From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2008 - 11:05:34 EDT
It has nothing to do with the response of the masses, but of sections within the leadership of a socialist country who end up favouring the widening use of market mechanims. In a hierarchical state with a president or head of state the person in that position holds great influence. Even individuals of personal revolutionary heroism can end up favouring, and enforcing, the restoration of market relations as the experience of Deng, an old Long Marcher shows. So long as Cuba has in effect a centralised decision making body whose social composition is unrepresentative by background and current situation with that of the population as a whole, a simimilar situation can occur. Paul Cockshott Dept of Computing Science University of Glasgow +44 141 330 1629 www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ -----Original Message----- From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of glevy@pratt.edu Sent: Mon 6/30/2008 3:47 PM To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list Subject: RE: [OPE] Cuba After Fidel Castro > The reference to the great helmsman seems to have passed you by slightly. No, In was aware of it, Paul. I don't think that Mao = Fidel. The way in which the Chinese masses responded to the death of Mao was - at least in large part - a response to the experience of the Cultural Revolution (and, indeed, it was a verdict on that experience). There was nothing similar to the CR in Cuba (thankfully). The role of Castro in the Cuban Communist Party was also, imo, quite different from the role of Mao in the Chinese Communist Party. In solidarity, Jerry _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 02 2008 - 00:00:16 EDT