Re: Revisiting old problems

[Louis N Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 31 May 1996, Adam Rose wrote:

> But my criterion for socialism is simple, "socialism == workers power == a
> commune state". Such a state doesn't exist in Cuba, therefore Cuba is not
> socialist. Now, are you arguing that there is such a state in Cuba ? Or
> are you arguing that socialism is something different to workers power ?
> Choose your horn.
>

Louis: If this isn't an example of undialectical thinking, then I don't
know what is. My approach to understanding Cuba is in terms of class
relations. In 12th century Poland the dominant form of class relations
was feudal. In 19th century Poland the dominant form was bourgeois with
strong feudal remnants. There are very few examples in history where a
society exists in either a purely feudal or purely bourgeois condition.
Societies are always in transition.

Just as societies in development have contradictory traits, so does a
specific class as well, such as the bourgeosie or the proletariat.
These classes are not created the way God created earth. We know that the
working-class has its roots in the artisan guilds of 13th century Italy
and elsewhere but it takes centuries before this incipient class takes
final form as the proletariat as such. There was no immediate rupture. All
we can be sure of is the general direction with all of its contradictions.

Cuba abolished capitalist property relations in 1960. There were no
soviets. There was no socialist democracy and Castro has run Cuba the way
his father ran his plantation. That being said, the Cuban regime has been
unique in the way the needs of the working-class and the peasantry came
first. This is only explainable as a function of the Marxist orientation
of the Cuban government. Castro may not be a Tony Cliff type Marxist, but
he is a Marxist nonetheless. I defy you to name another country in Latin
American or Central American history which has undergone the kind of
profound social transformation Cuba has.

You are right about one thing. Your understanding of socialism certainly
is simple. It permits you to have a very complacent approach to very
difficult problems. You have created an ideal socialism that exists
nowhere in reality for the simple reason that it can't. As Marx said in
the Eighteenth Brumaire, humanity makes history but not in the way it
chooses. It is always subject to the contraints of the history it
inherits.

The problem with "state capitalists" is that they rely on a formula. This
formula allows them to avoid concrete analysis. Since the workers don't
rule Cuba the way they ran the Paris Commune, this saves you the trouble
of sorting out the messy details. Who rules Cuba? Adam Rose says it is the
"state capitalists". I would challenge Adam to fill in some detail about
these "state capitalists", but from experience I know that he, like the
other Trotskyists on this list, can't be bothered with details.




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---