Truth regarding human rights in Cuba

[Robocommie]

Comrades, recently I've been studying the Cuban revolution and Castro's government, with quite a bit of interest. It seems that the revolution there has been to a certain extent quite successful in that the Cuban human development index is quite high despite the embargo and conditions, while not ideal, have improved from the way things were under Batista.

But you can't really study Castro without coming up, time and time again, to accusations and charges of human rights abuses, including thousands of politically motivated arrests, tortures and executions. These numbers vary wildly, always with the staunch anti-Communists providing the highest numbers, and the Cuban-American community eager to back those up, but even the lower range of figures from arguably less biased sources are a bit worrying. That, and the 1.2 million people who have left Cuba as refugees in small boats over the past several decades gives me pause.

I realize how this sounds like a covert attack on a Marxist government, but I believe the revolution must be eternally open to self-criticism and self-question, so I will hope you will forgive me for my doubts and questions. Idiots on Stormfront and other far right wing thugs deny their movement's crimes, and we're supposed to be the good guys, so I'd like to remain open to these questions.

Can anyone here give me a Marxist counterpoint to these things? I want to remain a Castro supporter, and I want to remain believing in the Cuban government. I'm very sure that many of these reports and allegations are fueled by lies and politically motivated exaggerations, but I think it might be a little naive to assume they all are. I'm hoping that perhaps there are some comrades here in our community who are themselves from Cuba who could weigh in on things?

[willdw79]

Comrades, recently I've been studying the Cuban revolution and Castro's government, with quite a bit of interest. It seems that the revolution there has been to a certain extent quite successful in that the Cuban human development index is quite high despite the embargo and conditions, while not ideal, have improved from the way things were under Batista.

But you can't really study Castro without coming up, time and time again, to accusations and charges of human rights abuses, including thousands of politically motivated arrests, tortures and executions. These numbers vary wildly, always with the staunch anti-Communists providing the highest numbers, and the Cuban-American community eager to back those up, but even the lower range of figures from arguably less biased sources are a bit worrying. That, and the 1.2 million people who have left Cuba as refugees in small boats over the past several decades gives me pause.

I realize how this sounds like a covert attack on a Marxist government, but I believe the revolution must be eternally open to self-criticism and self-question, so I will hope you will forgive me for my doubts and questions. Idiots on Stormfront and other far right wing thugs deny their movement's crimes, and we're supposed to be the good guys, so I'd like to remain open to these questions.

Can anyone here give me a Marxist counterpoint to these things? I want to remain a Castro supporter, and I want to remain believing in the Cuban government. I'm very sure that many of these reports and allegations are fueled by lies and politically motivated exaggerations, but I think it might be a little naive to assume they all are. I'm hoping that perhaps there are some comrades here in our community who are themselves from Cuba who could weigh in on things?
There are lots of people in Cuba who believe that capitalism is a fair system where if they worked real hard they could get a lot. So, they emmigrate.

It highlights one issue that is central to capitalism. If you don't care about the plight of other people and you happen to find a good job, then you can say screw everybody else. The people who have left Cuba for the U.S., I believe many of them have that idea. For some of them it works to satisfy their selfish goals.

[Kukulofori]

Not just that, but the US grants immediate residence to anyone from Cuba and has a higher standard of living due to not being a blockaded third world island country. And even then the number is quite low compared to elsewhere in latin america.

[Gravedigger01]

I have complete respect for Castro and they are (I think) the 3rd(or 5th,something around that) best off country in Latin America but after the revolution there was a poltical struggle over whether the country should become Communist or remain Capitalist.It is documented that Catro did exile,torture(possibly shoot)Political Opponents during the struggle for power.

[rebelmouse]

where is state there is misuse and deaths. after WWII, tito/partisans killed many people. now they find mass graves after 60 years. last news from serbia: 75 pilots (from the time of kingdom) were called by communists "in order to serve new government" and all of them were killed when they come.
from anarchist standpoint, there is no need to kill people after they loose power, war was finished, partisans won, so this pilots could be used or sent to pension and that's all. but communists killed really more than 50 000 people, and political party was like in capitalism: you have conenctions, you get better position.
so I believe in Cuba is the same, political party is the root of problem and it is not party of people than party of Fidel. if you want to rule, you must make privileges for those who keep you at the top, therefore I don't believe that Fidel and his machinery have the same quality of life like ordinary Cubans. Privileges exist, I lived in Yugoslavia and I can say that people from party had privileges, from the local level till the top (getting of flat, eating in hotels on the bill of budget, etc).
by the way, I don't think Cuba could have better standard of living in capitalism than in present socialism, they are just small island and all islands there are with similar economic standard.
so, if state stay alive after revolution, you will have revenge: political cleaning=death for anyone who got finger on him even if man who put finger is liar. many people are ready for revenge because of some private problem, when they get position in party they can misuse it even to kill or imprison someone whom someone don't like.

[bailey_187]

Stop being a Liberal.

That's my advice.

[Robocommie]

Stop being a Liberal.

That's my advice.

And what exactly is so liberal about my post?

[cb9's_unity]

And what exactly is so liberal about my post?

Absolutely nothing.

You are right on in questioning Cuba. As Marxists we are supposed to examine reality instead of propaganda. They criticize the west for blindly demonizing Cuba while they blindly make Castro a saint.

In my opinion the truth is somewhere in the middle. What Castro has done for Cuba's living standards has been nothing short of incredible. People in Cuba live healthier and more securely than they ever would have if Batista or another capitalist dictator had taken power. However like every other Cuban leader in history Castro has had a less than perfect human rights record. Never be afraid to take a critical eye at something, even if someone will slander you for it.

[Random Precision]

bailey_187, please don't make posts only consisting of a personal attack on another user.

[New Tet]

Comrades, recently I've been studying the Cuban revolution and Castro's government, with quite a bit of interest. It seems that the revolution there has been to a certain extent quite successful in that the Cuban human development index is quite high despite the embargo and conditions, while not ideal, have improved from the way things were under Batista.

But you can't really study Castro without coming up, time and time again, to accusations and charges of human rights abuses, including thousands of politically motivated arrests, tortures and executions. These numbers vary wildly, always with the staunch anti-Communists providing the highest numbers, and the Cuban-American community eager to back those up, but even the lower range of figures from arguably less biased sources are a bit worrying. That, and the 1.2 million people who have left Cuba as refugees in small boats over the past several decades gives me pause.

I realize how this sounds like a covert attack on a Marxist government, but I believe the revolution must be eternally open to self-criticism and self-question, so I will hope you will forgive me for my doubts and questions. Idiots on Stormfront and other far right wing thugs deny their movement's crimes, and we're supposed to be the good guys, so I'd like to remain open to these questions.

Can anyone here give me a Marxist counterpoint to these things? I want to remain a Castro supporter, and I want to remain believing in the Cuban government. I'm very sure that many of these reports and allegations are fueled by lies and politically motivated exaggerations, but I think it might be a little naive to assume they all are. I'm hoping that perhaps there are some comrades here in our community who are themselves from Cuba who could weigh in on things?

All countries have human rights violations. Cuba is no exception.

As long a small political or economic class is in actual control over the social life of working class majority, human rights abuses and all manner of inhuman atrocities will be committed in the name one flag or another.

My personal opinion about Cuba is that socialists of all stripes should lend critical support to Cuba while the U.S./capitalist empire lasts and while Cuba maintains a sincerely hostile attitude toward imperialism and capitalist regimes throughout the world.

The problem is, in my mind, that Cuba's last remnants of its beautiful revolution will probably not outlast capitalism. I'm surprised how long it lasted after the collapse of the USSR! A credit to Fidel's and the Cuban people's political genius.

[Robocommie]

Absolutely nothing.

You are right on in questioning Cuba. As Marxists we are supposed to examine reality instead of propaganda. They criticize the west for blindly demonizing Cuba while they blindly make Castro a saint.

Thank you Comrade, I feel the same. The Buddhists have a saying, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him." The meaning of course is that the Buddha is not his teachings and you can't idolize a man if you're going to achieve sincere understanding. I feel it is the same in Marxism.

I mean hey, I love Socialist Realist art as much as the next Red. But the fact is, that while we may deeply respect and admire, and even seek to emulate many things about Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and others as human beings, we have to be prepared to recognize their faults and mistakes, so that we can recognize them, avoid them in the future and improve on them. They're not the gods of a Marxist religion.

What I'd like to know is, just how much IS Castro at fault, and how much is inflated or even invented by the right? And what justifications exist for those things he did do that may seem wrong to us?



In my opinion the truth is somewhere in the middle. What Castro has done for Cuba's living standards has been nothing short of incredible. People in Cuba live healthier and more securely than they ever would have if Batista or another capitalist dictator had taken power. However like every other Cuban leader in history Castro has had a less than perfect human rights record. Never be afraid to take a critical eye at something, even if someone will slander you for it.This is what I'm basically being led to believe myself. Cuba is recognized even by the United Nations as having a relatively high HDI, which is really not something to sniff at, and they did that while dealing with American sanctions.

I can also certainly understand why it might be seen as necessary by Castro to institute limitations on certain civil rights, democracy has it's own problems. Just look at the fucking spectacle in the US Congress right now. We have a centre-left party that theoretically controls both houses of the legislature apparently unable to pass a fucking health care bill that isn't even that impressive when compared to other capitalist nations.

As an autocrat, you can cut through that.

[mreyda]

I'll start by pointing out that most people who emigrated from Cuba over the last 20 years have done so not out of any political motivation, but simply because Cuba, despite the great health care and education, remains a very poor country, and the US remains a very rich one. They come to the US for a better quality of life, which in some respects they get.
As for human rights abuses, these things really need to be looked at on a case by case basis. A few years ago, several people hijacked a ferry and tried to divert it to Miami. Not being a seaworthy vessel, it would certainly have not made it, probably killing all the people on board. The hijackers were stopped before they could get the boat to sea, and they were arrested, tried, and sentenced to death. This was portrayed as a horrible human rights abuse by the American and British liberals.
While there is certainly room to debate whether the death penalty is ever acceptable (I believe it is in very limited circumstances), a death sentence for acts of terrorism and hijackings is not out of line with any developed country in the world. (Heck, if a foreign national is involved the US will kill thousands of people that had nothing to do with the hijacking.)
Other such human rights abuses involve imprisoning people who accepy money from foreign governments that are openly hostile to Cuba. Accepting money from foreign governments is illegal, and carries prison time, in every country in the world.
While there very well may be human rights abuses in Cuba, most of what is proclaimed a human rights abuse is something that every country on the face of the earth engages in. While this in no way excuses legitimate human rights violations, those of us who live in imperialist nations would do far better directing our outrage at our own governments actions at home and abroad.

[Radical]

http://www.cubatruth.info

[RedSonRising]

I will always value the Cuban revolution for

1) eliminating imperialism which define the social relations of most other Latin American countries to this day.

2) Increasing the standard of living and access to education and healthcare, allowing for the Cuban citizen to have an increased "freedom" in this sense, as a result from these positive rights, to determining their expressions through their careers

3) Creating a political system in which organized and segmented worker unions can give their input into the economic and political framework.

Now, I feel Cuba needs a TON of reforms to their Central political layout and the way the State exercises it's will without direct communication with their popular constituents. The overbearing conformity and lack of decentralization in the legislative process (which has begun to diminish) needs to be emphasized soon. Internal pressures and situational context have allowed for change to appear imminent with the election of Raul and succeeding Cuban government administrators.

Cuba is far from perfect, but has accomplished too much in the scope of Latin American politics to be dismissed, and should be criticized as much as possible in order to be analyzed properly and promote the further building of socialism on the former colony.

[chegitz guevara]

Living in South Florida I can attest to the non-politicalness of the current immigrants. Most of them come with visions of streets paved with gold, and end up working shit jobs. The only difference between them and someone from Mexico is Mexicans are called illegals while Cubans are given a pat on the back.

I hate to write it, but in Miami, Cubans act like everyone else is the foreigner.

[Spark]

That, and the 1.2 million people who have left Cuba as refugees in small boats over the past several decades gives me pause.I don't have the time to address your entire post, but this statement is false. 1.2 million people have not left Cuba as refugees in small boats. In fact, much Cuban immigration was in direct flights from Cuba to America during the 1960s.

[Poppytry]

There will always be that odd case in the western media which makes us think, how can someone be punished for such a crime? .. for example recently a man who complained that he was hungry was sentenced to two years imprisonment. Of course such cases should not be ignored but neither should they be an excuse to attack Cuba. There is greater injustice and cruelty under the governments who openly attack Cuba than Cuba will ever be capable of. I found this speech by Fidel Castro on that Cuba truth website which presents a very strong argument on the debate of human rights.

Former Cuban President Fidel Castro himself put it best when he asked, “On what moral grounds can the rulers of a nation in which millionaires and beggars exists; Indians are exterminated; Blacks are discriminated against; women are prostituted; and huge numbers of Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and other Latin Americans are scorned, exploited, and humiliated, speak of human rights?

“How can the representatives of a capitalist and imperialist society based on the exploitation of man by man, combined with egoism, individualism, and a complete lack of human solidarity, do this?

“How can those that train and provide military supplies to the bloodiest, most reactionary, and most corrupt governments in the world, such as those of Somoza, Pinochet, Stroessner, the gorillas in Uruguay, Mobutu, and the shah of Iran, just to name a few, mouth this slogan?

“How can the leaders of a state whose intelligence agencies organized assassination attempts against the leaders of other countries and whose armies dropped explosives in Vietnam equivalent to hundreds of atom bombs, such as those that exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and who murdered millions of Vietnamese without even deigning to apologize to the country or pay indemnity for the lives lost – the leaders of a state that has traditionally intervened in Latin America, subjects the people of this part of the world to its exploiting yoke, and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of children every year due to illness and starvation – how can they speak of human rights?

“In short, how can the imperialist government that forcibly maintains a military base in our territory and subjects our people to a criminal economic blockade speak of human rights?”

Lets also spare a thought for Cuban revolutionary Almeida who passed away today at the age of 82. "Here, nobody surrenders!"

[n0thing]

The elections are a farce, they still persecute dissidents, they have a history of persecuting anarchists and homosexuals, and just recently they threw a man into prison for 2 years for saying he was hungry on camera.

The Castro faction could end the blockade tomorrow. All they have to do is institute democratic reforms, thus calling Obama's hand. But they won't. The American strategy towards Cuba has been dependent on Castro wanting to keep power. They need an excuse to subject Cuba to these devastating sanctions, and Castro is the perfect excuse.

[Spark]

The Castro faction could end the blockade tomorrow. All they have to do is institute democratic reforms, thus calling Obama's hand. The Cuban people do not owe the United States anything. Cuba is not the country that unilaterally cut off relations and imposed a devastating blockade on the country. It is not the Cuban military that currently maintains an illegal occupation of U.S. territory contrary to the will of the American people.

Influenced in apart by right-wing Cuban bourgeois counter-revolutionary elements in Miami, It is the United States that continues to maintain the barbarous, inhuman policy against the Cuban Republic solely because these tyrants will settle for nothing less than a slave-master relationship with the Cuban people as they had prior to the Revolution. Cuba experienced profound democratic political and soecio-economic transformation in 1959-61. To cite U.S. State Department propaganda about Cuba's need to "institute democratic reforms" really shows a lack in critical thinking. To insult Cuba in such a way is unbecoming of a leftist.

they still persecute dissidents
No innocent man is unjustly persecuted in Cuba.

[cb9's_unity]

We all know that the blockade on Cuba never had anything to do with democracy. America was fine with the capitalist dictator's that existed before Castro.

However n0thing does make a valid point. America has been bluffing for the past 50 years in saying the blockade was about democracy. If Cuba were to institute democratic reforms (and Cuba clearly is controlled by an authoritarian bureaucracy) then America would be forced to either put down the blockade or prove itself hypocritical.

[Wanted Man]

However n0thing does make a valid point. America has been bluffing for the past 50 years in saying the blockade was about democracy. If Cuba were to institute democratic reforms (and Cuba clearly is controlled by an authoritarian bureaucracy) then America would be forced to either put down the blockade or prove itself hypocritical.

How do you figure that? What kind of "reforms" do you think would end the blockade? You say yourself that you're not even sure if any "reforms" will do that. If they don't, well, then at least America will "prove itself hypocritical"...

Guess what? America is hypocritical, and a lot of people know it. They claim to be fighting for democracy, but they installed Pinochet. So let's say Cuba makes your unspecified "reforms" and the embargo stays, then what? Another weak spot for US-funded official "opposition" and "dissidents"? WELL AT LEAST AMERICA LOOKS HYPOCRITICAL...

[manic expression]

Yeah, if only Cuba had a bourgeois electoral system and THEN elected a socialist like Allende in Chile, the US would leave them alone.

Oh, wait....

Listen, Cuba is the most democratic country on earth. Democracy is one part of the reason why the American bourgeoisie has besieged the revolution, but only because all capitalists fear democratic working-class state power. American imperialists principally continue the embargo because it's a.) electorally important in southern Florida, b.) necessary to weaken the revolution and c.) part of a long grudge that partially started when Washington's imperialist mercenaries got their a**es kicked at Playa Giron.

Plus, hypocrisy is almost synonymous with capitalism.

[Crux]

The Castro faction could end the blockade tomorrow. All they have to do is institute democratic reforms, thus calling Obama's hand. But they won't. The American strategy towards Cuba has been dependent on Castro wanting to keep power. They need an excuse to subject Cuba to these devastating sanctions, and Castro is the perfect excuse.
Actually, no. It's the other way around.

[n0thing]

How do you figure that? What kind of "reforms" do you think would end the blockade? You say yourself that you're not even sure if any "reforms" will do that. If they don't, well, then at least America will "prove itself hypocritical"...

Guess what? America is hypocritical, and a lot of people know it. They claim to be fighting for democracy, but they installed Pinochet. So let's say Cuba makes your unspecified "reforms" and the embargo stays, then what? Another weak spot for US-funded official "opposition" and "dissidents"? WELL AT LEAST AMERICA LOOKS HYPOCRITICAL...
Well if the reforms were towards US style liberal democracy, then yeah, maybe it would end up being just another South American US client state. But there really is no reason for them to institute those kinds of reforms. They could go further; setting up soviets and workers councils, handing the factories over to the workers and so forth. You know, socialism.

If the embargo were to stay after such reforms, I would be very surprised. The US doesn't maintain an embargo on every country that doesn't adhere to neo-liberal economic policies. Only on the ones that they can find a very good excuse for doing so. Like in the case of dictatorships in Iran and Zimbabwe. Venezuela for example, remains embargo-free. Most likely because the US has no excuse for imposing one. And there has been a very significant change in American attitudes towards foreign policy since the 70's. It's the sort of change that forced Reagan to go underground with the Iran-Contra deal. People just don't tolerate it any more. If they did, they wouldn't need the excuse in the first place.

Of course these reforms are never going to happen, because Castro wants to stay in power. And this is why the US pretends the embargo is about democracy; because they know that Castro, just like any other dictator, won't give up his power. So they try to force the population to overthrow him.

[Random Precision]

Well if the reforms were towards US style liberal democracy, then yeah, maybe it would end up being just another South American US client state. But there really is no reason for them to institute those kinds of reforms. They could go further; setting up soviets and workers councils, handing the factories over to the workers and so forth. You know, socialism.

Maybe it's just me with my silly Marxist leanings, but I thought it was the working class that was supposed to do those things rather than a state bureaucracy, whether the state in question is capitalist, "popular-democratic", state-capitalist, deformed socialist or whatever. The Cuban state is not really in a position where it can choose to "implement socialism". Any factories it "hands over" to the workers, any soviets that it "sets up" will be directly or indirectly subservient to the state that is already in place, meaning they will either have no meaningful power, or that power will be taken away the second it's exercised.

Realistically the Cuban state can only do two things given its class position: it can either maintain its position in command of politics and the economy, or it can implement bourgeois-democratic and market reforms like other "socialist" state bureaucracies have done before it. Anything beyond that will have to be left to the Cuban workers.

[Poppytry]

What exactly does the trade embargo consist of? .. I haven't done much reading on it.. does it stop other American allies also trading with Cuba?

[n0thing]

Maybe it's just me with my silly Marxist leanings, but I thought it was the working class that was supposed to do those things rather than a state bureaucracy, whether the state in question is capitalist, "popular-democratic", state-capitalist, deformed socialist or whatever. The Cuban state is not really in a position where it can choose to "implement socialism". Any factories it "hands over" to the workers, any soviets that it "sets up" will be directly or indirectly subservient to the state that is already in place, meaning they will either have no meaningful power, or that power will be taken away the second it's exercised.

Realistically the Cuban state can only do two things given its class position: it can either maintain its position in command of politics and the economy, or it can implement bourgeois-democratic and market reforms like other "socialist" state bureaucracies have done before it. Anything beyond that will have to be left to the Cuban workers.
I'm making an argument for how Castro could theoretically end the embargo. I acknowledge at the end of my post that this will probably never happen, because Castro is an authority figure, and authority figures cling to their authority. So yeah, I agree. The ruling class won't perform revolutionary social changes on our behalf.

[Leo]

No innocent man is unjustly persecuted in Cuba.

What about that guy who said he was hungry and was sentenced to two years in prison?

[RedSonRising]

The elections are a farce, they still persecute dissidents, they have a history of persecuting anarchists and homosexuals, and just recently they threw a man into prison for 2 years for saying he was hungry on camera.

The Castro faction could end the blockade tomorrow. All they have to do is institute democratic reforms, thus calling Obama's hand. But they won't. The American strategy towards Cuba has been dependent on Castro wanting to keep power. They need an excuse to subject Cuba to these devastating sanctions, and Castro is the perfect excuse.


The prosecution of homosexuals was at the time considered a Bourgeois excess, due to the culture of Latin American machismo and the lack of understanding of sexual nature. Castro himself has said he was ashamed of some of the things done early in the revolution, and his granddaughter pioneered their interests to the Cuban State.

One can get a free sex change in Cuba today.

[Revy]

What about that guy who said he was hungry and was sentenced to two years in prison?

Nope, he was clearly an undercover CIA agent. ;)

[manic expression]

What exactly does the trade embargo consist of? .. I haven't done much reading on it.. does it stop other American allies also trading with Cuba?

Good question. I'm quite sure the US embargo is extra-territorial, which means that any firm which trades with Cuba is completely barred from trading with the US. So if a German company wanted to trade with Cuba, it would be unable to do any business in the US. Obviously, this has quite an impact, as the US capitalist system remains the world's most important market. Further, from what I've heard, extra-territorial embargoes are essentially illegal and/or universally denounced by the international community. In fact, every year or so the embargo gets formally denounced by the UN.


Well if the reforms were towards US style liberal democracy, then yeah, maybe it would end up being just another South American US client state. But there really is no reason for them to institute those kinds of reforms. They could go further; setting up soviets and workers councils, handing the factories over to the workers and so forth. You know, socialism.

They already have set up such a system. The electoral system in Cuba operates on the basis of working-class democracy:

http://www.cubasolidarity.com/aboutcuba/topics/government/0504elecsys.htm

http://www.cubasolidarity.org.tt/?q=node/26


Of course these reforms are never going to happen, because Castro wants to stay in power. And this is why the US pretends the embargo is about democracy; because they know that Castro, just like any other dictator, won't give up his power. So they try to force the population to overthrow him.

:rolleyes: Yeah, ok, the US wants the Cuban people to "overthrow" the "dictator", Yeltsin-style. Does anyone learn from history? Anyone? Bueller?

[Orange Juche]

Former Cuban President Fidel Castro himself put it best when he asked, “On what moral grounds can the rulers of a nation in which millionaires and beggars exists; Indians are exterminated; Blacks are discriminated against; women are prostituted; and huge numbers of Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and other Latin Americans are scorned, exploited, and humiliated, speak of human rights?

“How can the representatives of a capitalist and imperialist society based on the exploitation of man by man, combined with egoism, individualism, and a complete lack of human solidarity, do this?

“How can those that train and provide military supplies to the bloodiest, most reactionary, and most corrupt governments in the world, such as those of Somoza, Pinochet, Stroessner, the gorillas in Uruguay, Mobutu, and the shah of Iran, just to name a few, mouth this slogan?

“How can the leaders of a state whose intelligence agencies organized assassination attempts against the leaders of other countries and whose armies dropped explosives in Vietnam equivalent to hundreds of atom bombs, such as those that exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and who murdered millions of Vietnamese without even deigning to apologize to the country or pay indemnity for the lives lost – the leaders of a state that has traditionally intervened in Latin America, subjects the people of this part of the world to its exploiting yoke, and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of children every year due to illness and starvation – how can they speak of human rights?

“In short, how can the imperialist government that forcibly maintains a military base in our territory and subjects our people to a criminal economic blockade speak of human rights?”

"Someone else is way worse" does nothing to prove that Cuba is a golden bastion of rights and freedoms. It's side stepping.

[manic expression]

"Someone else is way worse" does nothing to prove that Cuba is a golden bastion of rights and freedoms. It's side stepping.

It's not side-stepping, it's debunking the central ideological justification for the imperialist embargo, merely on the basis of its own hypocrisy. That's a valid argument, and then some.

And if you want to look at Cuban democracy, I suggest you read my last post.

[Orange Juche]

It's not side-stepping, it's debunking the central ideological justification for the imperialist embargo, merely on the basis of its own hypocrisy. That's a valid argument, and then some.

And if you want to look at Cuban democracy, I suggest you read my last post.

I'm not disagreeing with Castro's opinion on American imperialist power, and the hypocrisy of America condemning Cuba based on "human rights."

But responding to an accusation by saying "You're a hypocrite for accusing me of this," even if that may be true, does nothing to debunk the initial accusation.

[x359594]

...What I'd like to know is, just how much IS Castro at fault, and how much is inflated or even invented by the right? And what justifications exist for those things he did do that may seem wrong to us?...

One area where the Cuban government behaved worse than the capitalist USA was in the area of gay rights.

In 1965 the poet and gay activist (and son of a communist with long time sympathies for anti-imperialist struggles) Allen Ginsberg was invited to a conference on literature at the University of Havana. He arrived with what turned out to be a naive belief in the "New Man" much touted by Cuban revolutionary propaganda. Instead, he quickly learned of the persecution of gays and lesbians, and when he tried to question his hosts about it he was met with prevarications; in interviews with the Cuban media he raised the question at every opportunity. The interviews were either censored or not published. Finally Ginsberg was deported. Even so, he continued to defend the Cuban revolution for the rest of his life but with the caveat that the revolution be extended to all regardless of sexual orientation.

Cuban gay writer Reinaldo Arenas wrote that in Communist Cuba, "the 'new man' was being proclaimed and masculinity exalted."
Fidel Castro's admiring description of rural life in Cuba ("in the country, there are no homosexuals") reflected the idea of homosexuality as bourgeois decadence, and he denounced "maricones" (faggots) as "agents of imperialism". Castro explained his reasoning in a 1965 interview:
“[H]omosexuals should not be allowed in positions where they are able to exert influence upon young people. In the conditions under which we live, because of the problems which our country is facing, we must inculcate your youth with the spirit of discipline, of struggle, of work... [W]e would never come to believe that a homosexual could embody the conditions and requirements of conduct that would enable us to consider him a true Revolutionary, a true Communist militant. A deviation of that nature clashes with the concept we have of what a militant Communist must be.”
Like Allen Ginsberg, many Cuban gays were attracted to the socialist promise of an egalitarian society. It's only in recent years that official persecution has abated. Raul's daughter Mariela Castro, who is also an executive member of the World Association for Sexual Health, insists that job discrimination and mass arrests are a thing of the past. "[Homosexuals] still sometimes face arrest by bigoted police" she said, and added that she has sometimes clashed with the authorities in her efforts to release gay men and women from prison."Now, society is more relaxed. There is no official repression of gays and lesbians."

[manic expression]

But responding to an accusation by saying "You're a hypocrite for accusing me of this," even if that may be true, does nothing to debunk the initial accusation.

That may be so, but if a naked guy starts attacking you because he thinks you're dressed improperly, the first thing to do is establish that the attacker isn't dressed so smartly himself; the fact that you're wearing a tailored tuxedo is the second-most important point.

[manic expression]

One area where the Cuban government behaved worse than the capitalist USA was in the area of gay rights.

This has been addressed about a thousand times. The Cuban government has reversed its earlier position and has made enshrining gay rights a matter of great importance in Cuba. As has been said before, Cuba is among the only countries in the world (possibly the only country) to offer free sex change operations to its citizens.

So no, Cuba is far better than the US government in this regard, too.

[mosfeld]

human rights abuses, including thousands of politically motivated arrests If your definition of politically motivated arrests is arresting counter-revolutionaries, then yes, Cuba subscribes to that supposed human rights abuse. This is nothing new though, under proletarian dictatorship there will be suppression of the bourgeoisie, the same as there is suppression of the proletariat under bourgeois dictatorship. This is the nature of class dictatorship.

'Here, no one has ever been imprisoned for being a dissident or because they see things differently from the way the revolution does. Our courts sentence people to prison on the basis of laws, and they judge counter-revolutionary acts.

[...]

The idea that in Cuba we send people to prison for having a belief that's different from the Revolution's is ridiculous. Here, we punish acts, not ideas. There are tens of thousands of people with different beliefs and different ideas from the revolution's, and who still enjoy all the guarantees and all respect.''

-Fidel Castro


human rights abuses, including [...] torture Source?


human rights abuses, including [...] executions
The difference between Socialists and Liberals is that Socialists will defend any execution as long as it is in favor of the proletariat class and furthers the socialist cause. Don't fall for the liberal claptrap that all executions are unjustifiable crimes, they only are in the case of reactionary and racist governments.


That, and the 1.2 million people who have left Cuba as refugees in small boats over the past several decades gives me pause. People tend to forget that Cuba isn't heaven on earth or something, Cuba is a third world country next to the richest country in the world. This alone should attribute to mass migration to the US, just as it has for Mexico, Haiti and all neighboring third world countries. Then there's also the Cuban embargo, which condemned Cuba even further into poverty, making it more desirable to leave Cuba, and the Cuban adjustment act of 1996, which allows Cubans who have lived in the US for one year to acquire permanent residence, which makes it even more desirable to head for the US.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

the 1.2 million people who have left Cuba as refugees in small boats over the past several decades gives me pause.

Slightly aside from the idea of human rights, but alas. You have to consider the wet foot dry foot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_feet,_dry_feet_policy) policy as a key contributor to this. If the United States offered asylum to citizens of any other third world country in the hemisphere - capitalist or allegedly otherwise, they'd be inundated with people migrating inwards.

This isn't meant to imply anything about either governments (I don't have the time right now), but just pointing it out. That being said, I find it disconcerting that some so called 'socialists' are reluctant to make any critique of Cuba for fears of undermining 'the revolution'

[x359594]

This has been addressed about a thousand times. The Cuban government has reversed its earlier position and has made enshrining gay rights a matter of great importance in Cuba....Cuba is far better than the US government in this regard, too.

Comrade, please do me the courtesy of reading my entire post where I already noted that "The Cuban government has reversed its earlier position..."

If we look to Cuba as an example of what a socialist society can be, then this issue needs to be addressed a thousand times again, until homophobia is wiped out in Cuba and throughout the world.

As for the Cuban government doing better than its US counterpart, I find that assertion questionable. Under Article 2 of the Family Code, marriage is restricted to the union of a man and a woman. No alternative to marriage such as civil unions or domestic partnerships is currently available. Attempts to present several favorable measures to Cuba’s parliament for the LGBT community, including the legalization of same sex unions, have thus far been unsuccessful, same as in the USA (though several states recognize civil unions and a few recognize same sex marriage.)

[Orange Juche]

This has been addressed about a thousand times. The Cuban government has reversed its earlier position and has made enshrining gay rights a matter of great importance in Cuba. As has been said before, Cuba is among the only countries in the world (possibly the only country) to offer free sex change operations to its citizens.

So no, Cuba is far better than the US government in this regard, too.

It's all great and fine that they have a great policy on gay rights now, but that doesn't somehow atone for past sins.

[manic expression]

Comrade, please do me the courtesy of reading my entire post where I already noted that "The Cuban government has reversed its earlier position..."

My apologies for the oversight.


If we look to Cuba as an example of what a socialist society can be, then this issue needs to be addressed a thousand times again, until homophobia is wiped out in Cuba and throughout the world.

And the revolutionary government is doing its very best to do that.


As for the Cuban government doing better than its US counterpart, I find that assertion questionable. Under Article 2 of the Family Code, marriage is restricted to the union of a man and a woman. No alternative to marriage such as civil unions or domestic partnerships is currently available. Attempts to present several favorable measures to Cuba’s parliament for the LGBT community, including the legalization of same sex unions, have thus far been unsuccessful, same as in the USA (though several states recognize civil unions and a few recognize same sex marriage.)

I think don't think it's such a stretch:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2007-02-26-opcom_x.htm

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6619.html

It is undoubted that Cuba is making significant and rapid progress on this key issue.


It's all great and fine that they have a great policy on gay rights now, but that doesn't somehow atone for past sins.

I suppose not; after all, the revolutionaries of Cuba don't go to confession too much.

[RedPersonality]

We all know that the blockade on Cuba never had anything to do with democracy. America was fine with the capitalist dictator's that existed before Castro.

However n0thing does make a valid point. America has been bluffing for the past 50 years in saying the blockade was about democracy. If Cuba were to institute democratic reforms (and Cuba clearly is controlled by an authoritarian bureaucracy) then America would be forced to either put down the blockade or prove itself hypocritical.No you only know that.And how you know if Cuba is democratic or not?You are a Cuban?I don't think so.Or hear tha shit from the Media that support Capitalism?And please tell me how democratic is your country and you think that Cuba isn't?How democratic is to work on a factory for 8 hours and more and other take the money?And also how democratic is weapons to be legal?Learn first what is democracy and then you can talk for this.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

And also how democratic is weapons to be legal?

More democratic than just the state having them...

[x359594]

...It is undoubted that Cuba is making significant and rapid progress on this key issue....

Yes, and here Cuba sets a good example for socialist countries that have their sorry histories of homophobia.

[RedPersonality]

More democratic than just the state having them...

Every citizen of US is able to buy weapon and do what ever he wants(like killing peoples let's say) but in Cuba is not like this or in all the other countries on this world.I'm sure that all people on the earth don't want this democracy!

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

The US still has the image of being a kind of promised land where everything is possible, I guess. That, plus the fact that right-wingers, capitalists and other political opponents naturally emigrate, as do the selfish Cubans who only think about themselves.
Frankly, the number of emigrated Cubans may appear high, but it's nothing compared to the Cubans who are still living in Cuba and are happy about it.

[cb9's_unity]

How do you figure that? What kind of "reforms" do you think would end the blockade? You say yourself that you're not even sure if any "reforms" will do that. If they don't, well, then at least America will "prove itself hypocritical"...

How about the type of reforms where a person has the freedom to criticize their government? How about the reforms that allow for more than one official party to run for government? I have looked at both sides of the issue and it is clear that Cuba is not the 100% perfect democracy that some on this site would like to believe. Political freedom is restricted in Cuba as is made clear by this article (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/cuba-internet-hunger-rant-marcos).


Guess what? America is hypocritical, and a lot of people know it.

Get your head out of revleft and look at the real world. The vast majority of American's still go around every day with the idea that "America is that greatest country that ever existed on the face of the entire earth". As you should know the history they are fed paints America as a beacon of democracy. I'm not sure who these "a lot" of people you're talking about are because I rarely see someone outside of revelft who aren't wearing the glasses of American exceptionalism.


They claim to be fighting for democracy, but they installed Pinochet. So let's say Cuba makes your unspecified "reforms" and the embargo stays, then what? Another weak spot for US-funded official "opposition" and "dissidents"? WELL AT LEAST AMERICA LOOKS HYPOCRITICAL...

Again get your head outside of revleft. Very few Americans have any idea of the history of American intervention in Latin America. However Cuba is a significant foreign policy issue in the U.S. If Cuba allowed greater freedom of speech (again that article shows without a doubt that this is lacking in Cuba) and took away the legal privileges of the Communist party the United States would be forced to react in some way as those reforms would certainly be news in the U.S if Cuba made a big enough deal about it.

If America failed to lift the embargo after these reforms it would clearly be a large political blow to the entire nation including Obama. Most people in the U.S view the U.S as good vs. Cuba as bad, they think we are in the 'right' by trying to protect democracy. If Obama refused to lift the embargo it would seriously raise questions in the mind's of Americans as to why the embargo was there in the first place. Considering most Americans know very little if anything about Batista it would be their first time questioning almost any American actions in Latin American.

I understand that all of us on this site understand the real anti-socialist reasons behind the U.S embargo. However our knowledge means nothing if it doesn't reach the general public. A very public show of hypocrisy by the U.S government could mean a blow to the nationalist mindsets of Americans who are the majority of the country yet you somehow are oblivious to.


No you only know that.And how you know if Cuba is democratic or not?You are a Cuban?I don't think so.Or hear tha shit from the Media that support Capitalism?And please tell me how democratic is your country and you think that Cuba isn't?How democratic is to work on a factory for 8 hours and more and other take the money?And also how democratic is weapons to be legal?Learn first what is democracy and then you can talk for this.

This is one of the most blatant examples of an "us" or "them" attitude I have ever seen. I don't fully support bourgeois countries or cuba, they both have massive flaws that must be overcome (in cuba by large political reform and in the U.S by proletarian revolution). Also the idea that I must be from Cuba to criticize it is insane. I didn't have to live in 19th century Imperialist Britain in order to attack its actions. From the evidence I have seen from many different sides I've concluded that Cuba is not a very democratic country. I suggest you learn to pick up some nuance in your argument.

[manic expression]

Sorry, but that article is about someone who committed slander against the Cuban people, something that the bleeding-heart Castrophobes seem to have no problem with. Opposition to the government and PCC, however, is permitted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569981.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2583201.stm

It's not that hard to figure out: Cuba is the most democratic country on the planet, by far; imperialists fear this. So far, the workers have been misled as to the truth in Cuba. That will change as the working class gains more consciousness and political confidence in its struggle against capitalism.

By the way, if Cuba rolled back the constitutional position of the Communist Party (a position that was ratified overwhelmingly in a democratic referendum), it would be a victory for reaction and for imperialism.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Every citizen of US is able to buy weapon and do what ever he wants(like killing peoples let's say) but in Cuba is not like this or in all the other countries on this world.I'm sure that all people on the earth don't want this democracy!

Ehem (http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-leftwing-militancy-t116346/index.html?t=116346)

[Wanted Man]

How about the type of reforms where a person has the freedom to criticize their government? How about the reforms that allow for more than one official party to run for government? I have looked at both sides of the issue and it is clear that Cuba is not the 100% perfect democracy that some on this site would like to believe. Political freedom is restricted in Cuba as is made clear by this article (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/cuba-internet-hunger-rant-marcos).
Nobody is saying that Cuba is "100% perfect democracy" (how would you define that anyway?). The article on the hunger guy has already been discussed to death, I'm not really interested in what you make of it. I was more interested in what you had to say about reforms that could "end the embargo", which I thought was delusional.

I'm not suggesting that Cuba is "100% perfect democracy" (I also don't think it's a communist paradise, or a utopia, or whatever soundbites about communism that you can hear on TV). The point is that the only "reforms" that are acceptable to the US, would be those that restore capitalism, and the kind of "democracy" that we're enjoying in the "free world"...


Get your head out of revleft and look at the real world. The vast majority of American's still go around every day with the idea that "America is that greatest country that ever existed on the face of the entire earth". As you should know the history they are fed paints America as a beacon of democracy. I'm not sure who these "a lot" of people you're talking about are because I rarely see someone outside of revelft who aren't wearing the glasses of American exceptionalism.

Again get your head outside of revleft. Very few Americans have any idea of the history of American intervention in Latin America. However Cuba is a significant foreign policy issue in the U.S. If Cuba allowed greater freedom of speech (again that article shows without a doubt that this is lacking in Cuba) and took away the legal privileges of the Communist party the United States would be forced to react in some way as those reforms would certainly be news in the U.S if Cuba made a big enough deal about it.

If America failed to lift the embargo after these reforms it would clearly be a large political blow to the entire nation including Obama. Most people in the U.S view the U.S as good vs. Cuba as bad, they think we are in the 'right' by trying to protect democracy. If Obama refused to lift the embargo it would seriously raise questions in the mind's of Americans as to why the embargo was there in the first place. Considering most Americans know very little if anything about Batista it would be their first time questioning almost any American actions in Latin American.
That's very interesting, dear, but the personal experiences of one cb9's_unity from Massachusetts are not representative of "the real world". The reality is that the perception of the US changes regularly. The Bush presidency had negative consequences for it (see: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=800), and now Obama's election has changed things around again (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264).

So if America acted hypocritically with regards to Cuba (something they've never done before???), it would certainly get some people to stop and think, but that has happened before. So I don't understand why you think that all the Americans would suddenly be shocked by their country's perfidious dealings with a little Caribbean state.

So what exactly do you want? Some token "reforms" that the US always pushes for (except for Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.), and "make a big enough deal about it" (what? "LOOK AMERICA, WE'RE KISSING YOUR ASS NOW, PLEASE REPORT IT IN THE MEDIA!!!" hey it worked for Gadaffi). In reality, only the restoration of capitalism is acceptable, and in that case, things will go along as usual. Well, maybe you can put on your smug face and shout from the rooftops that America really is hypocritical. I'm sure it will be worth it!

Or as you so kindly put it, get your head out of revleft.

[cb9's_unity]

Nobody is saying that Cuba is "100% perfect democracy" (how would you define that anyway?). The article on the hunger guy has already been discussed to death, I'm not really interested in what you make of it. I was more interested in what you had to say about reforms that could "end the embargo", which I thought was delusional.

I'm not suggesting that Cuba is "100% perfect democracy" (I also don't think it's a communist paradise, or a utopia, or whatever soundbites about communism that you can hear on TV). The point is that the only "reforms" that are acceptable to the US, would be those that restore capitalism, and the kind of "democracy" that we're enjoying in the "free world"...Your ability to completely miss the points of someones argument is outstanding. I understand 100% was an exaggeration, however there are those on this site who will defend absolutely everything Cuba does no matter how anti-democratic it may be. Does that make you happy?

So now that you've triumphantly critiqued my word choice in characterizing Castro apologists lets get on to the real point. My entire point from the beginning was that the only real interest of the U.S is reinstating capitalism in Cuba. If I may let me quote myself.


We all know that the blockade on Cuba never had anything to do with democracy. America was fine with the capitalist dictator's that existed before CastroThe fact the you have appeared to miss this is incredible. I understand the U.S only wants capitalism in Cuba but like n0thing stated the created the embargo on the basis of protecting democracy.


That's very interesting, dear, but the personal experiences of one cb9's_unity from Massachusetts are not representative of "the real world".But my interpretation of things actually takes into account the views of most Americans. You seemingly based your opinion on the idea that people already understood that the U.S is hypocritical. This is undeniably false, most Americans think the only major moral mistakes committed by the U.S against other countries were made by Bush. Most people have almost no understanding of why the embargo is standing against Cuba.

Our arguments having nothing to do with how much either of us have experienced reality. My argument takes into account what people actually view, your argument only took into account what leftists view.


The reality is that the perception of the US changes regularly. The Bush presidency had negative consequences for it (see: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=800 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=800)), and now Obama's election has changed things around again (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264).
Obviously opinions of the U.S change within the country and abroad. However many negative views of the U.S in the last few years have come from the idea that America has "become the bully" or that it has made "mistakes". They are not from the idea that the capitalist U.S is inherently imperialist.

The situation with Cuba is something entirely different. America has been holding this bluff with the embargo very publicly since the embargo was issued. It is a long standing policy that has been upheld by several presidents which are perceived by the American public to be very different from each other. If the U.S were to ignore democratic reforms in Cuba it would show to the public why America has acted the way it has, and that may be enough for at least some on the left wing of the mainstream political to start rethinking just how "moral" the U.S has always been.


So if America acted hypocritically with regards to Cuba (something they've never done before???), it would certainly get some people to stop and think, but that has happened before. So I don't understand why you think that all the Americans would suddenly be shocked by their country's perfidious dealings with a little Caribbean state.I have already recognized that there have been other imperialist and hypocritical action by the U.S in Latin America. I guess you just missed that part. The difference is that Cuba has been a major foreign policy issue for half a century. The Cuban-Americans have made the issue significantly larger than it would have been otherwise (and just to preemptively defend myself I am no fan of those anti-castroites who only truly dislike Castro because his progressive economic reforms took away the undue privileges afforded to them by Batista). It would be a glaring example of hypocrisy over generations, not simply over the term of one U.S president. Those on the left side of the American mainstream would for the first time have to confront U.S imperialism without being able to blame it on some "right wing nutjob".


So what exactly do you want? Some token "reforms" that the US always pushes for (except for Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.), and "make a big enough deal about it" (what? "LOOK AMERICA, WE'RE KISSING YOUR ASS NOW, PLEASE REPORT IT IN THE MEDIA!!!" hey it worked for Gadaffi). In reality, only the restoration of capitalism is acceptable, and in that case, things will go along as usual. Well, maybe you can put on your smug face and shout from the rooftops that America really is hypocritical. I'm sure it will be worth it!If increasing democracy is "kissing america's ass" than I, like every other socialist, should be kissing america's ass all day (which only shows how flawed your logic is here). Cuba is authoritarian and the "democracy" that it employs today is either flawed or corrupted by the dominance of one party. Making those democratic reforms can only help the country but I really don't care what the reason for democratization is, as long as it happens. However it is pretty nice that these positive reforms (unless you think limiting freedom of speech and undemocratically imposing a single party over the whole of society are positive) would come with the possibility of regaining a major trading partner.

The American media's eye watches the actions of the Cuban government arguably more than it does any other North or South American country. If the Cuban government made a big deal of democratic reforms followed by an open and observable election the western media would certainly take notice. After that their is a group of Liberals in the U.S (that somehow accidentally found themselves doing something productive) who have been arguing against the embargo that would use these reforms as evidence to lift the embargo. From there it leads to my original point. The embargo would either have to be lifted or in a very public debate America would prove itself to be hypocritical in front of a group of people who otherwise would not have thought so.