05-31-2013, 09:28 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2013, 10:37 AM by FireIceTalon.)
Although Castro is a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist, most communists did/do not consider the Cuban Revolution to be a "socialist" or proletarian revolution. If anything, in some ways it could be viewed as reactionary since it was much more of a national-liberation movement than it was a proletarian revolution (The 1917 Russian Revolution and the Paris Commune of 1871 were actual proletarian movements, the Egyptian Revolution a couple years ago was a national-liberation movement). The working class in Cuba was a very small minority during the time, much in the same way it was during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 - although Lenin and the Bolsheviks clearly intended for it to be a genuine workers revolution that would spread throughout Europe (the SPD's vote for WW1, which contributed to the failure of the German Revolution led to the isolation of the Bolsheviks, coupled with 'white' bourgeois invasion, resulting in a civil war, pretty much killed any chance for the revolution to become successful and forcing Lenin to employ the NEP). Although many Marxists will disagree with me, I think capitalism is a necessary pre-requisite, to some extent, for socialism. It is pretty difficult to build socialism straight from a feudal-like society, especially in the face of capitalist imperialist threats. But if revolutions take place in the developed nations first, assuming they are successful, it could then be possible for them to assist 3rd world nations in going from feudal or early-capitalism to develop socialism.
From a Marxist view point, any sort of movement that seeks to preserve a particular culture, set of values or tradition, or nationalism is viewed as reactionary, not revolutionary (at least not in Marxist sense). This is why I (and most communists) have rather mixed feelings about the Cuban Revolution. I respect the fact Castro wanted free the Cuban people from the US backed dictator Batista, and in that sense he has my full support in defending them from the largest and most powerful imperial threat on the planet, but he also did it to preserve Cuba's culture from being westernized, more than he intended it to be a genuine proletarian movement. Socialists (especially Leninists) must own up to that, instead of blindly defending him, just as it doesn't make sense to blindly demonize him also. I don't make it a point to support national liberation movements, since they are in the big picture contrary to the aims of communists, yet any movement that improves the lives of a substantial amount of people (and lets be real, Cubans are MUCH better off under Castro than they were under a US sponsored dictator that was there to leech the countries resources so us spoiled brats in the first world retain our higher standard of living, while the Cuban literacy rate floundered at a dismal 60%, with mass poverty everywhere) deserves support in some way. It would be rather dogmatic of me to dismiss it just because it doesn't align with our ultimate goals.
At any rate, Cuba isn't and never was communist, since as I've explained many times before that communism/socialism in one country is impossible (unless your a Stalinist of course, and anyone who is actually for socialism and all that it merits should distance themselves as far from Stalinism as possible). Communism is international, democratic, and classless/stateless, so as long as there is a state, that means classes exist, and therefore communism does not exist.....and it cannot do so until capitalism is fully defeated. And even once capitalism is defeated, we cannot just go straight into communism (only Anarchists think this is possible, and it's not) - it must be built first and it will require first a successful 'dictatorship of the proletariat' since reactionary/counter-revolutionary forces are still likely to exist. I look at places like Cuba and the former USSR as being 'social democratic states with bayonets". Thats really the best way to describe them, although Castro's politics are substantially more democratic (and far less lethal) than Stalin's ever were. In either case, neither of them resemble socialism/communism in the least bit - they were/are no closer to being socialist than either Sweden or the US. Free healthcare and education provided by a state or guaranteed employment do NOT constitute socialism, and yet so many people have this weird misconception that if the government is wiping your ass in some way, it must be socialist
From a Marxist view point, any sort of movement that seeks to preserve a particular culture, set of values or tradition, or nationalism is viewed as reactionary, not revolutionary (at least not in Marxist sense). This is why I (and most communists) have rather mixed feelings about the Cuban Revolution. I respect the fact Castro wanted free the Cuban people from the US backed dictator Batista, and in that sense he has my full support in defending them from the largest and most powerful imperial threat on the planet, but he also did it to preserve Cuba's culture from being westernized, more than he intended it to be a genuine proletarian movement. Socialists (especially Leninists) must own up to that, instead of blindly defending him, just as it doesn't make sense to blindly demonize him also. I don't make it a point to support national liberation movements, since they are in the big picture contrary to the aims of communists, yet any movement that improves the lives of a substantial amount of people (and lets be real, Cubans are MUCH better off under Castro than they were under a US sponsored dictator that was there to leech the countries resources so us spoiled brats in the first world retain our higher standard of living, while the Cuban literacy rate floundered at a dismal 60%, with mass poverty everywhere) deserves support in some way. It would be rather dogmatic of me to dismiss it just because it doesn't align with our ultimate goals.
At any rate, Cuba isn't and never was communist, since as I've explained many times before that communism/socialism in one country is impossible (unless your a Stalinist of course, and anyone who is actually for socialism and all that it merits should distance themselves as far from Stalinism as possible). Communism is international, democratic, and classless/stateless, so as long as there is a state, that means classes exist, and therefore communism does not exist.....and it cannot do so until capitalism is fully defeated. And even once capitalism is defeated, we cannot just go straight into communism (only Anarchists think this is possible, and it's not) - it must be built first and it will require first a successful 'dictatorship of the proletariat' since reactionary/counter-revolutionary forces are still likely to exist. I look at places like Cuba and the former USSR as being 'social democratic states with bayonets". Thats really the best way to describe them, although Castro's politics are substantially more democratic (and far less lethal) than Stalin's ever were. In either case, neither of them resemble socialism/communism in the least bit - they were/are no closer to being socialist than either Sweden or the US. Free healthcare and education provided by a state or guaranteed employment do NOT constitute socialism, and yet so many people have this weird misconception that if the government is wiping your ass in some way, it must be socialist
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)