To me it just sounds like another case of people uncritically interpreting a geopolitical dispute as an ideological one.

That's all it is.

Critical support to the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet Social Fascists

Finland really bolstering their NATO membership credentials

yle.fi/news/3-12492284

idcommunism.com/2016/06/fidel-castro-ches-ideas-are-absolutely.html?m=1 @Womanpuncher69 @DontAtMe

I would also definitely recommend reading, especially when it comes to criticisms of Cuba's economic model relying too much on capitalist categories and the rectifucation campaign that just started in the late 80s (and was cut short for obvious reasons). I wonder what some of the Maoists who claim that there was a split (there wasn't) and that Che was the communist wing would say about it. Fidel and others like Che very well of the existing capitalist categories being used in their economy and knew they should eventually be done away with (and they were taking action in doing so), it's most apparent in this speech he made during the rectification campaign.

These passages especially:

"He spent years doing that; he spoke a lot, wrote a lot on all those subjects, and he really managed to develop a rather elaborate and very profound theory on the manner in which, in his opinion, socialism would be built leading to a communist society.

Recently all these ideas were compiled, and an economist wrote a book that was awarded a Casa de las Américas prize. The author compiled, studied, and presented in a book the essence of Che’s economic ideas, retrieved from many of his speeches and writings — articles and speeches dealing with a subject so decisive in the building of socialism. The name of the book is The Economic Thoughts of Ernesto Che Guevara. So much has been done to recall his other qualities that this aspect, I think, has been largely ignored in our country. Che held truly profound, courageous, bold ideas, which were different from many paths already taken.

In essence — in essence! — Che was radically opposed to using and developing capitalist economic laws and categories in building socialism, he advocated something that I had often insisted on: Building socialism and communism is not just a matter producing and distributing wealth but is also a matter of education and consciousness. He was firmly opposed to using these categories, which have been transferred from capitalism to socialism, as instruments to build the new society. At a given moment some of Che’s ideas were incorrectly interpreted and, what’s more, incorrectly applied. Certainly no serious attempt was ever made to put them into practice, and there came a time when ideas diametrically opposed to Che’s economic thought began to take over."

This one too post was too long lol @Womanpuncher69 @DontAtMe

"What are we rectifying? We are rectifying all those things — and there are many — that strayed from the revolutionary spirit, from revolutionary work, revolutionary virtue, revolutionary effort, revolutionary responsibility; all those things that strayed from the spirit of solidarity among people. We’re rectifying all the shoddiness and mediocrity that is precisely the negation of Che’s ideas, his revolutionary thought, his style, his spirit and his example. I really believe, and I say it with great satisfaction, that if Che were sitting in this chair, he would feel jubilant. He would be happy about what we are doing these days, just like he would have felt very unhappy during that unstable period, that disgraceful period of building socialism in which there began to prevail a series of ideas, of mechanisms, of bad habits, which would have caused Che to feel profound and terrible bitterness.

For example, voluntary work, the brainchild of Che and one of the best things he left us during his stay in our country and his part in the revolution, was steadily on the decline. It became a formality almost. It would be done on the occasion of a special date, a Sunday. People would sometimes run around and do things in a disorganized way. The bureaucrat’s view, the technocrat’s view that voluntary work was neither basic nor essential gained more and more ground. The idea was that voluntary work was kind of silly, a waste of time, that problems had to be solved with overtime, and with more and more overtime, and this while the regular work-day was not even being used efficiently. We had fallen into a whole host of habits that Che would have been really appalled at.

If Che had ever been told that one day, under the Cuban revolution, there would be enterprises prepared to steal to pretend they were profitable, Che would have been appalled. Or if he’d been told of enterprises that wanted to be profitable and give out prizes and I don’t know what else, bonuses, and they’d sell the materials allotted to them to build and charge as they had built whatever it was, Che would have been appalled.

And I’ll tell you that this happened in the fifteen municipalities in the capital of the republic, in the fifteen enterprises responsible for house repair; and that’s only one example. They’d appear as though what they’d produced was with 8,000 pesos a year, and when the chaos was done away with, it turned out they were producing 4,000 pesos worth or less. So they were not profitable. They were only profitable when they stole. Che would have been appalled if he’d been told that enterprises existed that would cheat to fulfill and even surpass their production plan by pretending to have done January’s work in December.Che would have been appalled if he’d been told that there were enterprises that fulfilled their production plan and then distributed prizes for having fulfilled it in monetary value but not in goods produced, and that engaged in producing items that meant more monetary value and refrained from producing others that yielded less profit, despite the fact that one item without the other was not worth anything.
Che would have been appalled if he’d been told that product norms were so slack, so weak, so immoral that on certain occasions almost all the workers fulfilled them two or three times over. Che would have been appalled if he’d been told that money was becoming man’s concerns, man’s fundamental motivation. He who warned us so much against that would have been appalled. Work shifts were being shortened and millions of hours of overtime reported; the mentality of our worker was being corrupted and men were increasingly being motivated by the pesos on their minds.
Che would have been appalled for he knew that communism could never be attained by wandering down those beaten capitalist paths and to follow along those paths would mean eventually to forget all ideals of solidarity and even internationalism. To follow those paths would never develop a new man and a new society. Che would have been appalled if he’d been told that a day would come when bonuses and more bonuses of all kinds would be paid, without these having anything to do with production. Were he to have a group of enterprises teeming two-bit capitalists — as we call them — playing at capitalism, beginning to think and act like capitalists, forgetting about the country, the people and high standards (because high standards just didn’t matter; all they cared about was the money being earned thanks to the low norms), he would have been appalled.
And were he to have seen that one day they would not just take manual work subject to quantitative productions norms — with a certain logic to it, like cutting cane doing many other manual and physical activities — but even intellectual work, even radio and television work, and the here even a surgeons’ work was likely to be subject to norms — putting just anybody under the knife in order to double or triple his income — I can truthfully say that Che would have been appalled, because none of those paths will ever lead use to communism. On the contrary, those paths lead to all the bad habits and the alienation of capitalism.

Those paths, I repeat — and Che knew it very well — would never lead us to building real socialism, as a first and transitional stage to communism. But I don’t think Che was that naïve, an idealist, or someone out of touch with reality. Che understood and took reality into consideration. But Che believed in man. And if we don’t believe in man, if we think that man is an incorrigible little animal, capable of advancing only if you feed him grass or tempt him with a carrot or whip him with a stick — anybody who believes this, anybody convinced of this will never be a revolutionary; anybody who believes this, anybody convinced of this will never be a socialist; anybody who believes this, anybody convinced of this will never be a communist. Our revolution is an example of what faith in man means because our revolution started from scratch, from nothing. We did not have a single weapon, we did not have a penny, even the men who started the struggle were unknown, and yet we confronted all that might, we confronted their hundreds of millions of pesos, we confronted the thousands of soldiers, and the revolution triumphed because we believed in man. Not only was victory made possible, but so was confronting the empire and getting this far only a short way off from celebrating the twenty-ninth anniversary of the triumph of the revolution. How could we have done all of this if we had not had faith in man?

Che had great faith in man. Che was a realist and did not reject material incentives. He deemed them necessary during the transitional stage, while building socialism. But Che attached more importance — more and more importance — to the conscious factor, to the moral factor."

Will read and respond to your previous posts on my break from wage slavery

I’ll start working on that dialectics reading list as well too

If only @Frankito_Reynolds were here

If these lazy korean truckers don't stop striking ill never get my limited edition Communist Huaweii phone 🙄

Also very important to understand why the notion of Cuba being a Soviet neocolony is incorrect is the work of historian Pierro Gleijeses who got access to Cuban govt archives:

afropop.org/articles/piero-gleijeses-the-hip-deep-essential-interview

"NS: You mentioned earlier how Kissinger kept shouting from the rooftops that Cuba was a Soviet proxy. It wasn’t just Kissinger, this was a very widely held opinion. And it seems that your work has, through what a historian would consider proof, definitively dismantled that notion.

PG: Well, look, to dismantle that notion, all you have to do is read the reports of the CIA! Because the CIA kept saying that the Cuban foreign policy was not a function of the Soviet Union, that these were Cuban decisions, even when the Cubans sent the troops to Angola in 1975. In 1981 you have a CIA report saying exactly what Kissinger said later in his memoirs, that this was a Cuban decision taken in great haste, and without informing the Soviet Union. So even the enemy was saying this. The CIA was saying this.

George Ball, who was Undersecretary of State under Kennedy and Johnson, wrote something very interesting in his memoirs, which I paraphrase. He said, myths exist to give solace, to comfort. And this myth, that Cuba was a proxy of the Soviet Union, had a huge psychological significance. It made things a little bit less painful for US policymakers, that they could at least insult Fidel Castro. And so they kept – you have a very interesting memo, for instance, by a guy who is very intelligent, Robert Pastor. He was the Latin American staff person for the National Security Council, and in 1978 he wrote a memo to Brzezinski saying, we have to stop saying that the Cubans are acting as proxies of the Soviet Union, because it doesn’t make any sense and it is not true. And he goes on to explain to Brzezinski why it is not true. Anyone who wanted to understand it in the US government could understand it. There was enough evidence. The CIA was saying it. But it was so much more comforting to say, oh, the guy is a proxy of the Soviet Union. It irritated Fidel Castro. So it’s a myth that has absolutely no basis in reality.

And let me add one thing: Fidel Castro in the 1960s criticized the Soviet Union, in 1966, ‘67, in a way that no European government dared criticize the United States, and I don’t mean just my government, the Italian government, which was servile to a degree that was pathetic. But not even De Gaulle would deal with United States the way Fidel Castro dealt with the Soviet Union. He criticized them openly on every issue, including domestic policy in the Soviet Union. So it didn’t require genius to realize that this guy was not a proxy of the Soviet Union."

Also now declassified CIA files on Cuba-Soviet relations, especially document 8:

nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB67

@Womanpuncher69 @DontAtMe

Also in document 4 Mao's vice premier Deng is talking to Gerald Ford and Kissinger about how hard it is to fund the FNLA and UNITA against the MPLA because they can't funnel weapons through African countries to these groups because they were allied with apartheid South Africa

Wasnt this one Deng era

Also see Cubas leadership of the non-aligned movement in the late 70s

Nope, december 1975

Teng is deng, but they're calling him Vice Premier here so still Mao era

Common refutation is Mao had no more power after (insert year)

Teng U

Mao and Nixon barely spoke during the famous visit

I added a screenshot to that post of a CIA document where they talk about Brezhnev was ranting about Fidel's support for revolution internationally and tried to make him out to be too idealist and compared him to Mao bc of that

Cuba was and remains LIONED. Gets way too little credit too

It's true that he lost clout after the cultural revolution but what people then imply is that he was just a hapless bystander during the rightward turn of the CPC which I don't think holds up as he facilitated much of it.

appreciate all the info about Cuba

Fax that's why I can't stand when some Maoists call Cuba a "Soviet neocolony" and denounce their support for anti-colonial struggle as "social imperialist"