社会主义工人

为了全世界工人阶级的团结!为了全人类的解放!为了民主、自由!为了国际民主社会主义!反对资本主义!建立工人阶级的群众性政党!建立独立工会!

我的照片
姓名:
位置: China

我是一个争取自由和解放的人。 我反抗一切压迫,一切奴役,以及一切不平等不自由之事。

10/25/2006

言论自由对人类的意义

文学是表达人类思想与交流的最重要的工具。有的人害怕文学,他们给文学制定框架,他们试图给思想制定规则。他们通过这种种的办法来限制言论的自由。
言论的自由是这么的必须。我国尤其需要。大学里死灰一片,原本是最富有想象力,最前卫思想的地方,却被那些思想的框架给制约着。这里原本是新思想的起源地,这里酝酿着社会的变革,这里推进社会的革新。但是在我国,这里沉积着。这里被上级领导管理着,这里被上级领导挑选的“老实”的人,成为学生会。而学生会又是学生的上帝。领导的管理成了真正的学生的主人。
工人们需要方向,穷人们需要方向,但是这方向,往往需要及社会的力量才可以找寻的到。所以人类社会需要无限制的交流,只有无限制的交流才能构成社会。所以我们需要言论自由。
有的人限制言论自由的理由是害怕坏思想的传播。我们姑且不说“坏思想”的相对性,也不说其中的等级属性。其实如果全社会绝大多数人接受这个“坏思想”,那么你怎么能管这种思想称作是坏呢?但是你现在限制一些思想的传播,你不允许有任何的反对你的见解,你怎们能证明自己是好的而别人的就是坏的呢?而且单凭你强迫大家庭信你的想法这一点,你就称不上“好”这个字。真理是不需要强迫大家认同的。就像哥白尼一样,当时他说太阳是中心,地球是围绕太阳旋转的,它是真理,而当时的教会就强行的命令人民不得持有异见。现在,当年教会的行为被斥为野蛮。所以谬论一定会被推翻。而不论你再施以多么强迫的手段。
首先当人们有了可以自由表达意见的权利,人民才有自己做自己主人的先决条件,而我们通常把它称作是民主。从法国革命的先驱,到今天所有号称是民主卫士的人,都宣布要消灭等级制度,而这种制度在今天的各国都被宣布废除了。事实上废除的也只是条文。例如我国,社会区分等级时就以财产,教育,城乡户口,大小城市等等区分的办法。有时严重到不能通婚的地步。如果法律条文是站在财产制度的角度来编写的,那么就不应该相信,因为它总是服务于有钱等级。等级制度依然没有消灭,在中国愈演愈烈。试问在这种情况下怎能有民主与言论呢?很多自称是民主主义者的人都说,议会制度就是民主制度,其实人民在这种情况下依然无法做主,例如台湾在选举前要叫几百万元的“保证金”。所以穷人的参选权根本就无法得到捍卫,这怎能叫做民主呢?穷人没有自己的报纸,没有自己的言论渠道,这怎能叫言论自由呢?
很多人都说条文就是标志。那么朝鲜宣称自己是民主的共和的国家,他就真的是吗?朝鲜的所谓选举权被选举权,朝鲜法律所谓的结社权那就是真正的权利吗?台湾不也说自己是民主国家吗?那么当有人想要有形势为什么也要有警察以扰乱治安而逮捕呢?从小学校就说,我国是世界上最民主的国家,那么既然我国是世界上最民主的国家,那么为什么政府总是要提民主改革呢?既然是最民主的民主国家,那还要怎么改呢?在民主上,我们落后,所以我们在社会其他生产中也难以有所创新,比之其他的资本主义国家。我们的教育,我们的思想都必须要统一,都必须要一致,这样单一的社会怎能前进呢?
举个例子,在朝鲜越南等国,你只要胆敢提出你要结社,他们会把你锁进监狱,并判以重刑,你只要有不同的声音不同的言论,也会把你锁进监狱。所以大家只能听极少数人的命令行事。虽然民众有对行政的不满,被暂时的压制住了,感觉上全国的声音是一片统一的。所有的执政者都是对的好的。我相信这样的局面不可能在当今这个社会上久远的延续。人都是有思想和智慧的,没有谁天生比谁高一等。所以,社会必然都不赞同这种行为。因此这种对社会前进的限制,必然会被人民粉碎掉,并重新加以选择。

标签:

“倒扁运动”中台湾人的得失,以及此次运动的意义

“倒扁运动”中台湾人的得失,以及此次运动的意义
外界皆称“施明德维此次运动的发起者”。其实我不是很赞同这种说法。台湾之不公平,社会等级对立早已有之。所谓的族群对立,不过是贫富间对立的缩影。而高达10%的失业率延迟数年,又怎么能使底层民众满意呢?工人们要什么??要粮食,要住房,要工作!民进党政客给了多少呢?除了对于民主的许诺。你们甚至连民主的诺言都没有饯行!你们买拒马,大量的防暴用品,难道是为了让人民幸福吗?你们正是要用此来反对人民的话语权,你们正是想利用这些暴力工具来反对民主,反对天赋的游行集会之权利。你们不批准民众的集会,就这样你们依然号称自己民主。有几百万人反对你们,你们却说成一小撮。你们和独裁党难道还有区别吗?
民众已经忍受了近五十年的国民党一党独裁,忍受了他们五十年的榨取民脂民膏。现今,陈水扁政权依旧如此。民众因为感觉自己被骗,所以怒不可遏的上街游行。现今失业率如此之高,民众冒着被富佬们开出的危险,冒着额度在的危险上街游行,那是被逼到河中之程度呀!!
我不得不怀疑,施明德是在帮助陈水扁集团来化解危机!工人不罢工,群众不革命,就想靠单纯的竞坐就想使陈水扁下台?这也太可笑了!他对最恶毒的大骗子喊“和平和爱”,那你干嘛还要让他下台?如果你既然对这种政权采取爱的态度,你干脆就拥抱他们好了。台湾总统府门口轻而易举的就聚集了几百万人。总共台湾人口也不过两千万。这几百万就等于是整个台湾岛的总动员!就是过去国民党政府抓壮丁也抓不到这么多人。这么多的人,几乎是全台湾可以走路的人。只要这些人不愿意让陈水扁政府继续专制。只要这些人想彻底改变台湾着腐朽的制度,那么完全可以废除现政府,罢黩腐败的政客集团。逮捕陈水扁等流氓。
但是伟大的骗子施明德,打出和平合法的旗号,陈水扁根本就不需要厚着脸皮屠杀民众,就可以枪毙台湾的民主,陈水扁只要坐在家里照常的休闲,只要照常的到他的总统府贪污腐败去,就行了。不痛不痒的冲他骂,他素来脸皮厚,这大家都知道,他可能因为社会骂他而下台吗?法律体现的只是制定他的小集团的利益,只能反映个别阶层的利益,现行法律尤其反映不了绝大多数没有多少财产的人的利益。如果整个社会都说这个法律只能保证陈水扁等集团的利益,我们要废除,难道还能有人会干预阻拦吗?我就不相信在年轻人占绝对多数的军队里大家都是效忠这种政权的。既然台湾社会的绝对多数都反对陈水扁,那么民众就有权利对这种政权予以推翻,民众就有权利反对法律,民众就有权利动员军队和拿起武器。难道现行法律不是为了维护陈水扁的吗?如果不是维护他,为什么现在处处阻挠,而所有的民众都毫无疑问的陈水扁涉嫌犯罪,现在又不了了之了呢?整个司法系统都把持在陈水扁的手中。整个立法系统都掌握在有钱人的手中。台湾人还能指望这两个机构能作为人民的代表吗?
台湾人民至少丢掉了二十个以上的推翻现政府建立新秩序的机会。而这种新秩序,则是表明整个社会利益的秩序,尤其是贫苦人利益的社会。台湾本来有机会在两个月内建立整个全世界的民主榜样的机会。台湾本来有机会向世界传达新世纪的第一个曙光。而这个曙光可能酝酿的不够成熟。而且没有一个这样中流砥柱作用,扎根于无产群众中的革命党。我们全世界都需要这样的政党。我们无时不刻的需要这样的党在革命低潮期组织群众、捍卫群众的利益。我们需要其在革命时期身先士卒的率领我们,给我们指明前进的方向!
全世界的革命群众们,起来建立你们的各民政党吧!为了陷入危机的人了社会!为了肮脏的资本主义世界的毁灭!出路万岁!曙光万岁!

标签:

台湾军购

有人反对台湾政府向美国军火商的军购。下面我就分析一下这个军购。
首先获利最大的,固然是军火商人,他们需要从中赚钱。他们支持布什总统的竞选,所以布什获胜后意味的购买波音和洛克希德马丁公司的军火。发动两场战争,亦与举火商的利益不无关系。其次,军火确实有保卫台湾的作用,如果台湾不买武器又有可能被独裁国家所并吞,那么这样多年来争得的这点滴自由空气又会有付诸东流之危险。
台湾不能完全听命于军火商,又不能没有军火,除非台湾的行政权已经落入到民众的手中,由整个社会来经营,那么只有这样才可以毫无担忧的军购。首先这样政权的军购,是为了镇压独裁分子,和剥削分子的。其次这种军购是为了捍卫整个社会的民主的。第三这种军购时保卫革命政权,并输出革命的。
如果是像现在有军火巨头们在幕后操控整个军购,而全民一点都不知情,国家存在米秘密外交,国家存在秘密交易,这样的军购是不合法的。在目前暂时没有革命的事迹的情况下,我们只能反对军购案,以避免台湾政权堕落为军火商的殖民地,成为一个杀人机器生产过剩的处理国。台湾人应借此反对,来挑起社会公众共同对政府施压,来达到暂时的公开秘密,来达到暂时的对当政的政客施加压力。这是我们现在能够做到的。我们以前错过了时机。所以现在只能等待下一次时机。

标签:

10/22/2006

What will happen after Castro?

US imperialism certainly expects ‘regime change’, not just in the government of Cuba but also in its social system.
Peter Taaffe
In July, a special report of the Bush government’s Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba set aside $80 million (£43m) to achieve this objective. Ominously, unlike previous reports, parts of it were not published, “classified for security reasons”, with the clear implication of future US military intervention in Cuba. Castro’s illness led to delirious celebrations among sections of the 650,000 Cuban exiles, particularly the parasitic rich elite who salivate at the prospect of a return of ‘their property’, which they expect would quickly follow the death of Fidel Castro.
Conversely, millions of working-class people and the poor, particularly in the neo-colonial world and especially in Latin America, are hoping against hope that the predictions of the imminent collapse of Cuba will prove wrong. The Cuban revolution, right from its inception in January 1959, and through its planned economy, gave a glimpse of what was possible for humankind as a whole if the straitjacket of landlordism and capitalism was eliminated. Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were then, and remain today, heroic figures for many workers and youth throughout the world.
If anything, Cuba’s reputation has been enhanced when set against the background of the brutal neo-liberal offensive of capitalism worldwide throughout the 1990s and the first part of this century. The achievements in health, housing and education are spectacular when compared to the dismal record of landlordism and capitalism in the neo-colonial world. Even while the bourgeoisie of the world and its hirelings seek to use the illness of Castro as an excuse to pillory Cuba and its revolution, other, more serious, journals of capitalism are compelled to recognise Cuba’s achievements.
For instance, El País, the Spanish journal, recently outlined Cuba’s impressive performance in key fields. There are 200,000 teachers in a population of 11.4 million. This means there is a teacher for every 57 people, one of the best ratios of teachers to pupils anywhere in the world, never mind the neo-colonial world. Moreover, following the Pakistan earthquake in 2005, Cuba sent 2,660 doctors and health technicians to help in the worst areas. In six months in Pakistan, they dealt with 1,700,000 patients – 73% of those affected by illness – and carried out 14,500 operations. In addition to this they offered 1,000 courses to young people from the worst-hit areas to study medicine in Cuba. Thirty-two temporary hospitals were left by the Cuban government to be used by the Pakistani people to combat serious illnesses. Naturally, this raised the profile of support for Cuba in Pakistan. In Indonesia, following the earthquake in May 2006, 135 Cuban health workers attended 100,000 patients. Two hospitals were built and left by the Cubans when the medical expedition left the country. Thirty-six thousand Cuban health professionals and technicians are working in 107 different third-world countries. In addition to this, Venezuela and Cuba have announced a project, ‘operation milagro’ (operation miracle), to provide six million Latin Americans with free operations if they cannot afford them over the next ten years. Cuba has also offered 100,000 places in Cuban universities to train Latin American doctors free of charge.
The propertied classes worldwide fear that this example (the product of a planned economy, albeit one not managed or controlled by the working class but by a bureaucracy), will become even more attractive to the starving masses of poor in the event of an economic tailspin in world capitalism. Notwithstanding these achievements, however, the maintenance of a planned economy is, unfortunately, not at all guaranteed on the present basis, particularly in the event of Fidel Castro’s death. His towering figure, together with the image of the martyred hero of the revolution, Che Guevara, combined with the solid social achievements of the revolution, have warded off previous attempts at counter-revolution, even in the most difficult circumstances of the ‘special period’ of the 1990s.
Hanging by a thread
Following the restoration of capitalism in Russia, the former Stalinist bureaucracy, which was then in the process of transferring to capitalism, inflicted colossal economic damage on Cuba. Castro commented about this period: “In no historical epoch did any country find itself in the situation in which ours found it, when the socialist camp collapsed and remained under the pitiless blockade of the USA. No-one imagined that something as sure and steady as the sun would one day disappear, as it happened with the situation of the Soviet Union”. (Fidel Castro: A Biography, Volker Skierka, p282) He went on to declare: “We will defend ourselves on our own, surrounded by an ocean of capitalism in this ‘periodo especial’”. (ibid, p283) An author recently commented: “Rationing of food was introduced but there was virtually no butter, with milk only for small children, old people and those in special need; the bread allowance was 250 grams a day. Soap, detergents, toilet paper and matches were not often seen”.
The economy declined by 2.9% in 1990, 10% in 1991, 11.6% in 1992, and 14.9% in 1993. Malnutrition, unknown since the triumph of the revolution, became widespread. The historic achievements of free education and medical attention were preserved, but a brutal austerity programme was inflicted on the great mass of the population. One of the most important economies was the slashing of energy consumption by 50%. As one commentator put it: “Cuban society almost literally stopped moving – until the commandante [Castro] had the saving idea that the mass of the population should ride back to the future on horse-drawn carts and bicycles”. Making a virtue out of a necessity, Fidel Castro declared: “The special period also has its positive sides – like the fact that we are now entering the age of the bicycle. In a sense, this too is a revolution”.
Undoubtedly, cycling was good for the average Cuban’s health, as was the absence of McDonald’s and other US junk food, but this austerity programme in itself is not enough to satisfy the hunger of young people and workers for access to modern technology, modern goods, rising living standards, and freedom. Forced back on its own resources, Cuba was also able to tap into the ingenuity of the population with the spectacular development of bio-technology, for instance, which resulted in Cuba, in the early 1990s, becoming “the world’s largest exporter of such products, the demand being particularly high in the field of skin regeneration and immunisation against meningitis, hepatitis B and other diseases”. Opposed by the capitalist multinationals of the USA and Europe, Cuba was already making a profit by 1991 and aggressively competing as a supplier of low-priced products, especially to third-world countries. Nevertheless, this successful sector of Cuban production has only amounted, still, to a share of total exports of 3-5%.
The ability of Cuba to compete in the pharmaceutical market was linked undoubtedly to the maintenance of the splendid health sector, a direct product of the planned economy. It continued to employ 340,000 staff and 64,000 doctors throughout the years of the special period. Currently, there are 70,000 doctors, a ratio of one doctor per 193 inhabitants, compared to one per 313 in Germany. Castro was able to contrast the life expectancy in Cuba with that in the ex-Soviet Union, which fell drastically as a result of a return to capitalism: “Life expectancy in the part of the USSR which is Russia is now 56 years, 20 years less than in Cuba, 20 years!” Despite this, because of its isolation, Cuba still experiences severe shortages even in the field of medicine.
Moreover, unemployment, hitherto an unprecedented phenomenon, began to rise, with a minimum figure of 8% unemployed in a total labour force of 4 millions. A Spanish institute at the time estimated, “in May 1999 that nearly a third of all Cuban workers were either jobless or unemployed”. In 1999, the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (CPAAL) estimated “that in 1999 the Cuban revolution reached the point at which it had been 40 years before, in 1959”. In the early 1990s, the revolution hung by a thread and, for the first time since the Bay of Pigs invasion, the threat of counter-revolution, the return of the ex-landlords and capitalists based in Miami, and US imperialist domination loomed.
Castro was consequently forced to make concessions to the ‘market’, that is, to capitalism. Through ‘dollarisation’, a parallel economy developed, which resulted in relative privileges for those involved in tourism, where they were paid in dollars, and in sectors involving ‘joint ventures’. Paradoxically, those who remained firm supporters of the planned economy, such as doctors, teachers, etc, continued to be paid in pesos and suffered accordingly. Richard Gott, a well-known left-wing author on Cuba, wrote that “the state monopoly over foreign trade was abolished in 1992, and the constitution was amended to permit the transfer of state property to joint ventures with foreign partners”. This implied that Cuba was on the way to the return of capitalism, if it had not already arrived at that point.
It is true that a legal amendment in 1995 to the Cuban constitution even introduced the provision whereby foreign capital could acquire 100% stakes in companies, although in practice this was rarely followed up. Castro himself declared: “There are no rigid prescriptions. We are ready to consider any kind of proposition”. However, despite all the difficulties, Cuba has essentially remained a planned economy. Import and export operations were carried out by Cuban enterprises and other duly authorised “entities registered at the National Registry of Importers and Exporters attached to the chambers of commerce”. (Official report of the Cuban Chamber of Commerce) Foreign enterprises required authorisation from the ministry of trade to perform their operations.
Simmering discontent
A certain decentralisation took place. An estimated 350 enterprises were permitted to import and export on their own authority. This undoubtedly was a gap through which foreign capital and its domestic Cuban supporters could find a basis. But Cuba still maintained significant non-tariff barriers and the government inspected and approved most imports. Castro made it clear in 2000 the limits of such concessions to capitalism. He remarked to the UNESCO director, Frederico Mayor Zaragoza: “As a general principle, nothing will be privatised in Cuba that is suitable for, and therefore can be kept under, ownership by the nation or a workers’ collective. Our ideology and our preference is that socialism should bear no resemblance to the egotism, the privileges and inequalities of capitalist society. In our country, nothing ends up as the property of a high-ranking official, and nothing is given away to accomplices or friends. Nothing that can be used efficiently, and with greater profit for our society, will end up in the hands of private individuals, either Cubans or foreigners”.
However, it is not true, as Fidel Castro argued, that inequalities did not exist in Cuba. The periodic denunciations and campaigns against corruption, pilfering and privilege, which Castro himself has conducted, are indications of the real situation. In fact, the dollarisation of the economy was a severe blow to revolutionary pride and opened up divisions in Cuban society, leading to a further growth of a privileged elite. A change in the law granted small business activity and had a significant effect in creating a relatively prosperous petty bourgeoisie in the urban areas. Like many similar reforms introduced by Stalinist regimes prior to their collapse in 1989 in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union or China, this led to a burgeoning capitalist sector. The austere period inevitably generated discontent and the lifting of the controls on the dollar was a response of the Cuban regime to the pressure of the population from inside the country.
But it was not sufficient, as shortages persisted. The simmering discontent with this resulted in a riot in central Havana of several thousand people in August 1994. Mostly young people moved through the city throwing stones at the windows of hotels. For the first time, anti-Castro slogans could be heard: “We’ve had enough! We want freedom! Down with Fidel!” They were met by 300 policemen firing warning shots in the air and a major confrontation appeared to loom until “suddenly, the maximo leader himself [Castro] appeared on the scene with a large entourage and launched into a discussion with the young people. The crowd immediately calmed down, listened to him, and dispersed”. This is a striking example of the colossal authority which Castro and the revolution had then and still probably enjoys today. On this occasion, it was enough to prevent the protest spilling over to involve a wider movement. The discontent still existed but was forced once more underground.
Clampdown on corruption
Although the Cuban economy has recovered, partly as a result of economic assistance from Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, trade deals with China, etc, shortages, combined with corruption, still exist and were recognised clearly by Castro on the eve of his illness. Leaning on 30,000 young people, the trabajadores sociales (social workers), Castro launched a ‘battle of ideas’ to maintain the present system in Cuba and, in particular, mobilisation of vigilantes against corruption. This force, sympathetic to Castro and the revolution, was similar to Mao Zedong’s mobilisation of the Red Guards in the 1966 Cultural Revolution. Before his illness, flushed by the economic benefits flowing from tourism, as well as the benevolence of the Venezuelan regime, Castro was involved in the process of recentralisation and curtailing of the pro-capitalist concessions made in the 1990s. He was also conscious of the consequences for Cuba if he was no longer on the scene. In particular, he was concerned about the corruption which inevitably flowed from the two-tier economic system. He therefore was engaged in a Cuban version of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, although obviously not on the same scale nor with the same brutal hooligan methods.
Five of the 14 provinces have seen the top Communist Party officials replaced. So have the ministries of light industry, higher education, and audit and control. Some members of the 21-strong Politburo have been sacked abruptly for ‘errors’, which included ‘abuse of authority’ and ‘ostentation’. In a speech to Havana University, Castro painted a picture of widespread graft throughout the state-controlled economy. He said that this was endangering the ‘communist’ system: “We can destroy ourselves and it will be our own fault”. The student ‘social workers’, dressed in black or red t-shirts, were mobilised, for instance, in petrol stations to check on the sale of scarce petrol resources. This exercise revealed that, previously, about a half of all fuel sold was not accounted for.
But the question naturally arises: How is it, in a ‘democratic’ socialist Cuba, where in theory power is vested in the masses and their organisations, such a scale of corruption can suddenly be revealed? Following from this, the new Cuban ‘red guard’ has been ‘mobilised’ on ‘missions’ to audit state companies, where they discovered ‘rampant pilfering’. Sections of the armed forces have also been pressed into ‘anti-graft duty’. The army is now managing Havana’s port, where it has been discovered entire containers went missing when civilians were in charge. Castro is obviously haunted by the example of the collapse of the Soviet Union and hopes to develop a system which can prevent Cuba from following a similar path.
However, the blunt instrument of students and shock brigades will not solve the problem. The issues of corruption, graft and bureaucratism are not questions of red tape or a few minor misdemeanours. The very character of Cuban society, where power is concentrated in the hands of the officialdom in the state, the army and the Cuban Communist Party, inevitably leads to abuse. In the early 1990s, faced with the catastrophic economic situation, the Cuban leadership, led by Fidel Castro, did open up a discussion on the constitution and constitutional amendments to the National Assembly, including a form of direct elections. However, this was still in the context of only one candidate for each seat in parliament. That candidate would be a party loyalist, who would have been gone over ‘with a fine tooth comb’. At best, it was a form of ‘democracy’, which allowed voters to select a candidate for a list but from just one party. At the same time, the members of the Central Committee, Politburo, and the Council of State, ultimately were subject to the will and veto, if necessary, of Fidel Castro.
This exercise did result in a cutting down of the bureaucracy – for instance, party members were reduced by two thirds, the number of Central Committee secretaries halved from 19 to nine – but this did not fundamentally solve the problem of power being concentrated in the hands of a bureaucratic elite, many of whom enjoyed a privileged existence in comparison to the mass of the population. Castro himself, despite the recent absurd claims of Forbes magazine that he was one of the richest men on the planet, is not personally corrupt, and does not lead an overtly privileged existence. But the problem is not just of one man or a small number of men and women, devoted to maintaining the planned economy, but the fact that real power is in the hands of a top-down elite. The great majority of the workers are elbowed aside, at best ‘consulted’, but without real power, control and management being vested in them.
Workers’ democracy
Seventy years ago, in Revolution Betrayed, in relation to the Soviet Union, Leon Trotsky posed the question: “Will the bureaucrat devour the workers’ state, or will the working class clean up the bureaucrat?… the workers fear lest, in throwing out the bureaucracy, they will open the way for a capitalist restoration”. (p215, Dover Publications) For big sections of the population, this probably sums up the mood in Cuba today. But the discontent is growing, particularly among the new generation; 73% of Cuba’s population were born after the triumph of the revolution in 1959. This alienation of the new generation may lead, as one commentator put it, in the long run to a “revolution with no heirs”. Castro does not appear to recognise the problem, nor is he or the group around him capable of implementing measures to guarantee the gains of the revolution. He has declared: “I don’t believe it is really necessary to have more than one party… How could our country have stood firm if had been split up into ten pieces?... I think that exploitation of one human by another must disappear before you can have real democracy”.
However, without real workers’ democracy – the ending of the one-party monopoly, fair elections to genuine workers’ councils with the right of all those (including the Trotskyists) to stand in elections, strict control over incomes, and with the right of recall over all elected officials – the Cuban revolution is in danger, especially if Fidel Castro is off the scene. Cuba is not a ‘socialist’ state. Even a healthy workers’ state, with workers’ democracy, in one country or in a few countries, would be transitional between capitalism and the starting point for socialism.
Cuba is not a healthy workers’ state as understood by Lenin and Trotsky, and generally accepted by Marxists following them. Nor is it a ‘workers’ state with bureaucratic deformations’, as some have recently argued. Such a regime did exist in the first sage after the Russian revolution between 1917-23. The Bolsheviks, in the words of Lenin, because of the cultural backwardness of Russia, had been forced to take over “the old tsarist state machine with a thin veneer of socialism”. This problem could only be overcome on the world arena by the spreading of the Russian revolution. In the state which existed even after 1923, Trotsky and the Left Opposition fought for ‘reforms’, measures to cut down the ‘bureaucratic deformations’. However, the consolidation of the bureaucratic elite, personified by the rise of Stalin, posed the issue not of ‘reform’ but of the Stalinist state and the bureaucracy being removed if Russia was to move towards socialism.
Cuba and its revolution had many different features than the Russian revolution, and Castro was not Stalin, as we have explained elsewhere (See Socialism Today No.89, and the book, Cuba: Socialism and Democracy). But the existence of a defined caste, a bureaucracy, with interests of its own, now counterposed to maintaining the Cuban revolution and its further advance, is confirmed by Castro’s alarm for the future and the measures he initiated against the bureaucracy before he fell ill.
Cuba is what Trotsky called a ‘deformed workers’ state’, a planned economy, but with power in the hands of a privileged caste of bureaucrats. Flowing from the characterisation of Cuba as merely ‘a workers’ state with bureaucratic deformations’, some argue that what is needed is ‘reforms’ and not a ‘political revolution’. But historical experience has shown that a ruling, privileged layer of society, whether it be capitalists or a bureaucratic elite, is conscious of its power and will fight to retain it, sometimes using the most ruthless means.
The need for a political revolution in Russia, advanced by Trotsky, was a scientific description of what was required to free the planned economy from the grip of a wasteful, greedy bureaucracy. It was not a day-to-day action programme, with ‘Trotskyists’ in Russia urged to go out onto the streets and proclaim ‘political revolution’. They argued for ‘workers’ democracy’.
The starting point for socialism would be a higher level of production and technique than the highest level reached by capitalism up to now. This means that the beginning of socialism would imply a higher level of technique and therefore of living standards than the US, which is only possible through a world plan of production controlled by the working class. However, with the absence of workers’ democracy, the transition towards socialism in one state or a number of states is impossible and might lead, as the example of the Soviet Union implies, not to socialism but to a degeneration and, ultimately, to a collapse back to capitalism. The real danger to an isolated workers’ state, as Trotsky commented, lies not so much in a military invasion but the “cheap goods in the baggage train of imperialism”. A huge influx of tourists, particularly millions from the US with dollars in their back pockets, would pose big problems for Cuba and strengthen the elements of capitalism that already exist.
Divisions in the regime
But for the stupidity of US imperialism, particularly in the 1990s under Clinton with the introduction of the Helms-Burton legislation, an isolated, besieged Cuba may not have even been able to hold out to enjoy the position it has today. This act ruled out that a future government in Cuba could endorse, by parliamentary means, the takeover of industry and property of the 1960s, as had been done by the capitalist government of Germany when it reunified. Germany ratified all expropriations of land by the state of over 100 acres in East Germany that the Soviet occupation authorities carried out after the second world war. If the Helms-Burton act was implemented to the letter, this would be ruled out by a future capitalist Cuba, which would mean “that Cuba’s future development, a return to the old property relations, would be as catastrophic as an obligation to pay compensation at today’s values”. (Fidel Castro: A Biography, Volker Skierka, p313)
As another commentator has put it: “The Helms-Burton act is a blunt law for custodianship over a future Cuba: its aim is not democratisation of the political system and its institutions, but reappropriation of the island by its neighbour to the north. A return of large chunks of the Cuban economy to private US corporations would not only mean restoring the (scarcely desirable) conditions existing before the revolution. The people of the island would still bear the burden of interest, and interest on interest, for generations to come, while the real beneficiaries would include the offspring of those Mafiosi who came into their possessions through violence and repression, corruption, theft, tax evasion, and the filing of dubious ownership claims”. (ibid, p314) The Helms-Burton act also has the effect of reinforcing the ‘rigidities’ of the Cuban system in the sense that even those bureaucrats who wished to see the dismantling of the planned economy “are shown only a deep precipice but no space in which to carry out a reform in dignity”.
And there are divisions within the bureaucratic elite of Cuba. There is a section which wishes to ‘open up’ to capitalism, in a ‘democratic’ form. There is undoubtedly another wing which will fight to maintain a planned economy. Marxists, as Trotsky advocated, would seek a principled bloc with this layer of the Cuban leadership and bureaucracy, and seek to mobilise mass Cuban resistance to any threat to return to capitalism. But by its very nature, this bloc would inevitably pose the issue of how to free Cuba from the dead hand of the bureaucratic officialdom as a means of safeguarding the revolution. Some Marxists have posed the question of abandoning the idea of the political revolution to remove the bureaucratic elite. In its place is advanced phrases about workers’ democracy. But this is sheer demagogy. The idea of a political revolution and workers’ democracy are the same. While Trotsky gave critical support to this or that measure with which the bureaucratic elite was prepared to defend the planned economy for its own ends, this did not mean the abandonment of the idea of the political revolution. He pointed out: “The revolution which the bureaucracy is preparing against itself will not be social, like the revolution of 1917. It is not a question this time of changing the economic foundations of society, of replacing certain forms of property with other forms. History has also known elsewhere not only social revolutions which substituted the bourgeois for the feudal regime, but also political revolutions which, without destroying the economic foundations of society, swept out an old ruling upper crust (1830 and 1848 in France, February 1917 in Russia, etc)”.
The replacement of a privileged caste which undoubtedly exists in Cuba by workers’ democracy does not necessarily have to be violent but will have to be deep going, giving real control and management to the masses in place of the top-down control exercised by the present Cuban leadership, even when this is implemented by charismatic leaders. Workers’ democracy in Cuba would hold out the hand of friendship to the Latin American masses. Almost immediately, a real democratic workers’ confederation could be formed between Cuba and Venezuela, especially if the revolution is completed in the latter, and the same with Bolivia. Along this road is the only hope for maintaining the gains of the Cuban revolution. Without a planned economy, Cuba will be thrown back for decades and the expectations of the socialist revolution in Latin America and worldwide will suffer a severe blow. The maintenance of this revolution should not be placed in the hands of one man, or in a group of men and women, but in an aroused, politically conscious, Cuban working class.
From Socialism Today, magazine of the Socialist Party, cwi in England and Wales

标签:

从古巴雪茄制造行业看古巴社会的问题

古巴的雪茄全世界文明,集中在全国60余家雪茄生产厂。这些工厂全部都是国营的,因此它属于政府管理。然而他的价格是相当高的,比较高档的可以卖到1000美圆以上。这也是古巴最重要的外汇来源。
然而很多雪茄工人都选择私自制造雪茄。为什么呢?因为他们一个月只能挣到大约100比索左右的工资,这远远不够家人用。而失业率又居高不下,很多人都难以到国营工厂。所以他们选择在小作坊工作。他们给工人的工资是国营工厂的好几倍。而且价值1000美圆左右的雪茄,私营作坊卖到100美圆左右,而他们的制造工艺几乎无任何区别。所以国营工厂认为自己的垄断受到了威胁,国家对于私自制造雪茄的人都视为刑事犯罪。
有些极左的社会主义者,认为国有就是社会主义,就是保卫革命。这还差很远。革命是自下而上的,因此行政机构也应该是自下而上的。所以民众就自己管理生产和分配。这样的话就不存在对于剩余价值的剥削,因为一旦是这样的革命,那么工厂工人就会把剩余价值分配给自己,而不是某个其他的不劳动者或者国家机器。分配的制度是社会性质的基础。这种分配形式马克思早就已经论述过,我不想再罗嗦一遍。
然而以国家的名义进行剥削,则是不是不是资本主义了呢?是不是就不叫剥削了呢?依然叫剥削,而这种制度,已经把国家变成了资本家,他们不仅仅是所有制形式象大资本家,他们就连自己的个性都很象。他们希望的依然是获取暴力,而不是为民众谋福利。因此,古巴也造成了这样的社会问题。而始作俑者,正是国家对工人阶级的剥削。而掌管这一机器的正是那些上层的大官僚,虽然财产名义上不是他们的。但是社会是人类的。这些财产必然会用到人的身上。既然不会用的工人身上,那么就必然用到了那些管理者的身上。
所以管理者就是被革命的对象。这些不用置疑。他们和全世界其他的大剥削者是没有多少本质上区别的,谁比谁更好一点,也都没必要多看。毕竟是五十步笑百步。

标签:

我把我的笔当做武器


我把写作当成争取自由和解放的武器。
我把它当成冲出牢笼和枷锁的最有力的工具。
我相信他可以启发民智。他可以战胜束缚和无知。
用它来嘲笑怯懦。用它来讥讽趋炎附势。
用它来观察幕后的真象。
我为自由而战。我为平等而战。
没有战士的战斗,就不可能有敌人的退缩。
敌人在嘲笑我们。他们笑我们是胆小的奴隶。
嘲笑我们不敢以血肉之躯撞向他们的钢铁大炮。
我们也有大炮,我们的大炮在工厂,在工地,在作坊,在田野,在学校,在港口,在污水河的两岸,在列宁那里。在自由的思想里面。在解脱的彼岸。
我们必须战斗!青年必须昂首战斗!
我冲向敌人大炮那密集的火力,我享受着地动山摇的威力,我从中汲取力量,为了最后的胜利。

标签:

与隐藏的种族歧视做斗争!

我国民众对于种族歧视,这种东西觉得很新鲜。其实,这种东西我们每天都会遇见。

有的人歧视农民工。有的人歧视工厂工人。有的人歧视农民。有的人歧视河南人。有的人歧视外省人。有的人歧视他们,是因为他们“抢了”自己的工作。有的是因为他们“看起来很脏”。有的是歧视外族人,认为中国就是汉族的。种种这些非常普遍,有的时候,你拿这些族群的人开玩笑,而不觉得什么。

人人生而平等,这是人类所公认的公理。希特勒其党徒违反此公理,所以被天下所灭,但其也给世界带来了很多灾难。当然其之所以产生又有社会的等级之间的斗争关系所作用。我们赞不讨论。

且说很多中国人仇视日本人。日本军政府确实给中国带来了灾难。这个军政府所执行的政策,其所对其本国民众所犯之罪行与对全亚洲所犯之罪行,我们都应该牢记,而且时刻警惕。但是这跟日本人民无关。日本人照样镇压国内的政治异见者。照样镇压穷苦人,照样强迫他们参加战争。因为法西斯分子侮辱中国人,而我们国人就应该反而侮辱日本的普通民众吗?

难道你可以说日本的一亿人口都是罪人,都应该消失吗?那你看待人和看待牲畜有什么两样呢?你和法西斯分子又有什么区别呢?

我的身上刻着918这个数字。有一次我去游泳,有的人对我说,你真棒,把这个数字刻在身上。一定要仇恨日本人。
其实这个数字是另外的意思,我本身跟我国的右翼种族主义分子毫无任何关系。全世界每一个国家都有法西斯分子。而我国的法西斯分子却要身批优美的外衣。全世界各国人民都谴责种族主义,而我国的人民却被他们蒙蔽。他们宣扬大汉族主义,他们向往秦皇汉武,他们向往侵略战争。他们向往所谓的强国。要知道所谓的强国就是与弱国相比照的,而弱国往往被大国剥削,这样才能衬托出强国。

标签:

"经济适用房"是为百姓还是为牟利?

无意中翻到一篇文章,就是我引用的这个新闻。他讲经济适用房为什么大家用来赚钱了。其实挺简单的道理。那就是看你的初衷。如果你想让百姓都住的上房子,那么政府就应该以政府的名义给平民住房。但是所有权不归民众。如果你想赚钱,那么你就卖。你既然卖了,只有有钱的才会买,这样再经济的也就不应该算是什么经济的了。既然你给了他的所有权,那就是他的了,你无权过问。

剧者有其屋,说句实在话我们能办到。我们有这笔钱。这笔钱是万千建筑工人用体力拼出来的,就应该有他们的住的地方。而我前几天在家门口看到他们修路的还睡着帐篷,而里面的床就是地上摆着的木板。我们现在高档的住房很空,而真正的非奢侈的住房又严重的不足。再建豪华住宅,再建根本就卖不出去和没什么人使用的写字楼,那就真是严重的耗费社会资源了。我们应该集中的给工人们,给年轻人没有房子的青年以住房,给流浪人士以住房。只要是人就应该有居住的权利,如果在这个世界,还能冻死或饿死人的话,那就真是回到了野蛮的时代了。尤其是那些重体力劳动者更不应该没有住房。
制定社会公共住房的政策是,应该主要以政府为房东来收租,而租金应该考虑到这个家庭的总收入和总支出,以及未来的尚有可能的支出(家庭成员的食物和交通方面的耗费)。这显然要比那些腐败分子作假帐容易的多。当一个劳动者作出了足额的社会产值的时候,政府就应该赠与起一套住宅。而这钱就应该从社会税收中抽取。税是取自社会的。每一个人都不能独立于社会,更不可能脱离社会而单独劳动。所以虽然某人上的税不多,但是不代表,它对社会的贡献不大。这很难成比例。应该按照工龄以及其对身体的损害程度,以及潜在损害来算。脑力劳动者照样会为了社会而损害自己的身体,所以这是公平的。

标签:

陈独秀和鲁迅。

我觉得很多人在这两个人的问题上撒了谎。很多关于陈独秀的报道都把他在1928年到1938年这是年的工作这十年所做的事情给抹杀了。
其实这十年,陈先生所做的事情才是真正推动潮流的而且也是对我国未来的发展最重要的。陈先生在这几年里一直领导着中国的托洛茨基派工厂主义的运动。(这个派别,坚决捍卫无产者的民主,反对苏联的一党专制,当即天下,斯大林即党的独裁政策。他们坚决的拥护列宁的苏维埃制度,这个制度是指全体无产者平等选举的委员会来全权接管社会生产,与社会行政。)并且为之被捕入狱。
在这期间,他被无数人诬蔑为汉奸。而托派共产主义者也遭受了无数的骂名。而事实上这些莫须有的罪名随着苏联的解体也就自然而然的把真相还给了民众。当时斯大林在全世界范围内追杀托洛茨基的同志,和列宁的同志,把所有十月革命的战士几乎全部杀死,然后把革命的果实重新变成了一个王朝。我国近几年在这个方面的研究也颇丰富,出版了很多关于苏联的资料可供查询。
那个时候,不论正派还是反动派,都对托派进行诬蔑。当时正派,都被斯大林所蒙蔽,或受了他的威胁或者收买。而反派更是害怕一个工人政权。
托派在山东在广西都有自己的革命根据地,不断的反抗国民党和日本人,但是他却败在了自己以前的同志的手里。那些正派人物率领正派军队消灭了他们。而他们对这些正派们却无防备,甚至对他们抱有期望。那些正派还凭什么指责他们是汉奸呢??历史终于证明了他们。
而鲁迅却不问青红皂白一味的向公众诬蔑托派。他自始至终都没有读过任何有关列宁和托洛茨基的著作。她根本就不知道他们在为什么而奋斗。更不理解他们有何种之理念。而他恰恰在我国五四运动中的作用大都是被那些正派人物所吹捧出来的。是李大钊陈独秀推动的五四高潮,而不是鲁迅,鲁迅在那时甚至都没有什么名气。这类的回忆是相当多的,你甚至在这些真正革命先驱的回忆里找不到任何鲁迅的影子。

标签:

嗨!My friends.先介绍一下。

我先介绍一下,我是学中医的。自认为自己悟到了中医的根蒂。基本上,我很慈善。我连昆虫都不会杀死。我热爱每一个生命。也包括你们。

我以前曾经尝试写了很多BLOG但是都没有坚持下来,我不知道现在这个我是否能够坚持下来。第一次,我是看了朱进佳的以后就特想有一个。但是我怕我的言论受到控制,所以我在国外申请了一个。但是过了一阵不用我把我的帐号给忘了。但是我还记得我的密码。后来在国内的或者比较大型的网站上又写主页,又写这个,挺无聊的,我就停下了。没必要让别人知道自己的想法,自己的理念。

但我现在又想了。我写了无数文章,我是一个停不下笔的作家。我把这个当作我的副职业。我把笔当作我的武器,我的手,我的心所用者。

老婆已经睡了,我一丝困意也没有。我不想睡。我想写点东西纪念我的朋友。我的一个好朋友,他姓林。他是个哲学家。但是他的观点是错误的。他还没有往深处再走一步,他还留在现象的地步。他还做着徘徊。我可能会影响他一点。其实古往今来,每一位哲者其所思想者皆是同样的。其所追求者亦是同样的。我明白有很多人得到了一个答案。但是他还不知道,我正试图,引导他。他是我见过悟性最高的。不论在思想领域还是在医学领域。其实如果你在思想领域毫无建树,还象我国教育体制那样的话,如果你是那样的傻孩子,你是会害人的。当然我国大部分的医生都不懂的疾病的本质,以及以何种哲学来指导这门科学。

而我这个林姓的朋友,恰恰明白这一点。他学得很快,我现在没有他的联系方式,但是我觉得他应该正在迅猛的成长着。他现在见到我,他会为我的医术所震惊。我在这里讲的不会有人相信。

标签:

Website Traffic Statistics
California Internet Providers