|
|
Post by RedFlag32 on Oct 19, 2006 21:49:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dangeresque on Oct 19, 2006 23:25:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by RedFlag32 on Oct 20, 2006 7:27:48 GMT
Cheers mate, feel free to add links we dont have here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on Oct 20, 2006 9:05:21 GMT
Nice one lads! Keep up the good work  |
|
|
|
Post by redgalway on Oct 25, 2006 18:43:22 GMT
Workers’ democracy Seventy years ago, in Revolution Betrayed, in relation to the Soviet Union, Leon Trotsky posed the question: “Will the bureaucrat devour the workers’ state, or will the working class clean up the bureaucrat?… the workers fear lest, in throwing out the bureaucracy, they will open the way for a capitalist restoration”. (p215, Dover Publications) For big sections of the population, this probably sums up the mood in Cuba today. But the discontent is growing, particularly among the new generation; 73% of Cuba’s population were born after the triumph of the revolution in 1959. This alienation of the new generation may lead, as one commentator put it, in the long run to a “revolution with no heirs”. Castro does not appear to recognise the problem, nor is he or the group around him capable of implementing measures to guarantee the gains of the revolution. He has declared: “I don’t believe it is really necessary to have more than one party… How could our country have stood firm if had been split up into ten pieces?... I think that exploitation of one human by another must disappear before you can have real democracy”. However, without real workers’ democracy – the ending of the one-party monopoly, fair elections to genuine workers’ councils with the right of all those (including the Trotskyists) to stand in elections, strict control over incomes, and with the right of recall over all elected officials – the Cuban revolution is in danger, especially if Fidel Castro is off the scene. Cuba is not a ‘socialist’ state. Even a healthy workers’ state, with workers’ democracy, in one country or in a few countries, would be transitional between capitalism and the starting point for socialism. Cuba is not a healthy workers’ state as understood by Lenin and Trotsky, and generally accepted by Marxists following them. Nor is it a ‘workers’ state with bureaucratic deformations’, as some have recently argued. Such a regime did exist in the first sage after the Russian revolution between 1917-23. The Bolsheviks, in the words of Lenin, because of the cultural backwardness of Russia, had been forced to take over “the old tsarist state machine with a thin veneer of socialism”. This problem could only be overcome on the world arena by the spreading of the Russian revolution. In the state which existed even after 1923, Trotsky and the Left Opposition fought for ‘reforms’, measures to cut down the ‘bureaucratic deformations’. However, the consolidation of the bureaucratic elite, personified by the rise of Stalin, posed the issue not of ‘reform’ but of the Stalinist state and the bureaucracy being removed if Russia was to move towards socialism. Cuba and its revolution had many different features than the Russian revolution, and Castro was not Stalin, as we have explained elsewhere (See Socialism Today No.89, and the book, Cuba: Socialism and Democracy). But the existence of a defined caste, a bureaucracy, with interests of its own, now counterposed to maintaining the Cuban revolution and its further advance, is confirmed by Castro’s alarm for the future and the measures he initiated against the bureaucracy before he fell ill. Cuba is what Trotsky called a ‘deformed workers’ state’, a planned economy, but with power in the hands of a privileged caste of bureaucrats. Flowing from the characterisation of Cuba as merely ‘a workers’ state with bureaucratic deformations’, some argue that what is needed is ‘reforms’ and not a ‘political revolution’. But historical experience has shown that a ruling, privileged layer of society, whether it be capitalists or a bureaucratic elite, is conscious of its power and will fight to retain it, sometimes using the most ruthless means. The need for a political revolution in Russia, advanced by Trotsky, was a scientific description of what was required to free the planned economy from the grip of a wasteful, greedy bureaucracy. It was not a day-to-day action programme, with ‘Trotskyists’ in Russia urged to go out onto the streets and proclaim ‘political revolution’. They argued for ‘workers’ democracy’. The starting point for socialism would be a higher level of production and technique than the highest level reached by capitalism up to now. This means that the beginning of socialism would imply a higher level of technique and therefore of living standards than the US, which is only possible through a world plan of production controlled by the working class. However, with the absence of workers’ democracy, the transition towards socialism in one state or a number of states is impossible and might lead, as the example of the Soviet Union implies, not to socialism but to a degeneration and, ultimately, to a collapse back to capitalism. The real danger to an isolated workers’ state, as Trotsky commented, lies not so much in a military invasion but the “cheap goods in the baggage train of imperialism”. A huge influx of tourists, particularly millions from the US with dollars in their back pockets, would pose big problems for Cuba and strengthen the elements of capitalism that already exist. taken from www.socialistworld.net. website for the CWI (committee for a workers' internat)ional |
|
|
|
Post by herensuge on Nov 2, 2007 20:46:09 GMT
lmao, fuck you, fuck Trotsky and the ice pick he rode out on. Trotsky was an elitist cunt who tried to kill of the Russian peasantry instead of trying to help them. Revolution comes from human spirit not from a social class! to say only an intellectual in trotsky's case, could control the revolution is shit. Cuba is socialist and so it shall remain.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedFlag32 on Nov 6, 2007 20:28:13 GMT
lmao, fuck you, fuck Trotsky and the ice pick he rode out on. Trotsky was an elitist cunt who tried to kill of the Russian peasantry instead of trying to help them. Revolution comes from human spirit not from a social class! to say only an intellectual in trotsky's case, could control the revolution is shit. Cuba is socialist and so it shall remain.   |
|
|
|
Post by dangeresque on Nov 13, 2007 21:19:17 GMT
lmao, fuck you, fuck Trotsky and the ice pick he rode out on. Trotsky was an elitist cunt who tried to kill of the Russian peasantry instead of trying to help them. Revolution comes from human spirit not from a social class! to say only an intellectual in trotsky's case, could control the revolution is shit. Cuba is socialist and so it shall remain. Please don't use such language with comrades here. Trotsky was clearly wrong on some issues and made excellent contributions in other areas. |
|
|
|
Post by dangeresque on Nov 13, 2007 22:21:51 GMT
But the discontent is growing, particularly among the new generation; 73% of Cuba’s population were born after the triumph of the revolution in 1959. This alienation of the new generation may lead, as one commentator put it, in the long run to a “revolution with no heirs”. Castro does not appear to recognise the problem, nor is he or the group around him capable of implementing measures to guarantee the gains of the revolution. I dont' think that's a reasonable thing to say. Recent mass campaigns against corruption and so on would contradict this. However, without real workers’ democracy – the ending of the one-party monopoly, This point is not logical, or supported by the available evidence. It doesn't matter how many parties there are - the USA has more than one party, and by this reasoning is thus more democratic. But it clearly isn't. there are more differences of politics with the Cuban CP then there are between the USA's two major parties. Measuring the state's behaviour against the popular will, Cuba comes off favourably, and the USA as unrepresentative. Cuba is not a healthy workers’ state as understood by Lenin and Trotsky, and generally accepted by Marxists following them. Nor is it a ‘workers’ state with bureaucratic deformations’, as some have recently argued. Cuba and its revolution had many different features than the Russian revolution, and Castro was not Stalin, as we have explained elsewhere (See Socialism Today No.89, and the book, Cuba: Socialism and Democracy). But the existence of a defined caste, a bureaucracy, with interests of its own, now counterposed to maintaining the Cuban revolution and its further advance, is confirmed by Castro’s alarm for the future and the measures he initiated against the bureaucracy before he fell ill. Cuba is what Trotsky called a ‘deformed workers’ state’, a planned economy, but with power in the hands of a privileged caste of bureaucrats. Flowing from the characterisation of Cuba as merely ‘a workers’ state with bureaucratic deformations’, some argue that what is needed is ‘reforms’ and not a ‘political revolution’. But historical experience has shown that a ruling, privileged layer of society, whether it be capitalists or a bureaucratic elite, is conscious of its power and will fight to retain it, sometimes using the most ruthless means. The problem with this analysis is that it makes little sense, it collapses under its own contradictions. If there is a special caste, why do they behave as they do? This defies Marxism's materialist understanding of the world - it states that there is a non-selfish, altruistic ruling class in Cuba. That would be the only way to reconcile this "analysis" with the reality of how the Cuban state takes care of its people. The need for a political revolution in Russia, advanced by Trotsky, was a scientific description of what was required to free the planned economy from the grip of a wasteful, greedy bureaucracy. It was not a day-to-day action programme, with ‘Trotskyists’ in Russia urged to go out onto the streets and proclaim ‘political revolution’. They argued for ‘workers’ democracy’. Come off it. Trotksy's call for a political revolution in the USSR was one of his biggest mistakes. It opened the way for the ruling class to rollback all the gains made by the Revolution! Though I agree with Trotsky in many areas, this particular Trotskyist piety is thoroughly discredited. That's why the SWP (USA) moved away from Trotskyism. The starting point for socialism would be a higher level of production and technique than the highest level reached by capitalism up to now. This means that the beginning of socialism would imply a higher level of technique and therefore of living standards than the US, which is only possible through a world plan of production controlled by the working class. Retreating into stagist menshevism now? |
|
|
|
Post by Stallit 2 de Halfo on Nov 13, 2007 22:23:37 GMT
Only a year too late ;D
|
|
www.toddpnyc.com/bloqueo/
