If the Cuban revolution happened today...

[Bardo]

As we all know, the socialist revolution in Cuba took place when tensions between the US and USSR were reaching the boiling point. Americans were terrified of communism and the revolution was generally seen as an expansion of communism rather than as a movement against an oppressive dictator.

So my question is, provided all circumstances were identical to the real revolution, would public opinion among middle and working class Americans be more sympathetic to Castro and the revolution in a post-Soviet world?

I've been thinking about this recently due to the positive response the Arab world protests/revolutions against US backed dicators have recieved among working class Americans.

[a rebel]

I doubt it, communism of any kind brings up those old cold war feelings. And being how close the U.S is to Cuba, they would get involved if it happened today. They would make Cuba the 51st state before they let communism spread

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Cuban Revolution was actually pretty widely supported in the U.S. early on. It wasn't until it moved against U.S. capital that the engineers of public opinion really got into anti-Cuba mode.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2276/2276919433_236a255175.jpg

Central Park, New York City, 1959.

http://www.topfoto.co.uk/gallery/july1960/images/prevs/IPU397683.jpg

United Nations, New York City, 1960.

http://mediastore.magnumphotos.com/CoreXDoc/MAG/Media/TR3/8/8/5/b/PAR35007.jpg

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/3397/5castro9.jpg

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4832/5castro14.jpg

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9314/5castro16.jpg

New York City, 1960.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

The United States broke off relations with Cuba before Castro even proclaimed that the revolution he had just carried out was a socialist revolution. The revolution that overthrew Batista in 1959 itself was clearly left-wing, but it also included some liberals, while Castro was not an open communist until after the American invasion at the Bay of Pigs.

The United States first tried to get rid of Castro and do away with the revolution not because he was a communist, but because it was clear that the unpopular (but very pro-American) Batista regime had been replaced with a government that wanted to decrease its economic reliance on the United States.

For instance, see John Smith (1998). The Cold War, 1945-1991. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 95. (http://books.google.com/books?id=FnnF9NKMJdkC):


The personal desire and political pressure for more immediate and tangible results in the battle against communism made the use of military power an attractive policy option for American presidents. This was exemplified in the rise to power in Cuba in 1959 of an avowed revolutionary regime under the leadership of Fidel Castro. American officials were initially puzzled as to whether Castro was a communist. They were certainly concerned by his determination to decrease Cuba's economic dependence on the United States and interpreted this as a calculated challenge to American pre-eminence in the hemisphere. Relations grew increasingly bitter when Castro nationalized American banks and signed a trade agreement with the Soviet Union. Eisenhower considered Castro 'a madman' and authorized the CIA to prepare a covert operation to overthrow him (Ambrose, 1984, p. 556). The attempt 'to give Castro the Guatemala treatment' took place after Eisenhower had left office and ended in a disastrous failure at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961. In calling for resistance against the invaders Castro appealed directly not to communist ideology but to Cuban nationalism and long-standing anti-American feeling. He urged: 'Forward Cubans! Answer with steel and with fire the barbarians who despise us and want to make us return to slavery' (Quirk, 1993, p. 371).

The United States was humiliated by the set-back, while Castro's prestige was enormously enhanced. Khrushchev pledged support and declared that the Soviet Union 'will not abandon the Cuban people' (Schlesinger, 1983, III, p. 536). Castro replied by affirming his personal adherence to Marxism-Leninism and aligning Cuba with the communist nations. . . .

[Tim Finnegan]

The Cuban Revolution was actually pretty widely supported in the U.S. early on. It wasn't until it moved against U.S. capital that the engineers of public opinion really got into anti-Cuba mode.
If I recall correctly, some American commentators even going so far as to describe Castro as the "George Washington of Cuba", perceiving his revolution as being motivated essentially the same breed of national liberalism that underpinned America's own revolution.

[Raubleaux]

I have not read a great deal about Cuban history, but my understanding is that the bourgeois media in the United States did indeed give quite a bit of positive coverage to the Castro movement initially (and during the time of the rebellion), for what that is worth.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I have not read a great deal about Cuban history, but my understanding is that the bourgeois media in the United States did indeed give quite a bit of positive coverage to the Castro movement initially (and during the time of the rebellion), for what that is worth.

Yeah, he was actually invited to visit the United States in 1959 for the first time by the American Press Club, and hired one of the best American public relations firms.

The press coverage of Castro was pretty good until about 1960, when the American administration decided that he would have to be removed and began an all-out campaign against Castro on all fronts, including support for counter-revolutionary militants in Cuba and feeding propaganda to the press.

The public was suddenly told that Castro was an evil dictator that America would have to overthrow (very unlike Batista, whose regime had long been supported by the US).

[Geiseric]

The militants would be called terrorists and there would be less coverage of it, not unlike the Zapatista rebels i'm thinking. They would ignore Batista's crimes completely and sensationalize things that would normally be done in any war, and constantly use words like "Massacre."

[agnixie]

The militants would be called terrorists and there would be less coverage of it, not unlike the Zapatista rebels i'm thinking. They would ignore Batista's crimes completely and sensationalize things that would normally be done in any war, and constantly use words like "Massacre."

And we'd have sectarian debates as to whether Batista was actually a left-wing pro-labor anti-imperialist leader because of his various pro-union legislation. People would probably also attack Castro as a left nationalist.

[ar734]

Actually, something similar to the Cuban Revolution has happened. In 1975 the Angolan people finally threw out the Portuguese. A civil war between Marxist (MPLA) and pro-Western reactionary (UNITA) groups lasted until about 2002. The marxists were supported by Cuba and the Soviet Union. Cuba even sent combat troops who fought with South African forces. U.S. president Reagan sent some money but never got involved militarily. He had learned the Vietnam lesson.

The marxists won and now the wealth of Angola, primarily oil and diamonds, belongs mostly to the Angolan people. China is now financing much of the Angolan economy and the IMF is being forced out of Angola.

So, to answer your question, the Cuban revolution did happen again: in Angola. (Also, prior to that in Vietnam; and, to a lesser extent in Venezuela and Nicaragua.)

[RadioRaheem84]

From a pure aesthetic point of view, the Cuban Revolution would be seen as a "cool" revolution based on progressive values, not so much socialism.

I mean the images from the Revolution just scream hipster, progressive, and image conscious. Now this isn't so and I am not by any means dogging the fight against Batista, I am just saying that this is how it would be viewed today.

The imagery and propaganda emanating from the post-revolutionary period was probably the strongest thing the Revolution had in terms of garnering world wide support.

I am sure the Revolution would be seen today as a triumph of left-progressivism and would be whole heartedly supported by many left leaning people in the Western world.

Surprisingly though, the Bolivarian Revolution, is not seen in the same light. Strange.

[Tim Finnegan]

From a pure aesthetic point of view, the Cuban Revolution would be seen as a "cool" revolution based on progressive values, not so much socialism.
...
Surprisingly though, the Bolivarian Revolution, is not seen in the same light. Strange.
I imagine that it's not beyond coincidence that the Cuban Revolution was lead by handsome, young white men, while the Bolivarian Revolution is mostly lead by podgy, middle-aged people of colour...

[Fulanito de Tal]

I imagine that it's not beyond coincidence that the Cuban Revolution was lead by handsome, young white men, while the Bolivarian Revolution is mostly lead by podgy, middle-aged people of colour...

Point taken, but so the Cuban Revolution is not completely white washed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Almeida_Bosque


Juan Almeida Bosque (February 17, 1927 – September 11, 2009[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Almeida_Bosque#cite_note-APObit-0)) was a Cuban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba) politician and one of the original commanders of the Cuban Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Revolution). After the 1959 revolution, he was a prominent figure in the Communist Party of Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Cuba); at the time of his death in 2009, he was a Vice-President of the Cuban Council of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Council_of_State) and was its third ranking member. He received several decorations, and both national and international awards, including the title of "Hero of the Republic of Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_the_Republic_of_Cuba)" and the Order of Máximo Gómez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1ximo_G%C3%B3mez).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Actually, something similar to the Cuban Revolution has happened. In 1975 the Angolan people finally threw out the Portuguese. A civil war between Marxist (MPLA) and pro-Western reactionary (UNITA) groups lasted until about 2002. The marxists were supported by Cuba and the Soviet Union. Cuba even sent combat troops who fought with South African forces. U.S. president Reagan sent some money but never got involved militarily. He had learned the Vietnam lesson.

The marxists won and now the wealth of Angola, primarily oil and diamonds, belongs mostly to the Angolan people. China is now financing much of the Angolan economy and the IMF is being forced out of Angola.

So, to answer your question, the Cuban revolution did happen again: in Angola.

Not quite.

"We should ... recognize that the Russian and Cuban presence in Angola... need not constitute a threat to United States' interests, nor does that presence mean the existence of a Communist satellite on the continent." - Jimmy Carter, 1976.

"The place is crawling with Western business men, and their products are in evidence. New Volvo buses wind through the city, and the Swedes are here training mechanics. The Austrians are looking for iron ore. DeBeers mines diamonds. Corn is brought from France ... Japanese trucks are on the way." - Anthony Lewis, "Angola Gold Mine for Trade," Dallas Morning News, February 1, 1981.