Current Events > Cuba axes "Communist" from constitution, recognizes private property

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-assembly/cuba-aims-to-build-socialism-not-communism-in-draft-constitution-idUSKBN1KB0ML

A draft of Cubas new constitution omits the aim of building communism, recognizes private property and opens the door to gay marriage, in a sign of changing times, although it keeps the Communist Party as the guiding force of the one-party system.

Cubas national assembly is this weekend debating a draft of the document to replace its Soviet-era constitution, reflecting political, social and economic changes designed to make its brand of socialism sustainable and implementing new ones too.

Once lawmakers have approved the draft, it will be submitted to a popular consultation. The final document, which could include changes, will then be put to a national referendum.

The current draft omits a clause in the 1976 constitution on the ultimate aim of building a communist society, instead simply focusing on socialism.

This does not mean we are renouncing our ideas, the president of the National Assembly Esteban Lazo was quoted as saying by state-run media. Cuba had simply moved into a different era following the fall of the Soviet Union, he said.

We believe in a socialist, sovereign, independent, prosperous and sustainable country.

Laying out the new constitution to lawmakers on Saturday, the secretary of the council of state, Homero Acosta, said it included the recognition of private property, something long stigmatized by the Communist Party as a vestige of capitalism.

That change should give greater legal recognition to the micro businesses that have flourished in the wake of market reforms to the ailing state-run economy that have fostered a small but vibrant private sector and attempted to rake in more foreign investment.

Cubas current constitution only recognizes state, cooperative, farmer, personal and joint venture property.

The draft also appears to strengthen political institutions and create a more collective leadership structure, after nearly 60 years of rule by late revolutionary leader Fidel Castro and his younger brother Raul Castro.

Castro, then 86, handed over the presidency in April to his mentee Miguel Diaz-Canel, 58, although he remains head of the Communist Party until 2021. He also heads the constitutional reform commission.

Under the new constitution, the president will no longer be the head of the council of state and council of ministers.

Instead it creates the position of prime minister and designates the president of the assembly also as head of the council of state, Cubas highest executive body.

One of the other top items at Saturdays assembly was the recognition in the draft constitution of marriage as between two individuals rather than a man and a wife.

The draft also sets an age and term limits for presidents, stating they must be under 60 when they first take office and can carry out no more than two consecutive five-year terms.

We've seen this trend in other countries that were previously run by communists, like Romania. Little by little they let in capitalism, see that it revitalizes their economy and increases the standard of living, and then abandon Marx entirely.

Shame it took Cuba this many decades to finally approach the 21st century, but this is a good step in the right direction.

Hooray!

The Failure of Communism
---

Death is a preferable alternative to communism.
---

cool.

i would love for this bullshit to end so america can enjoy the country. everyone i know that has visited said its amazing.
---

Ivynn posted...

Death is a preferable alternative to communism.

That's what the eastern European revolutionaries thought when they fought back against the communists. Godspeed brother.

was Cuba the most successful communist country?
---

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

was Cuba the most successful communist country?

"successful"

silentwing26x posted...

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

was Cuba the most successful communist country?

"successful"

success is relative

although as I'm typing this I remember china is technically* communist so nvm anyway
---

Ivynn posted...

Death is a preferable alternative to communism.

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

was Cuba the most successful communist country?

If by success you mean, longest amount of years with shitty quality of life.
---

chrono625 posted...

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

was Cuba the most successful communist country?

If by success you mean, longest amount of years with shitty quality of life.

But sweet 1950s cars.

chrono625 posted...

If by success you mean, longest amount of years with shitty quality of life.

most years w/o getting violently overthrown is pretty much the only metric I had in mind
---

Good for them.
---

chrono625 posted...

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

was Cuba the most successful communist country?

If by success you mean, longest amount of years with shitty quality of life.

Hey, they were alive!

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

was Cuba the most successful communist country?

tony says it best

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK65t3gj4Cs" data-time="
---

@Godnorgosh
@Paper_Okami
@PiOverlord

rejoice comrades

I'm fine with this. Allow them to gather themselves, set up a good system in place, and then slowly transition into a proper communist society.
---

Hey, remember those communists that loved to use Cuba to argue in favor of communism? Watch those same people now say Cuba was never communist anyway.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

If the proper material conditions aren't in place, communism can't take root. Communism cannot flourish in a globally capitalist environment. Marxists have always known this.

It didn't help that Cuba was blocked by the rest of the world for a long time.
---

> tries communism for 50+ years
> never succeeds because communism produces only starvation and deep poverty

Godnorgosh posted...

If the proper material conditions aren't in place, communism can't take root. Communism cannot flourish in a globally capitalist environment. Marxists have always known this.

So youre saying communism is not possible in this day and age correct? If thats the case why do you continue to call yourself a communist if you know it cant take root? Surely theres more pragmatic ideas that can help illeviate the ills of the world then something that is impossible.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

If the proper material conditions aren't in place, communism can't take root. Communism cannot flourish in a globally capitalist environment. Marxists have always known this.

So youre saying communism is not possible in this day and age correct? If thats the case why do you continue to call yourself to be a communist if you know it cant take root? Surely theres more pragmatic ideas that can help illeviate the ills of the world then something that is impossible.

hint: his parents taught him Marxism from a young age

Thanks Obama.
---

The only way capitalism isn't pragmatic is if a greater governing body is preventing free trade and investment. With force / the death penalty.

Spooking posted...

More countries are wising up to the fact that communism is a complete and utter failure.

B-but Marx prophesied a violent revolution!!1111

Capitalism is always pragmatic unless someone is using force/violence to block free trade and investment. It's an engine of prosperity and development unless force/violence are used to prevent people from engaging in it.

When you don't allow people to invest, have private property, make passive income, etc, you end up with the standards of living seen during feudalism. So feudalism and communism have that standard of living in common, ironically enough. You can see that in how people had to eat their own children (literally) because of starvation in eastern Europe and Soviet Russia.

Godnorgosh posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

If the proper material conditions aren't in place, communism can't take root. Communism cannot flourish in a globally capitalist environment. Marxists have always known this.

So youre saying communism is not possible in this day and age correct? If thats the case why do you continue to call yourself a communist if you know it cant take root? Surely theres more pragmatic ideas that can help illeviate the ills of the world then something that is impossible.

This is like if someone had been plucked from the feudal era and said to you that capitalism isn't pragmatic because it couldn't take root at that particular time and place. Ideology has a tendency to naturalize the present.

But if they were in the feudal era, they would be right, conceiving of a capitalist society wouldnt have been pragmatic. If you were a capitalist in the feudal era, I think people would have been justified to call your views useless, because such ideas would have served no purpose or utility at the time. Conceiving and trying to rationally formulate a vision of society so far out into the future that it transcends the current structure of collectivization is buffoonery, theres too many steps in the historical process that has to go right for that vision to come true, and many of those steps will occur at a more random basis then an intentionally driven one. Communism is one example of such conceptions. Though I have to say it was far more pragmatic and reasonable to be a communist back in 20th century then it is this day and age, that ship has long sailed. Saying youre a communist today is just completely puzzling to me
---

Kazi1212 posted...

Saying youre a communist today is just completely puzzling to me

I mean we're also seeing a resurgence in people who literally think the earth is flat, so something is definitely in our water in 2018.

What were the historical prerequisites for Marx's violent revolution

Imagine if we gave up trying to invent some of the most miraculous things we have, even the lightbulb, because we failed on the first attempt.

Look back, readjust, and retry. We have a deeper understanding of how a working model of communism can work, we just need to implement it.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

Investment wasn't possible under feudalism, dude. And at that time, it wasn't because big daddy gubmint didn't like it. Capitalism has historical prerequisites just like most everything else.

I dont know who that was direct d towards but I didnt deny what you said about capitalism not being pragmatic in the feudal era, but that doesnt invalidate my point about communism being a puzzling stance to maintain in this day and age.
---

iT wIlL wOrK nExT tImE cOmRaDe

Reis posted...

iT wIlL wOrK nExT tImE cOmRaDe

maybe this time only 50 million will die instead of nearly 100 million. small price to pay for inventing the lightbulb!!!!

"But it wasn't real Communism"
---

Communism will be a net positive when someone actually gives a real effort to do it instead of just doing it based on irrational, emotional reactionary movements.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

silentwing26x posted...

What were the historical prerequisites for Marx's violent revolution

https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch40.htm

Btw, so far in human history there hasn't been any such thing as a nonviolent transition from one economic substructure to another. The transitional period between feudalism and capitalism was very bloody.

Let's see what we have here...

POLITICAL ECONOMY
A Textbook issued by the Economics Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R

Bahahahaha!!!

The Soviet Union is a mighty industrial power. In the tempo of development of its industry the Soviet Union is ahead of all the capitalist countries. In the overall amount of industrial production, in the volume of production of such decisive "branches of the national economy as the production of pig-iron and steel, the output of coal and the output of electrical power, the U.S.S.R. is ahead of all capitalist countries except the U.S.A., and holds second place in the world.

However, the task, laid down by V.I. Lenin, of overtaking and outstripping economically the most highly-developed capitalist countries, has not yet been fulfilled. A countrys economic might is determined not by the volume of production generally, but by the volume of production taken in connection with the numbers of the population, that is, calculated per head of population. Together with this, the amount of industrial production and especially of heavy industrial production, is of decisive significance.

LMAO hahahaha

You sure you want to base your worldview on the catastrophically deranged philosophies from the Soviet Union? LOL Jesus Christ.

Godnorgosh posted...

@Kazi1212

The point here is that what you are calling reasons to reject the possibility of communism are not good reasons. They are reasons to reject the possibility of communism given, say, the material conditions present in 20th-century Soviet Russia, similar to the fact that the development of capitalism would have been impossible too early in the development of feudalism.

Recognizing this fact doesn't commit you to communism, but it does commit you to historicizing the present rather than naturalizing it, and interpreting current events accordingly.

@Kazi1212

Note that this is all post hoc bullshit that was invented to explain away the catastrophic and deep communist failures in the 20th century. The Marxist thought leaders of the time all championed what they were doing and were convinced that they were right and that they'd succeed. One timely piece of evidence is the Soviet Union textbook Godnorgosh just linked us to.

Godnorgosh posted...

I knew you'd take the bait and ignore the relevant parts of the text btw, Proddy.

I've read the entire thing. It's all bullshit, and those parts I pasted were the especially hilarious bits and pieces.

There is no sane defense of communism in any of its known incarnations. The reason there won't ever be a violent revolution is because Marx was wrong. Any attempts at violent revolution are in spite of the working class enjoying a higher and higher standard of living over the last 150 years, not because of anything else.

That is simply post hoc apologetic bullshit. They could not implement it in any century beyond Marx's century because the standard of living is rising and will continue to rise thanks to technology, individualism, and property rights. It was impossible and will always remain impossible.