[Marxism] ISO's conference.

[S. Artesian]

Indeed, that is a "silly position," which chucks Marxism out the window 
without even bothering to see if the window is open.  Capitalism after the 
bourgeoisie has been expropriated? Capitalism without a class of 
capitalists, or with somehow a new class?  And if with a new class, we 
should see that class developing inside the pre-existing formula 
accumulation of capital.  Do we?  Does that "class" have any essential 
relationship to either the means or relations of production?

Cuba as capitalist makes no sense to me.  But maybe it's just me.

Which leads me to another topic and that is that there is much in 
Waistline's formulations that I agree with, and I much I don't agree with--  
but in particular his remarks that the transformation of anti-colonial 
struggles into struggles that expropriated the bourgeoisie was possible, and 
successful, only because of the existence of the USSR, because of the legacy 
of October, is exactly correct.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] ISO's conference.
>
> And now they're stuck with this silly position that Cuba is capitalist,
> which leaves them with a huge POLITICAL problem, because from the point of
> view of working and oppressed peoples, Cuban "capitalism" is clearly and
> unambiguously superior to the regular kind. The comrades haven't focused
> much on this sort of thing since the socialism from below current has been
> mostly confined to the English-speaking industrially advanced countries.
>
> Joaquin