Re: State capitalism?

[Louis N Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Jorn Andersen wrote:

>
> Yes, Louis this is the basic distinction. It is not formal and
> schematic. It is based on an assumption that socialism equals
> workers in power - collectively and democratically. Nothing more,
> and nothing less.
>

Louis: Socialism is an ideal, isn't it? We have the same ideal. But in the
meantime, what do we say about a country like Cuba, which *by its very
relationship* to the superpower to its north, will have all sorts of
flaws. Fine. Let's not call it socialist. But capitalist?!

There is absolutely no difference between the USSR in its infancy and Cuba
today. The analogies are actually quite striking if you choose to examine
Cuba in any kind of depth. There are problems with bureaucracy. It is a
single-party state. It is making concessions to the international
bourgeosie through NEP-like measures. It has a revolutionary foreign
policy. It encourages bold innovations in the arts. It has produced
dramatic improvements in the everyday lives of workers and peasants.

If you think capitalism could produce such profound and positive change in
Cuban society, then perhaps we should take a more critical look at the
"Communist Manifesto" or maybe write something called the "State
Capitalist Manifesto".




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---