[Debate] Samuel Farber on Unions in Cuba
critical.montages at gmail.com
Tue Jul 10 21:38:20 BST 2012
A social revolution historically has been impossible without some form
of "charismatic authority." If the Cuban state survives long enough
more or less in its present form, though, the "charismatic authority"
of the first generation of revolutionary leadership will become
routinized, giving rise to a different style of authority.
BTW, authority is not the same thing as authoritarianism. In
rejecting the latter one shouldn't reject the former. The question is
whether the authority exercised by a leadership enjoys democratic
legitimacy in the eyes of the majority.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
> What should the relationship between unions and the state be?
> Do you understand the Is the issue about being adversarial as the
> classic formulation to create the dictatorship of the proletariat? Is
> your concern about automous spaces for self organisation?
> How do you see the continuity of power and the Castro hold on it? Are
> you of the view that such "authoritarianism" may be necessary in the
> face of the real threats of its neighbour or what?
> On 2012/07/10 10:57 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>> Why should trade unions necessarily be adversarial to the party and/or
>> the state unless the party and/or the state are against their members?
>> E.g., are CTC, KKE, Zenroren, etc. worse trade unions than apolitical
>> trade unions?
> Peter wrote
>> >'socialism' is the appropriate term to apply to a country that after a half
>> >century is ruled by members of the same family, by one party, and in which
>> >there is one state-approved and state-organised organisation for workers,
>> >for women, for children, etc, etc.
> Debate-list mailing list
> Debate-list at fahamu.org
More information about the Debate-list