Why hasn't Cuba created communism yet?

Why hasn't Cuba created communism yet?

Will they ever?

Probably not in its current state. Communism cannot come into existence when the society in question is fundamentally isolated from resources necessary for reasonable standards of living and future growth. Unless Latin America as a whole goes socialist (opening greater world interaction between states in solidarity) or the US goes socialist (removing the barrier to world interaction), it will likely remain as it is. It's also important to note that Cuba still has primarily state-run industry rather than worker run, so they've still got work to do before even attaining socialism.

1-Communism can't be archived if non communist nations or forces exist, because it's a classeless stateless society, and without a state to defend the revolution it wouldn't last a day

2-communism is also moneyles and without scarcity, so if you have scarcity you need a state to rationate things

...

What resources does Cuba need?

says who?

Correct me if i'm wrong but why would you need money if everything was free?

communists

Is refering to

it'll wither away, bro

The definition of communism. All communists agree.

All kind of minerals and wood (if they cut to much they risk to end like haiti) and energy resources like oil and coal

because achieving communism is stupid hard to impossible until we get to the point where machines do most of the jobs and are our "slaves"


remember human evolution goes: feudalism > capitalism > socialism > stark trek society (aka full communism)

Read marx

Why can't the island state of Cuba create a worldwide post-scarcity, classless, stateless, moneyless society?

I'm stumped.

While we are here, Cuba is hardly the poster boy of what we can achieve through worker democracy and ending private property.

you don't say

wrong way round as usual, typical anarchist

The anarchist way. Don't you know theory is authoritarian?

Read a book nigger

...

kek, way to miss the point

The proletatiat only exists as a ruled class. After a revolution it is abolished.

so given these two points is communism actually possible or is it just a vehicle for 'progressive' politics?

This is what anarkiddies (who throw out/haven't read Proudhon or Kropotkin) on leftypol actually believe.

Feel free to debunk me.

The proletariat is more than a class; it's a relation to production. Unless we reach some kind of ultra-automated post-scarcity communism where even basic maintenance of automatons won't be required, productive and unproductive labour functionally make one proletarian. This is why Marx speaks of the proletariat under communism as ruling class; because its functions do not cede with a formal abolishment of the bourgeoisie. Proudhon says the same thing in General Idea of the Revolution; there's no 'debunking' needed here because you're not positing some claim for me to prove wrong. This is literally just your lack of education on the subject both from the Marxist view, but the anarchist view as well by far.

My lads have been wew'd.

Tell me I'm illiterate again though. It makes you look cool.

"Classless" implies the lack of social stratas; of the domination of an underclass or underclass by an upper class or upperclasses. The proletarian class was born from the creation of industry; it is what enabled its existence. There's a reason Marx called the working class post-mercantilism the proletariat, but not under feudalism. It is therefore not simply, as you said, 'just those who work'.

Engels, Principles of Communism: third chapter
Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution: the entire second fucking half

Is it possible to have a special forces military unit under post-statism? Cuba has survived because of its secret agents, and the US's wet-foot-dry-foot policy (all Cubans who step onto the continental US can immediately claim asylum).

...

Yes, this is the materialist conclusion drawn by literally every prominent Marxist and anarchist communist. Even gender abolitionists don't pretend that the inexistence of social gender enforcement would somehow end the gender binary of male and female. The existence of only one class; its material relation towards production. It is indivisible.

Castro already gave up and said communism doesn't work.

It's over for them.

It's time to give up on latin america period as we've seen in brasil in venezuela and others.

Am I getting wew'd or are you just a Holla Forumsyp?

So. Communism doesn't work in Europe. It doesn't work in the US. It doesn't work in South America. You claim China isn't communist. This only leaves one option.

Communism is when the goverment does everything you silly

the definition of communism

...

You can search it yourself. He said the Cuban model didn't work and then complained it didn't work anywhere and the best they had it was China who in 1989 gave it up and actually became worth a damn.

He's a broken man now and the revolution is over and it will never come again because most of you kids like on Holla Forums never fucking laboured hard a day in your lives and live comfortable bourgeois (middle class) lives in an imperialist power.


Even if you're right does that mean that there is someone in the world who cannot do it? There are nomadic peoples who do relatively well and it's not as if communism it not worth pursuing.

Top kek m8 I barely get by with the two jobs I have. My desire for a communist society doesn't come from some smug hard knock life envy. Keep your projection at home, where it and your autism belongs.

Fuck off back to Holla Forums

...

Exactly. The proletarian state is when the proletariat becomes the ruling class and uses the state to oppress the bourgeoisie. State =/= bourgeoisie.