that he was driven into exile by Castro’s behaviour his criticisms are naturally sometimes subjective and personal. Nevertheless they come from a ‘socialist humanist’ standpoint. In his book ‘Family portrait with Fidel’ he maps out the bureaucratic degeneration of the revolution "almost from its outset". He makes the following comment about Castro’s ideological position before the revolution:

"The questions people were always asking and continued to ask were: Was Fidel a Communist? Had he become a Communist? Is he a Communist? What was his plan? Was it really the Cuban situation – Cuba’s economic dependence and the US blockade – that threw Cuba into the clutches of the Soviet Union? No one thought Fidel was a Communist. I mean no one. We knew that Raúl Castro was a Communist, that Che Guevara was also, and that Camilo, Ramiro, Celia, Haydée, and some comandantes and other collaborators were Communists, too. But no one knew about Fidel, including me – who saw him at quite close range – and even his most intelligent enemies.""

[KurtFF8]

The House of Lords bit yeah, but at least we have national elections in which anyone can stand and publicise their political views. Cuba does not.

Although Cuba does have elections that directly influence the national level, this is a part you continually ignore. (Another misspelling here by the way)

Because I just showed that Cubans do not have democracy. There are no parties campaigning on different issues. In Britain the Socialist Party can go on television and state it's views and try to win voters, in Cuba it would not be possible. You get a choice of one candidate to vote for. Cubans do get a choice of candidates at the first stage when they nominate local people on to the first rung but after that they get no say until they vote for or against the one candidate they are supplied with. They do not choose their MPs.

You have a very bourgeois liberal conception of what "Democracy" is here. Why would allowing liberal or conservative parties to run candidates make Cuba more of a socialist democracy than disallowing those parties to campaign?

Mind you that the Communist Party is also barred from participating in elections. And the claim that they have no choice is false, there is recall.

Finally you post the support I have been requesting. But how is it supposed to disprove that there is one candidate per seat? It doesn't mention the actual election, just the fact that the candidates are selected by the Candidacy Commissions which I already covered.

I repeat, there is one candidate for each seat. Voter get a choice of one. Even you admitted it by saying it was like the House of Lords. Only in Cuba that's all you get. No direct vote for MPs or the President.

This support has been there the whole time, and I believe was even cited in something that you had posted before. This is of course referring to only one level of government and explicitly mentions the involvement of the lower levels at this level.

In the UK you don't get a direct vote for the PM, so why is it an example of non-democracy in Cuba, yet in the UK that fact okay? If the Communist Party had been a "Trotskyist Party" I have the feeling that these criticisms of yours wouldn't be coming out right now.

Ah, so finally you admit I'm right. Yes there is some sort of link between the MPs and the local nominations. A very tenuous one. The local people nominate a couple of people who want to stand. No political campaigning is allowed except to say they support the revolution. These people go to the Municipal Assemblies. The members of the Municipal Assemblies elect the Provincial Assemblies and the Provincial Assemblies elect the National Assembly members. Half come from that and half come from other groups such as the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. The Candidacy Commissions draw up slates of recommended candidates for each electoral district. The final list of candidates, one for each district, is selected up by the National Candidacy Commission, taking into account criteria such as merit, patriotism, ethical values and revolutionary history.

I never disputed the claim about the National Assembly level. You were never clear that you were talking about that level solely. I, however, was bringing up the various levels of elections while you seem to want to only focus on one level: this is very selective of you.

Obviously you now understand that there is one candidate per seat.

For one level of government, yes I never disputed this. But that is not the only level of the whole process.

Anyway, the democracy bit isnt just electing MPs like in Britain. It's about workers' participation in planning and decision making in industry. Its about soviets controlling what goes on. Involvement of the masses. In my opinion Cuba only pays lip service to all that. From what I can gather they do have a system where a committee of 3 decides on which workers to keep and which to move around. One of the three is picked by the management, one by the workers and one by the union. The unions of course are organs of the Communist Party. Cuba is ruled by a bureaucratic dictatorship.

Right, and the workers don't plan industry in Britain, while in Cuba they do. Working class organizations, like the union federation, play a leading role in society (for example the CTC is one of those organizations that directly helps pick candidates for the National Assembly).

You claim that the union is just an organ of the CP, which is true that they have strong ties of course. But you just discount their actions because you think "it's just a dictatorship." Such "criticism" is a simple jab and does not include an actual analysis.

Oh, how many countries give you 8 years in jail for writing your views down on paper?

Firstly, I did indeed say censorship used to be much worse in Cuba. However, without knowing the details of the case I'm not going to assume that he was completley innocent or guilty. I don't see the importance of this particular case when discussing the overall structure in Cuba.

tart a thread by all means. A planned economy means no capitalist class. It does not include planning by capitalist leaders.
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/ ... ed-economy

Well I suppose it depends on how you're using the term planned economy. It just seems to me that you're avoiding the question of who is the ruling class in Cuba.

No they both argued it because of Marx and Engels. And because it was the only thing that made sense. It was unthinkable not to be internationalist up to 1924. Even early in 1924 Stalin was saying the revolution had to be international.

Right, and many non-Trotskyist Marxists of course got it from Marx and Engels. So there is nothing unique about Trotsky's promotion of international revolution. I don't know why some Trotskyists try to claim a monopoly on the concept.

Luxemburg was similar to Trotsky in that she warned of the dangers of bureaucratism. Her mistake was not not get the Communist Party going quick enough.

I agree that this was her mistake to some extent too, although as I've said before: I also believe that there are many sides to blame for the disaster that was the German Revolution.

He was a Stalinist, but one of the better ones.

And a Marxist who was not a Trotskyist. Thus your claim that all Marxists are Trotskyists is simply false.

Fascinating. A handful of ex-Stalinists who didnt discover Trotsky.

The point is that they demonstrate your claim to be false.

no that sounds boring

How is it any more "boring" than having to constantly talk about Leon Trotsky?

you need to read this

Why?

It is packed with proof that Castro wasnt a communist and he founded the July Movement. Read if ffs, I already debated all this on my original Cuba thread

And that thread was a waste of time. As I said there and elsewhere: it is no secret, nor is it something that requires "proof" that Castro was not initally a Communist. But by the time of the revolution, due to being surrounded by mostly Marxists, he of course became one.

And the very thing you point to shows that the overall composition of the J26M was Marxist! Why it's so important to you that Castro was at one point not a Marxist or not doesn't make much sense to me and frankly just isn't relevant. He clearly became a Marxist, and the J26 Movement was overwhelmingly Marxist. This is something you have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

[daft punk]

You have a very bourgeois liberal conception of what "Democracy" is here. Why would allowing liberal or conservative parties to run candidates make Cuba more of a socialist democracy than disallowing those parties to campaign?

Mind you that the Communist Party is also barred from participating in elections. And the claim that they have no choice is false, there is recall.

I never suggested having liberal parties. But they don't even allow a Marxist to write down his views let alone stand in an election.

The Communist Party is not barred from participating in elections. Half the people standing are members and all say they support the regime. The Communist Party ultimately decides everything. Ordinary people do not have recall of MPs, only at the lowest level do they have recall.

This support has been there the whole time, and I believe was even cited in something that you had posted before. This is of course referring to only one level of government and explicitly mentions the involvement of the lower levels at this level.

In the UK you don't get a direct vote for the PM, so why is it an example of non-democracy in Cuba, yet in the UK that fact okay? If the Communist Party had been a "Trotskyist Party" I have the feeling that these criticisms of yours wouldn't be coming out right now.

I didn't say it's ok not to vote for the PM in the UK, but at least we can stand in local and national elections and campaign on our views.

I never disputed the claim about the National Assembly level. You were never clear that you were talking about that level solely. I, however, was bringing up the various levels of elections while you seem to want to only focus on one level: this is very selective of you.

For one level of government, yes I never disputed this. But that is not the only level of the whole process.

You disputed over and over that people had a choice of one candidate in the national elections. You were wrong to do that. I am focussing on the national elections yeah. That is where the MPs are picked. Obviously the 600 MPs selection is a key process. You get a ballot paper with one name on it. That is not democracy.

Right, and the workers don't plan industry in Britain, while in Cuba they do. Working class organizations, like the union federation, play a leading role in society (for example the CTC is one of those organizations that directly helps pick candidates for the National Assembly).

You claim that the union is just an organ of the CP, which is true that they have strong ties of course. But you just discount their actions because you think "it's just a dictatorship." Such "criticism" is a simple jab and does not include an actual analysis.

Did I claim Britain was socialist? Why compare the two? Totally pointless.

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.

Firstly, I did indeed say censorship used to be much worse in Cuba. However, without knowing the details of the case I'm not going to assume that he was completley innocent or guilty. I don't see the importance of this particular case when discussing the overall structure in Cuba.

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.

Well I suppose it depends on how you're using the term planned economy. It just seems to me that you're avoiding the question of who is the ruling class in Cuba.

Cuba is ruled by a bureaucratic caste

Right, and many non-Trotskyist Marxists of course got it from Marx and Engels. So there is nothing unique about Trotsky's promotion of international revolution. I don't know why some Trotskyists try to claim a monopoly on the concept.

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.

I agree that this was her mistake to some extent too, although as I've said before: I also believe that there are many sides to blame for the disaster that was the German Revolution.

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

And a Marxist who was not a Trotskyist. Thus your claim that all Marxists are Trotskyists is simply false.

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. "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci ... letter.htm

The point is that they demonstrate your claim to be false.

big deal. Well done for taking it so literally.

And that thread was a waste of time. As I said there and elsewhere: it is no secret, nor is it something that requires "proof" that Castro was not initally a Communist. But by the time of the revolution, due to being surrounded by mostly Marxists, he of course became one.

And the very thing you point to shows that the overall composition of the J26M was Marxist! Why it's so important to you that Castro was at one point not a Marxist or not doesn't make much sense to me and frankly just isn't relevant. He clearly became a Marxist, and the J26 Movement was overwhelmingly Marxist. This is something you have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

He became one after the revolution.

"This contrasts with the earlier statements of Fidel Castro recorded by Tad Szulc on his visit to the USA in 1959. 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"

"Philip W Bonsal, the US ambassador in Havana at the time, wrote afterwards that in the spring of 1959:

"Castro’s scenario at this time did not contemplate the massive help in the form of economic aid and weapons that he later received from the Soviet Union…[he] became oriented towards dependence on the Soviet Union only when the United States, by its actions in the spring and summer of 1960, gave the Russians no choice other than to come to Castro’s rescue."

Tad Szulc also underlines Bonsal’s impressions:

"It is certainly arguable that if the United States had not threatened his survival Castro might have chosen domestic Marxist solutions without becoming wholly dependent on the Russians economically and militarily – Yugoslavia and China are not such far-fetched analogies. Moreover, at least a year elapsed before Soviet assistance began arriving on the island, and before that Washington need not have closed off all the alternatives." 51

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

"Suspicious about Fidel’s true political inclinations and, as he admitted later, had not given Cuba his full attention. ‘I didn’t think much about the Cuban revolution. I thought it would be like any other (bourgeois) Latin American revolution…and I wasn’t sure it was a very serious thing’. " 52"

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

[KurtFF8]

I never suggested having liberal parties. But they don't even allow a Marxist to write down his views let alone stand in an election.

The Communist Party is not barred from participating in elections. Half the people standing are members and all say they support the regime. The Communist Party ultimately decides everything. Ordinary people do not have recall of MPs, only at the lowest level do they have recall.

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.

I didn't say it's ok not to vote for the PM in the UK, but at least we can stand in local and national elections and campaign on our views.

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

You disputed over and over that people had a choice of one candidate in the national elections. You were wrong to do that. I am focussing on the national elections yeah. That is where the MPs are picked. Obviously the 600 MPs selection is a key process. You get a ballot paper with one name on it. That is not democracy.

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!).

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.

Did I claim Britain was socialist? Why compare the two? Totally pointless.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

big deal. Well done for taking it so literally.

Is there a figurative way to take the claim "All Marxists are Trotskyists"? It's a pretty straightforward claim that is quite obviously false.

He became one after the revolution.

And your point?

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.