Do workers control the means of production in Cuba?

So they don't.

this is kinda half true and half not, cuba utilises co-ops and local democracy as well as central planning

If only some tendency had a term for a society that has advanced beyond the productive characteristics of capitalism but where the working class as a whole don't wield direct political and economic power.

Oh wait. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformed_workers'_state

yeah but a lot of what were ccops or SOEs have been privatized since the 90s

Pick one.

Pick one.

I don't see how this matters. I don't really care who has management power.

Its sorta state capitalism with lots of social democracy and decent worker control to a limited extend

Capitalism with no bourgeois ruling class (noticed how it's not called bourgeoisism?).

Your turn:

Capitalism doesn't necessarily need classes. Notice when in the manuscripts of 1844 Marx mentions that in Proudhon's society, the result is merely that every worker becomes an abstract capitalist? Commodity production and wage labor…

I guess class struggle isn't the driving force behind all previous forms of society. Thanks anons, you sure showed me, a Marxist.

And just to expand upon this: Commodity production and wage labor both existed in various forms for several hundred and even thousand years before capitalism. What defines the capitalist mode of production are a ruling class of profiteers who practice capital accumulation, and a large group of landless, dispossessed industrial workers with nothing to sell but their labor. This class distinction IS what drives capitalism. You can not have capital without a capitalist class. It literally doesn't make any sense, you stupid, stupid fucking leftcoms.

Pathetic strawman. Capitalists as the personification of capital need not exist in a society for there to be capitalism: see market "socialism". Even worse, as this happens, the rules of capital continued unharmed and you'll likely get a bourgeoisie, even if disguised, as alienated labor keeps reproducing private property.

Read Marx, specifically the Economical and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Better, all of him.

The military had more of a say in production than the average worker when central planning was first implemented, and now a central bureaucracy is selling off the nationalized industry to private companies and individuals, and letting the unprofitable parts, particularly shitty farmlands, be seized by their workers. To answer your question, in a small portion, yes, for the most part, no.

My problem with Cuba is that Castro did very little to actual industrialize and modernize Cuba. He essentially took the aid from the Soviets, funneled it into the military, and went off on grand military adventures in Africa (Ethiopia, Somalia, Angola). Not that any of those adventurers weren't a good thing (especially fighting Apartheid South Africa), but Cuba itself would be in a much better predicament today if it had the industries required to produce the things it needs.

The education and social services are great, but you can't sustain those kind of services without a substantial industrial base to produce the medicines that hospitals need etc.

I mean even North Korea, despite all the military spending, still has industry which can sustain them despite being basically under complete blockade by the world. Cuba has literally nothing but sugar crops, it's why they're so dependent on foreign trade and tourism.

Tell me something, "Marxist": if with some magical instrument we managed to kill instantly every single capitalist in the world, does that mean that we would also instantly move towards communism?

No because material conditions are not sufficiently advanced for communism yet TEE BEE AYTCH. It would be a boost, but the shoes would be filled in time.

I know Cuba has a legislature and is big on highly localized democracy to select candidates for said legislature, but how much actual power does it have? Is it the main decision making body or just a rubber stamp? Somewhere in between?

And so were they in 1980's Russia.

Marx acknowledges this but states that what distinguishes capitalism from previous modes of production is that commodity production has become generalized across the entire economy; no longer isolated in the periphery of informal economic sectors.

...

That's great and all but it doesn't answer his question

So they own it just semantically?

No, there is private property, the party is extremely corrupt and the govt is corrupt.

Bump

And yes