Maryland abolishes death penalty.

[FireIceTalon]

I read this over and over again, and it still seems horrifying. What does it mean, to be "required" to take away freedoms, because Cubans, like everyone else, want to be "rich and decadent"? Is the argument that the Cuban system would be great, if only Cubans were different from everyone else, and preferred austere poverty in the name of socialism? I seem to remember Che trying that argument. It seems inhuman.

-Jester

I think eppie is looking at it from the socialist perspective. There are a multitude of reasons why so-called 'communist revolutions' have turned into authoritarian regimes. But the whole "communism cannot work" argument isn't one of them, it doesn't really provide a material explanation of WHY.

Firstly, you have to consider that most of the revolutions thus far are based on a Marxist-Leninist model - that is a revolution led by professional set of intellectuals who take action that guide the working class, rather than directly by the working class themselves. The problem with this of course is that it is elitist and takes on Lenin's assumption that workers can only achieve trade-union consciousness, and not class consciousness. But to be fair, Lenin didn't view it as elitist and I think he intended the Vanguard party to simply consist of the most intellectual and educated of the working class, and have it spread throughout the entire working class over time. It is true that workers need to know what socialism is, as well as understand why capitalism is not in their objective interests. Nevertheless, as a Marxist I distinguish between appearance and essence, and in essence, the Vanguard is elitist, and it is too easy for the party to become a new ruling class. Is is my opinion that if socialism is to prevail, the Leninist model is not one be emulated, and people need to go back to Marx and Engels, who made it very clear that a revolution has to be a bottom-up, democratic movement - by and for the workers. I am all for a MASS proletarian party that is well organized, but not a Vanguard. Party organization is still a big issue of contention on the left, and is one of the reasons why sectarianism persists and our movement remains weak. But I think the second reason below is probably a larger factor still.

You have to put yourself in their situation. In a harsh capitalist world, people like Lenin and Castro faced very difficult choices and circumstances. From their point of view, they have two choices: 1.) they can let the imperialist forces invade their nation and restore capitalism, undoing however many amounts of years of progress toward building socialism they have accomplished. Or 2.) they try to hold on to what they have, which lead to difficulties and a degeneration of the conditions since they are shut out from many markets, forced with limited resources, and under constant threat from western imperialism which results in them becoming a more authoritarian regime that doesn't resemble socialism at all. Then, the bourgeois nations, after forcing them into these conditions turn around and say "see! socialism doesnt work!!", which makes for good pro-capitalist propaganda in the first world. It isn't that socialism as a system can't work - it's that the international bourgeois has done a wonderful job making sure that it doesn't get the chance to come about (thus far), in combination with other material conditions. If there is anything the bourgeois is good at (besides exploiting the working class), it is re-writing history in such a fashion that it presents them in a favorable light (in appearance, but not in essence). I think this is what eppie was getting at, in so many words. This doesn't make the actions of Castro or any other revolutionary leader humane or ethically right by any means (they did a lot of bad things as well as good), but it is important nevertheless to see it from their perspective.