Was the Cuban Revolution more of a progressive revolution?

[RadioRaheem84]

Looking back at the history of the Cuban Revolution, it seems like it was really set on a Social Democratic Progressive path in it's inception. Judging by the way the leaders of it spoke of a future post Batista Cuba, it seems like their outlook was more social democratic in nature and scope.

The whole aesthetic behind the revolution seemed pretty reliant on hip chique culture of the times to sell the revolution among the left in the world too, from relying on famous photographers, film makers and strong public intellectual opinion, the revolution seemed like the first "hip" revolution.

It seemed like it wasn't until the USSR pushed Cuba into being a satellite that it veered off into a more Marxist Leninist direction.

[Jose Gracchus]

Yeah, that's exactly what happened, and kind of belies the idea the ML program is the natural form of the emancipation of the proletariat.

[Art Vandelay]

While the revolution was not stated to be Marxist-Leninist, until two years after the ousting of Batista, I think it was on a Marxist path long before then. While publicly Fidel claimed the revolution to be of a representative social democratic nature, a lot of insight can be gained by judging the comrades he kept in his inner circle. Two of the most powerful and trusted figures of the revolution to Fidel at this time was Raul and Che; both already Marxist-Leninist. Simply speaking there was much anti-communist sentiment in Cuba at the time and there were many people Fidel could not afford to turn away early in the revolution, which such a declaration most certainly would of done.

[syndicat]

but the real issue is this: socialism is the movement of the self-emancipation of the working class or it's nothing worthwhile.

but the Cuban revolution was not a working class revolution. in fact there had been a complicated working class radical tradition in Cuba. but the worker organizations did not end up in power or play a leading role in the revolution. at the end of the Batista regime there was a general strike. and the Revolutionary Union of Sugar Workers was highly involved in that.

after the fall of Batista the workers did rebuild the Cuban Workers Confederation, throwing out the Batista corrupt elements. the new head was David Santiago, who had been head of the Revolutionary Sugar Workers Union. he was part of the "humanist" tendency which was dominant in the Cuban labor movement at that time. there were also some radical tendencies, such as the anarchosyndicalists in the food workers union and the Trotskyists in the transport union.

but Fidel & Raul insisted on putting Communist Party hacks in control of the Cuban labor federation. because Santiago opposed this, he ended up being sentenced to 20 years in prison. the Trots in the transport union were also jailed and the anarchosyndicalists were forced into exile under penalty of going to prison otherwise.

Fidel also made deals with middle level officers of the old army to keep the army hierarchy intact. the new economy that was developed followed on the ML pattern of a hierarchical, bureaucratic class controlled system. There was no genuine socialism there. Just another bureaucratic class regime.

you can read about the fate of the Cuban labor movement in Victor Alba's History of the Labor Movement of Latin America. (Alba was a Spanish POUM exile in Latin America.)

[Jose Gracchus]

Its worth noting that the Partido Socialista Popular (CP) goons that Fidel and Raul erected themselves upon had been supporters of Batista before his fall from power.

[Rafiq]

What happened in Cuba wasn't a social and political revolution. It was a bourgeois political revolution, that of which the United States took a huge blow from. We can compare this revolution to that of the American "Revolution" of the 1776+, while we support it, we don't classify it as a proletarian revolution by any means.

[RadioRaheem84]

It really looks as though from the books I was reading on it, that it would be as if a bunch of idealistic white progressive left college students and professionals overthrew the corrupt government of say Thailand (just using this as an example of a modern day bachnalia for the Western world like Havana was back then) and set up a progressive state that was later met by violence by the West.

I mean the photos of the revolution, while cool, look like a GAP ad scrapbook with hipster revolutionaries rejoicing in victory and starting a new society.

I mean I still support the Cuban Revolution but now looking back at it, it was really the idealist dreams of a group of progressive reformers that were at the forefront, not the working class as a whole.

[Die Neue Zeit]

but the Cuban revolution was not a working class revolution

It was a political revolution by the nationalist/patriotic elements of Cuba's petit-bourgeoisie (not bourgeoisie) who then implemented radical social transformation, despite the clear lack of working-class political independence.


in fact there had been a complicated working class radical tradition in Cuba.


I mean I still support the Cuban Revolution but now looking back at it, it was really the idealist dreams of a group of progressive reformers that were at the forefront, not the working class as a whole.

It was "complicated" because the working class proper didn't outnumber the other non-bourgeois classes.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Everyone knows that the Cuban Revolution was full of shit. Our job, as revelefters, is to make it seem that communism is utopian an can never be achieved. That's why posts like these are important. We need people to understand that we have no solidarity and that no one that says they are communist really believes that perspective/theory.

Happy 4th of July, everyone!

[Rusty Shackleford]

I think the nature of the revolution really lies in how the foco operated.

now, its been a while since i read Revolution in the Revolution but it went into detail about the concept that was the guiding principle of the cuban revolution, militarily.

[syndicat]

It was "complicated" because the working class proper didn't outnumber the other non-bourgeois classes.

now we see what your obsession about demographics is about. it's about excuses for bureaucratic class systems.

anyway, why would you think the working class wasn't the majority in Cuba?

[Jose Gracchus]

B-b-b-because there were some farmers!

DNZ thinks if the industrial proletariat + rural proletarians isn't a 50%+1 majority, then there cannot be a working-class power (which is linked to his commitment to a system of statistical random sampling to fill decision-making bodies). So if there are just too many peasants, who looooovvveee strongman dictators who order them around and kick around landlords, then we should have a proper "Caesarian" strongman.

[Tim Finnegan]

Just out of interest, does anyone know what the proportion of rural proletarians to peasants in Cuba at that time, and how well each were represented in the support base of the revolution? I know that Cuba's history as a plantation economy meant that it had a lot of the former, but I've also been told that support for the revolution came disproportionation from the latter.

[Ocean Seal]

What happened in Cuba wasn't a social and political revolution. It was a bourgeois political revolution, that of which the United States took a huge blow from. We can compare this revolution to that of the American "Revolution" of the 1776+, while we support it, we don't classify it as a proletarian revolution by any means.
I would disagree here. The American revolution was done for the benefit of the slave-owners of the south and the wealthy merchants of the North who were most hurt by British rule. In fact I would say that there was a strong reactionary current among the American revolutionaries, and that was the desire to maintain slavery, as Britain was abolishing it, and the desire to expand outwards and murder the Amerindians. The Cuban revolution was done with the support and to the benefit of the rural peasant class, the working class, and ethnic minorities. Whether or not it was socialist by the Councilist definition certainly doesn't put it on par with the American revolution.

[syndicat]

Whether or not it was socialist by the Councilist definition certainly doesn't put it on par with the American revolution.

well, if Marx's definition of the self-emanicipation of the working class is used, it wasn't socialist.

[Jose Gracchus]

I would disagree here. The American revolution was done for the benefit of the slave-owners of the south and the wealthy merchants of the North who were most hurt by British rule.

It is certainly untrue that the nascent white working class, artisanry, and plebeian farmers were inclined toward Royalism as opposed to Patriotism like the planter, financier, and merchant classes. This is a clueless remark.


In fact I would say that there was a strong reactionary current among the American revolutionaries, and that was the desire to maintain slavery, as Britain was abolishing it,

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. The UK was certainly not abolishing slavery in the 1770s and 1780s, and in fact the war was basically wrapped up at the behest of sugar planting interests in the Caribbean, which were the real cash colonies, whose economic model depended on working slaves to death and then replenishing them from Africa.


The Cuban revolution was done with the support and to the benefit of the rural peasant class, the working class, and ethnic minorities. Whether or not it was socialist by the Councilist definition certainly doesn't put it on par with the American revolution.

In what meaningful sense was the Cuban Revolution "done" with the "support" of those classes? In the sense of empty populism, tailing the great leader seeking to tamp down socially revolutionary currents in labor?

As a point of fact, the American Revolution was characterized by the development of bottom-up politics by plebeian farmers, artisans, and workers in the State militias, and in Pennsylvania they made a Constitution in 1776 that the Chartists would have gushed over. That the social forces pushing for genuine social progress were arrested and stopped by the reactionary upper classes (for instance, via the Federal Constitution of 1787), does not change how completely historically bankrupt your characterization of both upheavals for social change were.

[syndicat]

It is certainly untrue that the nascent white working class, artisanry, and plebeian farmers were inclined toward Royalism as opposed to Patriotism like the planter, financier, and merchant classes.

well, according to Gary Nash's work (a New Left Marxist historian of the American revolution), whether workers & plebeian farmers & renters supported the independence movement versus the crown tended to depend on who the big landowners, money lenders and political elite did. in the back country of North Carolina and the Hudson Valley of New York the plebeian masses supported the crown. that's because the wealthy landlords in the Hudson Valley and the wealthy North Carolina Piedmont elite tended to support independence.

in Boston a faction of the elite, such as Sam Adams and others, entered the Boston Town Meeting and manipulated sentiment that had initially been directed to the local elite towards the distant British crown.

Also, many of the workers of that era were artisans, who owned their own shop, or were self-employed, or aspired to be. They tended to view British mercantilist policies, which favored British manufacturers, as against their interests because they were prohibited from exporting their own products but had to face British imports.

For the same reason, the artisans of New York could be rallied to vote for the reactionary constitution of 1787 because they saw "free trade" and common money and trade policies throughout the 13 states as being in their interests as commodity producers.

the imposition of the constitution of 1787 was followed not long after by the suppression of direct town democracy, that is, limiting its power, in Massachusetts with the constitution written by John Adams...a constitution that favored elite interests.

most of the elite who attended the constitutional convention were major land speculators...especially in lands west of the Alleghenies. a major reason for the revolution was to break the British deal with the indian tribes to restrain Euro settlement east of the mountains. this is why the Declaration of Independence attacks the Indians with scrurilous and inaccurate statements about "indian savagery".

in regard to slavery, the revolution was also complicated. the Brits advertized that they would free any slave who rallied to the king's side. in the south the British army was trailed by a huge following of 20,000 or more runaway slaves. a few thousand blacks were eventually granted their freedom by the brits and re-settled in Nova Scotia.

but the Brits also had to protect the pro-crown slaveowners in the south. more than 4,000 slaves were relocated by British ships with their owners to the West Indies at the end of the war for independence...more than were freed.

[Ocean Seal]

It is certainly untrue that the nascent white working class, artisanry, and plebeian farmers were inclined toward Royalism as opposed to Patriotism like the planter, financier, and merchant classes. This is a clueless remark.

I disagree again. Many of the colonists were indeed pro-Royalist at the time and I would think that the majority were so. Dissent and disappointment with Britain was rather low among the mainstream colonist who enjoyed more freedom than did many of the other colonials. The war started with little mainstream support and, the way in which support was drum up was through reactionary elements among the common classes. The desire for imperialist expansion and so on. The class progression of the American revolution was relatively low.



You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. The UK was certainly not abolishing slavery in the 1770s and 1780s, and in fact the war was basically wrapped up at the behest of sugar planting interests in the Caribbean, which were the real cash colonies, whose economic model depended on working slaves to death and then replenishing them from Africa.


Slavery was abolished in England in 1772. Many plantation owners believed that slavery would slowly be phased out in the British Empire.



In what meaningful sense was the Cuban Revolution "done" with the "support" of those classes? In the sense of empty populism, tailing the great leader seeking to tamp down socially revolutionary currents in labor?

:confused:



As a point of fact, the American Revolution was characterized by the development of bottom-up politics by plebeian farmers, artisans, and workers in the State militias, and in Pennsylvania they made a Constitution in 1776 that the Chartists would have gushed over. That the social forces pushing for genuine social progress were arrested and stopped by the reactionary upper classes (for instance, via the Federal Constitution of 1787), does not change how completely historically bankrupt your characterization of both upheavals for social change were.

The most militant agitating forces were those of the reactionary upper classes in American society. That's not historically bankrupt. It was liberty loving, yes, but filled with reactionary currents as well. Patrick Henry known for his give me liberty or give me death, also spoke of strengthening slave patrols. Many of the rank and file supporters of the revolution were so because of the imperialism which they could exact against the Amerindian settlements (which they couldn't under Great Britain).

By the way, this isn't a defense for the British Empire, or a desire for it to keep its colonies, but the end result of the American revolution was more reactionary than revolutionary. Having the vote restricted to property owning whites effectively established a new aristocratic class, the expansion into Amerindian territories was one of the worst cases of oppression and genocide in history, and the liberty to own property was used to justify slavery.

The American revolution was done with reactionary interests at heart and ended with reactionary interests.

[syndicat]

Slavery was abolished in England in 1772. Many plantation owners believed that slavery would slowly be phased out in the British Empire.



my impression is that it was abolished in 1832. this needs some fact checking.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

my impression is that it was abolished in 1832. this needs some fact checking.

Abolished in England=/=British empire. Britain got to feel good about themselves morally by banning slavery at home while allowing slavery in Jamaica and the American colonies. A little like how America has reasonable labor laws in the US while exploiting poor proletarians on other parts of the globe, as if there is actually a moral difference between them.

[syndicat]

Abolished in England=/=British empire. Britain got to feel good about themselves morally by banning slavery at home while allowing slavery in Jamaica and the American colonies. A little like how America has reasonable labor laws in the US while exploiting poor proletarians on other parts of the globe, as if there is actually a moral difference between them.

that would be true irrespective of whether they abolished slavery at home in the 1700s or 1830s.

[Jose Gracchus]

Slavery was abolished in England in 1772. Many plantation owners believed that slavery would slowly be phased out in the British Empire

Show me any textual evidence this played any significant role in the orientation of the American ruling class.


The most militant agitating forces were those of the reactionary upper classes in American society. That's not historically bankrupt. It was liberty loving, yes, but filled with reactionary currents as well. Patrick Henry known for his give me liberty or give me death, also spoke of strengthening slave patrols. Many of the rank and file supporters of the revolution were so because of the imperialism which they could exact against the Amerindian settlements (which they couldn't under Great Britain).

You don't know what you're talking about. Read Gary Nash's Unknown American Revolution and Woody Holton's Unruly Americans. In New Jersey women gained the right to vote til 1806; throughout the colonies, the franchise generally expanded from its early higher property limits to less property (and in some cases, little to none). The Pennsylvanian Constitution had no strong executive, a very strong popular house elected annually, with all legislation subject to revocation by the common people. There was even a proposed amendment to limit maximum property allowance per citizen, and to provide for property redistributions. In the North, the war was rapidly followed by expansions of civil rights for blacks, and in the churches social progress made its mark: some Virginia churches banned slaveholders as members as un-Christian and un-brotherly, before reaction set in.

In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, bonded and unfree labor previously widespread amongst whites, was entirely abolished and virtually all white men shortly gained political rights.


By the way, this isn't a defense for the British Empire, or a desire for it to keep its colonies, but the end result of the American revolution was more reactionary than revolutionary. Having the vote restricted to property owning whites effectively established a new aristocratic class, the expansion into Amerindian territories was one of the worst cases of oppression and genocide in history, and the liberty to own property was used to justify slavery.

Building a strong centralized state, financial institutions, retrenching slavery, and checking democracy required a large scale organized reaction on the part of planter, mercantile, and speculator elites. It certainly was not a one-way story of American upper class deceiving the feckless poor and workers and plebeian farmers to come along for the ride like suckers.

Much of the social upheaval of the period was exceptionally progressive for its area, even retrospectively from a socialist point-of-view.


The American revolution was done with reactionary interests at heart and ended with reactionary interests.

The first part is wrong. The second part is true, but you miss the class war at home the elites waged in order to win it for themselves.

For instance, the aforementioned Pennsylvanian constitution was abrogated by an illegitimate landowners' convention after the Federal Constitution was ratified, and stripped the power from the State constitution and made it very oligarchical. The entire lead up to the Constitutional Convention was basically an attempt by the upper classes to put a lid on the class upheaval from the lower classes it unleashed in winning home rule from the British.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Read Gary Nash's Unknown American Revolution and Woody Holton's Unruly Americans.

It's a shame there's no Google Books preview at all. :(


The Pennsylvanian Constitution had no strong executive, a very strong popular house elected annually, with all legislation subject to revocation by the common people. There was even a proposed amendment to limit maximum property allowance per citizen, and to provide for property redistributions.

Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth (not my term) already during that time in the US? That's impressive! :thumbup1:

[Die Neue Zeit]

B-b-b-because there were some farmers!

DNZ thinks if the industrial proletariat + rural proletarians isn't a 50%+1 majority, then there cannot be a working-class power (which is linked to his commitment to a system of statistical random sampling to fill decision-making bodies). So if there are just too many peasants, who looooovvveee strongman dictators who order them around and kick around landlords, then we should have a proper "Caesarian" strongman.

That's too simplistic, even for your summarization standards. I already made criticisms of the Benevolent Tyrant model, and you forgot Urban Petit-Bourgeois Democratism, part of which you dismiss as


the endless list of faux-participation conjured up by populist strongmen who seek to use base-level resentments as a platform for their own power

Going back to the days of the long-lost Tribal Assembly.

[caramelpence]

Just out of interest, does anyone know what the proportion of rural proletarians to peasants in Cuba at that time, and how well each were represented in the support base of the revolution? I know that Cuba's history as a plantation economy meant that it had a lot of the former, but I've also been told that support for the revolution came disproportionation from the latter.

Give this (http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=160) a read, I can't quote the exact section at the moment because I'm not on my university network, but if you can get a hold of it, or have access to New Left Review, it includes quite a thorough analysis of Cuba's class composition before 1959.


Urban Petit-Bourgeois Democratism

Made-up term.

[Rafiq]

I would disagree here. The American revolution was done for the benefit of the slave-owners of the south and the wealthy merchants of the North who were most hurt by British rule. In fact I would say that there was a strong reactionary current among the American revolutionaries, and that was the desire to maintain slavery, as Britain was abolishing it, and the desire to expand outwards and murder the Amerindians. The Cuban revolution was done with the support and to the benefit of the rural peasant class, the working class, and ethnic minorities. Whether or not it was socialist by the Councilist definition certainly doesn't put it on par with the American revolution.

Enough moralistic bullshit, we are looking at history through a materialist lens.

Yes, the Cuban revolution does compare to the American revolution, at least if you're a Marxist, that's how you'd see it. The American revolution was by no means reactionary, it was indeed progressive.

I didn't say the Cuban revolution and American revolution were equal on Ethical grounds, but they are definitely equal on grounds of what we should classify them as.

[Jose Gracchus]

Something like half the white population were or had been at some point in their life bonded or indentured laborers in Philadelphia in 1775. By 1790, all were citizens, and most were fully-enfranchised. Almost nowhere did blacks have any civil or social rights, whereas already by 1800-1810, a clear cleavage was being drawn between the treatment in Northern States and Southern States.

Every socialist should see the real material gains in the advancement of labor in that.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

'It is certainly untrue that the nascent white working class, artisanry, and plebeian farmers were inclined toward Royalism as opposed to Patriotism like the planter, financier, and merchant classes. This is a clueless remark.'
Within this period of time-- There had not been a 'white working class' as the 'white working class' in relation to the means of production had been aristocratic and the result of colonialism in the Americas.
'plebeian farmers were inclined toward Royalism'
Whether or not these farmers were inclined towards Royalism is not of essence, as they were aristocratic in relations to the means of production and were content with petit-bourgeois society and simply saw the opportunity of instituting alongside the national bourgeois a system of national capitalism centric to the former colonies of the Americas.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Made-up term.

I (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm) don't (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/10.htm) think (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Agrarian+Program+of+Social+Democracy+in+the+First+ Russian+Revolution) so (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1965/consider.htm) (re. "petit-bourgeois democratism"). :rolleyes:

[CynicalIdealist]

Wasn't the American Revolution pretty much the beginning of the end for the Native Americans? It's not as if the British tried to integrate them into society, but since they didn't pursue westward expansion I don't think they were quite as barbaric in that respect.

[caramelpence]

I (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm) don't (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/10.htm) think (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Agrarian+Program+of+Social+Democracy+in+the+First+ Russian+Revolution) so (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1965/consider.htm) (re. "petit-bourgeois democratism"). :rolleyes:

If you're going to make snarky comments, do it in public, not over rep, you coward. And, unsurprisingly, not one of those links contains the term "urban petty-bourgeois democratism", and of those which use the term "petty-bourgeois democratism" (i.e. only the latter two - the first two do not even use "democratism") minus the "urban", neither of them define the term and it's not clear that they are using it in the same way, given that the Soviet article is referring to the Narodniks, whereas Bordiga is referring to the degeneration of the Communist Parties of the Third International. This is another case of you inventing your own terms, in this case deriving a term from a slogan that doesn't seem to have much content to begin with, in order to obscure a fundamental lack of content. I'm really not interested in arguing this with you as I don't find anything you have to say insightful, but I do feel the need to expose just how empty you are.

Turning to more substantive matters, you are also completely wrong to assert that the working class did not make up a majority of the population in Cuba in the 1950s, even if one were to accept your assertion that socialist revolution depends on the working class comprising a majority of the population, which is invalid to begin with. If you read any analysis of Cuba's social makeup before 1959 (including the famous Blackburn article, though the same is also true of academic accounts and standard histories of modern Cuba) you will find that almost every commentator places special emphasis on the fact that Cuba was radically different from other Latin American states in having a plantation-based agricultural sector rather than a large body of independent petty propietors - the dominance of plantations (and the wage-labour they embodied following emancipation) had its roots in the destruction of non-sugar agriculture (like tobacco) and incipient industries (such as the shipyard and foundry sectors) during and following the British occupation of the island in 1762 and the end of Spain's commercial monopoly, with the creation of a labour force for the plantations taking place through a combination of economic pressures and outright coercion, and controlled burning being used to eliminate pasture lands and forests, thereby creating the basis for Cuba's prolonged dependence on sugar. The body of rural proletarians who emerged from these processes maintained the status of being rural proletarians as a result of plantations and mills controlling more than half of all agrarian land, heavy debt obligations, and also because the mill and plantation owners constructed modest settlements (bateyes) close to the mills and plantations in order to maintain a pool of labour that could be utilized according to economic needs at any given point. Cuba's rural proletariat was also characterized by close contact with the urban workforce and this was one of the factors that facilitated radical social and political mobilizations of the kind that took place over 1934-4 - this close contact was possible largely because, outside of harvesting periods, and given that sugar only needs to be replanted at long intervals, there was little or no work available in the rural sugar sector, this non-harvest period being known as the dead season, and driving rural workers to seek employment in the cities, creating significant slum areas, known as llega y pon, or "come and settle". Consequently, the dominant social relation in Cuba was wage-labour and the resulting forms of social and political mobilization made Cuba different from other states in the region. There are also other relevant issues here, like the new industries and sectors that were beginning to emerge in the 1950s, the limited efforts of some industrial associations and the Batista government to overcome primary product dependency, changes in national vs. foreign ownership in the sugar industry over the first half of the 20th century, the fact that Cuban workers judged their opportunities for consumption in terms of the living standards of US workers rather than workers in other Latin American states, and so on.

^^^This above paragraph contains content, unlike ceaseless rambling about "Caesarean Socialism" and other such trash.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you're going to make snarky comments, do it in public, not over rep, you coward.

Look who's trying to use reverse psychology to cover his own hit-and-run rep wars? :laugh: :rolleyes:


I'm really not interested in arguing this with you as I don't find anything you have to say insightful, but I do feel the need to expose just how empty you are.

The working-class feeling towards a university leftist "theorist" like yourself is quite mutual. :)

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The working-class feeling towards a university leftist "theorist" like yourself is quite mutual. :)

I agree. The workers are to busy being behind caserian socialism social prolectory kaustyian mergierite petit bourgeious 2nd international demachy to a man.

[caramelpence]

Look who's trying to use reverse psychology to cover his own hit-and-run rep wars? :laugh: :rolleyes:

The only way you could think I was using "reverse psychology" is by having a grossly inflated sense of your own importance. If you want to debate the substantive issue of why it is necessary for the working class to be a majority of the population in order for a revolution to take place and why this was not the case in Cuba in the 1950s, in light of my argument above, then be my guess, but something tell me you won't and can't.

Seriously, I dare you, take on the substantive issues. Explain why the working class needs to be a majority of the population for a socialist revolution to take place. Explain why this was not true of Cuba in the 1950s.


The working-class feeling towards a university leftist "theorist" like yourself is quite mutual. :)

I don't presume to be a theorist (unlike you) and I'm not a "university leftist", whatever that means. I also don't really care much for your assumptions about what "the workers" feel and do, given that you evidently know nothing about political consciousness and social mobilization in Cuba in the 1950s or any other society.

[RadioRaheem84]

I was watching an anti-Castro documentary called Cuba: A World Verdict and it was going into how Castro betrayed the revolution by jailing early dissenters. One noted dissenter was Huber Matos, an anti-Communist liberal who was one of Castro's main entourage.

What is the back story behind Matos? Was he really that much of a traitor to merit death like Castro wanted or the twenty years he served in a Cuban jail?

The doc also had interviews with Italian socialists, a Brazilian soc dem and a French anarchist quoting Camus. All of them had nothing but bad stuff to say about the Cuban Revolution and where it was headed; down the Soviet path.

What is the backdrop behind crushing and jailing dissenters in the early part of the Revolution before Castro declared himself an ML?

[Red Rebel]

I strongly suggest reading Murrays (?) book the Second Cuban Revolution. The armed struggle was not communist in nature (1956-59); however, as the author aruges the working class did seize power in the aftermath (1959-1962).

[RadioRaheem84]

I cant find the book. Any links?

[chebol]

This: Free pamphlet to download: `Cuba -- How the workers and peasants made the revolution' (http://links.org.au/node/1451)

[CHE with an AK]

:castro:


:star2: History has already absolved Fidel Castro :star2:
NW1Yh8D-xCgoPlnGiS488s
:cubaflag: Hasta la Victoria Siempre :cubaflag:

[Jose Gracchus]

I really dislike clueless Castroites.

[CHE with an AK]

I really dislike clueless Castroites.
I really dislike those who echo clueless exiled-gusanos.

[Astarte]

Looking back at the history of the Cuban Revolution, it seems like it was really set on a Social Democratic Progressive path in it's inception. Judging by the way the leaders of it spoke of a future post Batista Cuba, it seems like their outlook was more social democratic in nature and scope.

The whole aesthetic behind the revolution seemed pretty reliant on hip chique culture of the times to sell the revolution among the left in the world too, from relying on famous photographers, film makers and strong public intellectual opinion, the revolution seemed like the first "hip" revolution.

It seemed like it wasn't until the USSR pushed Cuba into being a satellite that it veered off into a more Marxist Leninist direction.

I don't know if there is anything "hip" about waging guerrilla warfare or not, but I do know that you are correct that in the beginning of the revolutionary power-phase the Castro regime was quite liberal in regards to capitalist industry.

If you are right about it being propagandize as the first "hip" revolution, then the capitalists, or at least this particular fruit company, seemed to embrace such a notion.

A company called "CIA. Industrial Empacadora De Dulces, S. A." actually put out an interesting piece of ephemera called the "Album de la Revolucion Cubana".

Below are the Front and Reverse covers respectively:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaded/144979987/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisjohnbeckett/496241609/

Cover page:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisjohnbeckett/496252541/

It was essentially a cut and paste scrap book - you would get the book from the company, and I believe the various cards you would paste in were given away with the bought product, like the prize in a box of cracker-jacks.

http://blog.vernaculartypography.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Vernacular-Typography_Revolucion-Cubana_006.jpg

http://blog.vernaculartypography.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Vernacular-Typography_Revolucion-Cubana_007.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/204/496213368_b4939ffb80_o.jpg

[RadioRaheem84]

Che was described in a documentary as the doctor with a Bottacelli angel face.

Damn, the man was handsome.