Date: 11 Mar 2002 10:35:32 +0200
From: "Tahir Wood" <twood-AT-uwc.ac.za>
Subject: Re: AUT: alternatives to capitalist cuba?




>>> miyachi9-AT-gctv.ne.jp 03/08/02 08:15PM >>>
About Cuba, and ex-USSR, or current China, I think, they can be defined as
transitional state rather communism nor capitalism.

I think this is really the only important point. The Leninist argument turns on just this point. If these societies are not in transition to communism then they really don't have any significance as "socialist states". I agree with those who have cited Bordiga's argument in this discussion: that all of the regimes that we have been talking about are actually in a transition to capitalism. That is, the revolution from above has precisely the function of doing what Bordiga identified as the essence of capitalism: "capitalism is the revolution in agriculture". From such a perspective it makes very little sense to distinguish rigidly the 'state capitalist' project in Cuba from say that of Franco's Spain. To say that one or other state had some greater measure of social welfare or something similar comes nowhere near the main point. The idea that a "socialist state" ("socialism" in one country) is a way of leading to communism is a religious belief. It could only have been said to have been proved if it had shown at least some sign of going that way, but of course there is no such evidence at all. 

Personally I believe that the argument for socialism as the lower stage of communism can only have meaning on an international scale, because that would imply each of the former nation states being liberated from a world system. It is important I think to not slip into the kind of voluntarist argument here, which is very vulnerable to ridicule, namely that Castro et all did not create genuine socialism because they were too reactionary in their ideas, too stupid, too lazy or some such thing. They didn't create socialism as the lower stage of communism because no one can in a situation like that. The idea itself is a nonsense. Once you take charge of a nation state within the framework of global capitalism you are administering a capitalist state and there's no way out of that. All you will do is create a measure of semi-autarkic development for a while, which history will show to have been the development of capitalism, despite what the intentions behind it were - China is the most beautifully clear example of this that we can now see. So what are the options then for such countries? Let's talk about that rather - that's more what I had in mind for the direction of this discussion when I initiated the thread.
Tahir



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---