Cuban democracy is comprehensive, and public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. The working classes already control the means of production. You’re the one making outlandish claims with no evidence.
The United Kingdom has a monarch, is it not capitalist?
Are political-economic systems something that switch instantly from one pure form to the next, or are they epochal changes stretching over hundreds of years?
or are they epochal changes stretching over hundreds of years?
You tell me - the change from state feudalism to state capitalism was achieved relatively quickly in Russia… and then it took it’s sweet time turning into a liberal capitalist oligarchy.
It took hundreds of years for the whole of Europe to transition through the stages of feudalism, leading up to its political overthrow and replacement with bourgeoise democracies, whether true republics or consitutional monarchies. The first European republic, France, was even defeated by a coalition of monarchies and had its royalty restored! But that didn’t change the gradual transition of economic forces that lead inescapably to the political dominance of the capitalist class. The monarchies of Europe didn’t lose their power all at once, but as the capitalist class gained power they flipped one by one, or else had the actual political power of their aristocracy quietly stripped away. Thus it is with capitalist republics across the world today. Over perhaps hundreds of years, capitalist republics will become socialist, some socialist projects will be overthrown by coalitions of capitalists the way France was (e.g. the Paris Commune, the USSR, Yugoslavia) but as the capitalist economy was superior to the feudal economy in terms of industrial output - even in countries that still had a monarchy, like the German or British Empires - so the socialist centrally-planned economy is superior to the capitalist one, even when there are still markets present, which will eventually lead to global political domination by the working class. After the last capitalist republic has been overthrown, and the working class has fully eliminated capitalist ownership, hence the capitalist class, hence competing class interests entirely, then the structures and organizations required for that task can be decomissioned, some kind of borderless world government can be instituted, all economic activity can be directed for the fulfillment of needs, etc. And probably, in regions far from the front lines and risks of capitalist sabotage, such conditions would probably already be well-established in practice. But it could take another one or two hundred years to reach that point.
The state is run by the working class, it isn’t outside of class struggle but within it. The working class directs production, produces to suit the needs of the people, and maintains a state to protect themselves from imperialists and sabateurs. You’re trying to redefine socialism entirely.
Are you trying to claim there is no party elites in Cuba, tankie?
Should I look up Raúl Castro’s net worth, perhaps?
Or would you prefer I don’t?
I have to wonder… if there is such a thing as a state that is “run” by the working class - then the very concept of communism must be perfectly redundant to you, musn’t it?
it isn’t outside of class struggle but within it.
Lol! As opposed to… what? Does the liberal world wage class war on anything other than the working class, perhaps?
“Party elites” aren’t a class. The petite bourgoeisie and bourgeoisie that exist in Cuba are classes, but the working class exerts power over them with the state. When you try to take the state out of class struggle and pretend it to be a distinct class in and of itself, outside of the realm of production and distribution, you’re making a fundamental error.
Communism isn’t redundant because Cuba still has class, money, and the state. Production and distribution aren’t globally collectivized, Cuba very much has armies, defense, laws on property, etc. that would be phased out over time. However, they are very clearly in a transitional state between capitalism and communism, which is what socialism is to begin with.
Your obsession with defining socialism as a “pure” system is utterly unconvincing, no other mode of production has been pure, so there’s no need to pretend socialism is either.
Gee… Fidel’s little brother is worth a sweet $100 million, eh? Not too shabby for such a “classless” person. I wonder how all the other party elites are doing?
you’re making a fundamental error.
No, tankie… it doesn’t look like I am.
Communism isn’t redundant because Cuba still has class,
Oh, really? You don’t say?
that would be phased out over time.
Lol!
in a transitional state between capitalism and communism,
Is that why they legalised private property in their new constitution?
Your obsession with defining socialism as a “pure” system is utterly unconvincing,
Requiring that socialism meet the most basic requirement of socialism in order to be called socialism is a very simple test, tankie.
The hollowness of your ideology is now mere historical record.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and you have provided zero.
Tabloid media trying to conflate publicly owned assets in Cuba as constituting Fidel and Raul’s net worth is bargain bin red scare nonsense.
Requiring that socialism meet the most basic requirement of socialism in order to be called socialism is a very simple test, tankie.
The most basic requirements of socialism are that the working class is in control of the state, and public ownership is the princiole aspect of the economy. It’s qualitatively different from capitalist economies, where capitalists are in charge of the state and private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Pretending a worker-run, publicly owned economy is capitalist all the way until they reach communism is absurd.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and you have provided zero.
Really? Then why do you peddle an ideology that preclude the very possibility of the working class controlling the means of production?
Or do you “love” the working class in the same psychotic way that the aristocracy proclaimed to “love” serfs and peasants?
Cuban democracy is comprehensive, and public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. The working classes already control the means of production. You’re the one making outlandish claims with no evidence.
And?
Extolling the ways in which the Cuban state manages electoral processes is supposed to prove… what?
You seem to be assuming that the word “public” is going to be doing all the heavy lifting for you. It’s not.
Does the cuban state control the means of production in Cuba or does it not?
The United Kingdom has a monarch, is it not capitalist?
Are political-economic systems something that switch instantly from one pure form to the next, or are they epochal changes stretching over hundreds of years?
You tell me - the change from state feudalism to state capitalism was achieved relatively quickly in Russia… and then it took it’s sweet time turning into a liberal capitalist oligarchy.
It seems to vary.
It took hundreds of years for the whole of Europe to transition through the stages of feudalism, leading up to its political overthrow and replacement with bourgeoise democracies, whether true republics or consitutional monarchies. The first European republic, France, was even defeated by a coalition of monarchies and had its royalty restored! But that didn’t change the gradual transition of economic forces that lead inescapably to the political dominance of the capitalist class. The monarchies of Europe didn’t lose their power all at once, but as the capitalist class gained power they flipped one by one, or else had the actual political power of their aristocracy quietly stripped away. Thus it is with capitalist republics across the world today. Over perhaps hundreds of years, capitalist republics will become socialist, some socialist projects will be overthrown by coalitions of capitalists the way France was (e.g. the Paris Commune, the USSR, Yugoslavia) but as the capitalist economy was superior to the feudal economy in terms of industrial output - even in countries that still had a monarchy, like the German or British Empires - so the socialist centrally-planned economy is superior to the capitalist one, even when there are still markets present, which will eventually lead to global political domination by the working class. After the last capitalist republic has been overthrown, and the working class has fully eliminated capitalist ownership, hence the capitalist class, hence competing class interests entirely, then the structures and organizations required for that task can be decomissioned, some kind of borderless world government can be instituted, all economic activity can be directed for the fulfillment of needs, etc. And probably, in regions far from the front lines and risks of capitalist sabotage, such conditions would probably already be well-established in practice. But it could take another one or two hundred years to reach that point.
Ohhh… a believer in the mythical “self-withering” state, eh?
I’ll just put that right next to the liberal’s equally fanciful “free market,” ok?
The state is run by the working class, it isn’t outside of class struggle but within it. The working class directs production, produces to suit the needs of the people, and maintains a state to protect themselves from imperialists and sabateurs. You’re trying to redefine socialism entirely.
Are you trying to claim there is no party elites in Cuba, tankie?
Should I look up Raúl Castro’s net worth, perhaps?
Or would you prefer I don’t?
I have to wonder… if there is such a thing as a state that is “run” by the working class - then the very concept of communism must be perfectly redundant to you, musn’t it?
Lol! As opposed to… what? Does the liberal world wage class war on anything other than the working class, perhaps?
“Party elites” aren’t a class. The petite bourgoeisie and bourgeoisie that exist in Cuba are classes, but the working class exerts power over them with the state. When you try to take the state out of class struggle and pretend it to be a distinct class in and of itself, outside of the realm of production and distribution, you’re making a fundamental error.
Communism isn’t redundant because Cuba still has class, money, and the state. Production and distribution aren’t globally collectivized, Cuba very much has armies, defense, laws on property, etc. that would be phased out over time. However, they are very clearly in a transitional state between capitalism and communism, which is what socialism is to begin with.
Your obsession with defining socialism as a “pure” system is utterly unconvincing, no other mode of production has been pure, so there’s no need to pretend socialism is either.
Gee… Fidel’s little brother is worth a sweet $100 million, eh? Not too shabby for such a “classless” person. I wonder how all the other party elites are doing?
No, tankie… it doesn’t look like I am.
Oh, really? You don’t say?
Lol!
Is that why they legalised private property in their new constitution?
Requiring that socialism meet the most basic requirement of socialism in order to be called socialism is a very simple test, tankie.
The hollowness of your ideology is now mere historical record.
Let me echo you here:
Tabloid media trying to conflate publicly owned assets in Cuba as constituting Fidel and Raul’s net worth is bargain bin red scare nonsense.
The most basic requirements of socialism are that the working class is in control of the state, and public ownership is the princiole aspect of the economy. It’s qualitatively different from capitalist economies, where capitalists are in charge of the state and private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Pretending a worker-run, publicly owned economy is capitalist all the way until they reach communism is absurd.
Deeply unserious.
Really? So Cuba’s party elites live like the rest of Cuba’s working class, eh?
FTFY.
No ifs, tankie.
No buts.
No ands.
As unserious as a (supposed) “socialist” that despises the working class?