This from that bint who did the report on Castro’s Cuba below

This is not easy given that Marxism, if it is to be a living and revolutionary method, must be
concrete. Concrete conditions must determine the approach taken to analysing and changing
reality. This is the essence of “praxis.” Guevara’s contribution in Cuba was decisive and impressive
precisely because of his capacity to devise practical policies, which were appropriate to Cuba’s
concrete conditions and operated within a Marxist theoretical framework. For Guevara, the
problem of socialist transition was how to achieve economic development with equity from a position
of underdevelopment without relying on capitalist methods that would undermine the collective
consciousness and the new social relations necessary for socialism and later communism.5
This article does not claim to present a solution to the problem of building “socialism of the
21st century,” nor to present an economic history of Venezuela or predict its future. The purpose is
to discuss the issues that were encountered through my work with the VMCE—just one state
institution among many. It is not claimed that that experience was representative; it was influenced
by the focus and political and ideological commitments of the compan˜eros (as socialists and communists)
of the VMCE. It is important to recognise that within the government, and the governing
United Socialist Party of Venezuela (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, PSUV), there are
significant conflicts and contradictions representing different political agendas and interests.
Nonetheless, given the strategic importance of the CES in the endeavour to introduce socialist
forms of production to Venezuela, there are lessons and implications that merit careful analysis.
Clearly, as my invitation confirms, Venezuelan government teams are interested in, and influenced
by, the experience of socialist transition in Cuba and Guevara’s revolutionary Marxism, so it is
important to understand what this implies for the process.6

She went to Venezuela to teach them how Guevara had aided Cuba’s development.

No, really. And she’s at the LSE….

26 thoughts on “This from that bint who did the report on Castro’s Cuba below”

  1. So this is why the Venezuelan revolution is having problems?

    “However, those countries that have experimented with socialism have lacked (and been deprived of by imperialist aggression) the necessary productive base to complete the process and so create the material abundance necessary to facilitate the transition to communism.”

    (Yaffe Op. Cit.)

  2. It must be galling that free market capitalism is delivering the “material abundance” that the socialists are always going on about…

  3. I like the phrase ‘experimented with socialism’. It’s as if it was time-bound and the intention was to back out if it didn’t go to plan.
    Alas, it is never an experiment.

  4. The Washington consensus has helped to lift billions out of poverty. The Chinese dropped all of this stuff and suddenly became rich. And yet, we still find these bizarre people rowing the other way.

    Cuba is an example of how not to run an economy, sheesh.

  5. A Venezuelan friend was rejoicing (for her country) on the recent news. Castro-nomics had had a horrible effect on one of the richest, oil-producing, countries in the world.

  6. They soooo want it to work. They sooooo believe it’ll work. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

    I guess it’s like the coming of the 12th imam or something.

  7. Someone needs to tell that cunt the following:

    Fidel Castro did not send Che Guevara to Bolivia with a dozen deadbeats, $22 in cash and a .22 rifle because he though Che was an indispensable part of The Revolution. Fidel sent him to Bolivia because he’d come to the conclusion that Che was both a psychopath and a world class fuck-up. And Che, being Che, was just stupid enough to go along with it.

    That’s the legacy you have to build on, Missy.

  8. Bloke in North Dorset

    Einstein probably didn’t have socialists in mind when he defined madness, but they fall in to his definition.

  9. “Fidel sent him to Bolivia because he’d come to the conclusion that Che was both a psychopath and a world class fuck-up. And Che, being Che, was just stupid enough to go along with it.”

    And Fidel, being himself a psycopath not averse to shooting people through the head personally, knew another one when he saw one…

  10. And Fidel, being himself a psycopath not averse to shooting people through the head personally, knew another one when he saw one…

    True, but in Fidel’s eyes Che wasn’t making the transition from lining ’em up and shooting them to putting them through a fake trial, imprisoning them, and then shooting them… The way peace loving, man-of-the-people socialist revolutionaries are supposed to do it.

    You know, to keep the foreign lefty bourgeois from getting squeamish.

  11. “Marxism, if it is to be a living and revolutionary method, must be concrete. Concrete conditions must determine the approach…”

    Marxism is anything but concrete: it’s teutonic windbaggery.

  12. “I guess it’s like the coming of the 12th imam or something.”

    Quite so. For some, the dream will never die. And they cling to it with a fanatically religious intensity.

  13. My daughter too. Did her master there.

    They have some very good people and a lot of leftie elitists.

    She said the admin dept. was appalling. Piss up/brewery. Exeter where she did her degree knocked spots off it in that sense.

    So Tim’s in good company.

    Heh.

  14. One wonders if George Spiggott’s dictum from “Bedazzled” (1967) might apply

    “In the words of Marcel Proust – and this applies to any woman in the world: If you can stay up and listen with a fair degree of attention to whatever garbage, no matter how stupid it is, that they’re coming out with, ’til ten minutes past four in the morning… you’re in.”

  15. Nobody who admits to being a Marxist should be allowed in a school of economics. Marx’s work was nothing but a collection of fraudulent and outdated “data” specifically chosen to shore up his imbecilic “theory”. His entire output was worse than worthless.

  16. “Marxism, if it is to be a living and revolutionary method, must be concrete. Concrete conditions must determine the approach…”

    That certainly explains the architecture.

  17. Bloke in Costa Rica

    P. J. O’Rourke said having seen Russia, that for a society that placed such a premium on concrete, they were absolutely shite at making it.

  18. @mikesixes – worth noting that in the US the single author most commonly mandated on economics courses is Karl Marx. And in sociology courses too.

  19. bilbaoboy,

    LSE has a brand. They can be a bit shit and still get students flocking to them for years until people realise it. Exeter doesn’t. It’s a good university but has to work to get people to come there (especially as they can’t do all that BS about how awesome London is).

    The whole sector is a mess, though. We’re pouring billions into crappy courses of little academic rigour or practical use, destroying other opportunities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *