• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      The state is run by the working class,

      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?

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        “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.

        • masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          “Party elites” aren’t a class.

          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.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 days ago

            Let me echo you here:

            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.

            Deeply unserious.

            • masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              Tabloid media trying to conflate publicly owned assets

              Really? So Cuba’s party elites live like the rest of Cuba’s working class, eh?

              The most basic requirements of socialism are that the working class is in control of the state, means of production.

              FTFY.

              No ifs, tankie.

              No buts.

              No ands.

              Deeply unserious.

              As unserious as a (supposed) “socialist” that despises the working class?

                • masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 days ago

                  and it makes you look like a child.

                  Does that turn you on, tankie?

                  Not a sarcastic question, btw… the historical record perfectly shows how your ilk views us working class folk - after all, Marxism-Leninism has always been the ideology of the factory owner.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 days ago

                Socialism isn’t equalitarianism. In Cuba, the working classes do control the means of production and the state. Continuing to pretend I “despise the working class” because I support real, existing worker power and don’t belittle their protracted struggle to protect it isn’t convincing anyone.

                • masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 days ago

                  Socialism isn’t equalitarianism

                  Which part of this…

                  The most basic requirements of socialism are that the working class is in control of the state, means of production.

                  …contains the term “equalitarianism,” tankie?

                  In Cuba, the working classes do control the means of production and the state.

                  Do tell… why do these (supposedly) “classless” party elites you worship so much take to capitalism like ducks to water as soon as they get the chance?

                  Continuing to pretend I “despise the working class”

                  Again… why do you despise the working class?

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 days ago

                    The bit where you implied the existence of inequality meant the existence of class. The party is made up of the working classes, they are not classless. They aren’t a distinct class, but instead a part of the working classes. Instituting small amounts of controlled private property in order to help with their tourism industry is not “taking to capitalism like ducks to water as soon as they get the chance,” Cuba has been socialist for a long time and the recent private concessions are due to struggles from the blockade.

                    I love the working class, that’s why I support the working classes that have taken power around the world and direct the economy to suit the needs of the people, rather than redefine words and imagine an ever-purer and ever-nonexistent version of socialism in my head to compare them to.