My Opinoin On Cuba

[Comrade Ceausescu]

I just got back from Cuba in the middle of January, 1999. If you remember anything from these few words this is my lesson: Don't believe a word written about Cuba in the US mainstream media. Don't even believe the commas. Especially, don't believe liberal journals like The Nation.
The Nation recently published an article by the editor of the business section of the Los Angeles Times interviewing some old veterans of the revolution. Purportedly, the old comrades told the LAT guy that Fidel has betrayed the revolution by increasing inequality into Cuban society, that is, by allowing the US dollar to be owned by Cuban citizens. By the way, my Cuban guide told me that she had been on the podium during Fidel's speech announcing the new policy. She said he actually wept when he told the people about the necessity of permitting the circulation of dollars and the suffering he knew it would cause the Cuban people. I can almost hear the LAT editor crying along with Fidel. It really takes gall for an editor of a mainstream U.S. newspaper to pretend to defend the integrity of the Cuban revolution when all he wants is to see that revolution destroyed.
Cuba is physically breathtaking, and the people are just as beautiful as the mountains. The Cubans are a sweet and gentle people; they touch and hug each other when they greet each other, even at work; and they did the same to me during many brief conversations. A touch on the side of the shoulder serves as a substitute abrazo. I must have spoken to at least 3 or 4 hundred people in many places: on the street, in people's homes, in the hotels, in the museums and on the beaches, and I speak Spanish reasonably well so there was no communication roadblock.
I talked to many Cubans about the US blockade and its impact on Cuban society. The people I spoke to were extremely knowledgeable about current events in the world from Clinton's problems to international affairs. All of them knew full well what the US did to Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. None of them wanted a taste of that kind of 'democracy.
Many also remembered or were taught in school what it was like before the revolution. Batista killed 20,000 anti-government demonstrators in the mid-fifties just prior to his fleeing the country on the first of January 1959.
They also remember that no person of color could work for any US corporation as anything but a janitor. Jim Crow was an integral part of society in those days when there was so-called democracy in the time before socialism. In those days no person of color could even go on the beach or visit a hotel or a fancy restaurant. This is rather startling when you see only relatively few people who look white.
Most of the population is at least partially of African heritage. There might be some kind of racism, but I found it hard to detect. Men and women establish romantic relationships quite independent of skin color.
The blockade has made life difficult and aggravating for nearly all Cubans. This is what Fidel referred to in his announcement speech. To buy a bar of soap costs a US dollar, and getting a dollar can be hard at times. But most people understand that they have to get tourist dollars in order for the country to survive. The dollars buy pharmaceuticals and oil and all the other things needed to keep a modern society operating.
But not even the U.S. media accuses the government of mass murder, as occurred in Central America--as well as many other countries that underwent 'difficult transitions to democracy' under CIA tutelage. Indonesia springs to mind as a country that underwent a CIA organized coup during which 1.5 million people were killed. The right wing Cuban migrants who were perfectly happy with Batista are the ones who peddle that malarkey about contemporary Cuba.
All this seems hard to believe even to me. But this is what I saw and heard.



I wasn't sure where to put this but anyway this in my opinoin is an excellent article.It is writen by a very good friend of mine.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 02:05 AM
I just got back from Cuba in the middle of January, 1999. If you remember anything from these few words this is my lesson: Don't believe a word written about Cuba in the US mainstream media.
...
my Cuban guide told me that she had been on the podium during Fidel's speech announcing the new policy. She said he actually wept when he told the people about the necessity of permitting the circulation of dollars and the suffering he knew it would cause the Cuban people.
You also shouldn't believe a word given to you by official tour guides. It's not hard to trick a person into thinking a place is better than it seems, just make sure he goes to the right part(s) of the country, sees the right things (and not the wrong things), etc. I think the testimony of Cuban anarchists, many of which were jailed for their beliefs, is more credible then someone led around by an official "guide."

[Comrade Ceausescu]

You also shouldn't believe a word given to you by official tour guides. It's not hard to trick a person into thinking a place is better than it seems, just make sure he goes to the right part(s) of the country, sees the right things (and not the wrong things), etc. I think the testimony of Cuban anarchists, many of which were jailed for their beliefs, is more credible then someone led around by an official "guide."

He has been there numerous times.He said he has gone without a tour guide.Same view.For once I agree with the right wingers,fuck the anarchists.all they do is stir up trouble where it is not neccassery.

[redstar2000]

For once I agree with the right wingers, fuck the anarchists. All they do is stir up trouble where it is not necessary.

Whoa! :o

If you find yourself agreeing with the "right wingers", is that not something to be very cautious about? Does it not possibly suggest that all the relevant information may not be at hand?

As to "stirring up trouble where it is not necessary", exactly when is it "not necessary"? Is Cuba, for example, "above and beyond criticism"? That's a most un-Marxist position to take.

Marx and Engels were, to the best of their abilities, critical of everything. Indeed, an "uncritical revolutionary" would be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Cheerleading for a particular revolution does not make one a revolutionary.

In fact, I think you could make a pretty good case for the argument that every revolution requires criticism from the left if it is to continue developing.

If you think some or all "anarchist" criticism of Cuba is wrong or misplaced, that's one thing.

But "fuck the anarchists" is not going to win you many arguments.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Fidelbrand]

thanks cheguevara717 for this piece of heartfully truthful writing.. ;)

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Redstar,yes you are right.I certainly do not think Cuba is the perfect society.It has its issues just like every other country,however I think it is a good example of socialism,and how it works better then capitalism as Cuba is one of the most well off countries in Latin America in terms of SOL,education,literacy,low infant mortailty rate,etc.I just think the last thing Cuba needs is anarchism.

[Se7en]

I would love to go to Cuba someday and see it for myself. Although I wonder how likely it is that Cuba will still be socialist by the time I go. What do you all think about the chances of socialism surviving once Fidel is gone?

[Comrade Ceausescu]

It'll be there for a bit.Then the U.S. will send in some special forces,take Raul and the rest of the Communist Party of Cuba out,and the "Cuban people" will "rejoice" from being "free" from their "evil communist" "dictatorship"

[gawkygeek]

the united states can never invade cuba, itd be breaking its own law signed by kennedy, i forget what it is offhand. come to think of it; itd probably be not such a bad thing if the US did invade, yeah cuba would probably fall but american ignorance and horrendous crimes could be shown outright by its complete disregard for established rules.
i liked the article, it showed a very different perspective of cuba, im not sure if im exactly ready to accept it completely though, i need to see more of it's kind. because of it, i will however think twice the next time someone speaks of castro as a devilish abusive dictator. the article also backs my long placed dislike of the embargo on the nation

[Se7en]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 11:35 PM
the united states can never invade cuba, itd be breaking its own law signed by kennedy, i forget what it is offhand. come to think of it; itd probably be not such a bad thing if the US did invade, yeah cuba would probably fall but american ignorance and horrendous crimes could be shown outright by its complete disregard for established rules.

Since when did the CIA or our other covert agencies ever regard any established rules in the first place? It doesn't take an army of 100,000 battle-fatigued soldiers for the USA to invade a nation. The CIA has been staging coups and "revolutions" for years.

[redstar2000]

I just think the last thing Cuba needs is anarchism.

Do you actually know what Cuban anarchists (if any) are advocating at the present time?

Because I don't.

I can think of three things I would advocate if I were in Cuba.

The first would be a radical redistribution of "hard currency" in such a way that every Cuban has a fair access to an equitable share in the consumer goodies that can only be purchased in hard currency shops.

And the second would be a very hard look at the way decisions are actually made in Cuba now...how much input do ordinary Cuban workers really have in what's going on. What steps could be taken to radically increase that?

Related to the second is my third proposal: a substantial investment in the Cuban internet and the promotion of wide political discussion there...not bourgeois crap but revolutionary debate.

Are these "anarchist" proposals? Would they lead to the growth of "anarchist" sentiment there? Would that be a "bad thing", if it happened?

All of the present signs point very clearly to a restoration of capitalism in Cuba following the deaths of the "26th of July generation"...what can be done to stop that from happening?

Crossing your fingers and trusting that Fidel will "live forever" is not going to work.

Yes, the Cubans have achieved much with very little to work with and in the face of the hostility of U.S. imperialism. But if the Cuban Revolution is not to be ultimately judged as "another noble failure", then further development in a revolutionary direction is mandatory.

In history, whenever the question is raised: "Can this revolution be saved?" -- the answer always seems to be only if it becomes more revolutionary.

A hearty dose of "anarchism" might be just what the "doctor" ordered.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Pete]

I think this is my second time doing this today, but I have something to add on to RS2000's post.

THe ideal of Marxism is to progress to this ideal classless stateless society, and in recent debates it has been seen that this is what anarchism is. Using that logic, I would think that any Marxist, regardless to their 'sect' would support an influx of anarchism into Cuba to help keep the Revolution alive.

Many of us have argued that the Revolution can not occur over night and needs time to develop, Marxist Leninists seem to be of this opinion the most often. To state this and then to move against the continuation of the Revolution through fresh ideas and faces is a bit hypocritical, do you not think?


Aside from that...

There was this one rightwing guy at the highschool I used to go to who went to Cuba over the March Break. He was convinced that Cuba was a hell and said he was going to video tape it all and prove me wrong. Well when he got back he not only apologized to me, but had a Che shirt. Wierd eh? I guess this is going alone with the original post...

-Pete

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Anarchism to me is not a horrible ideology,but it gives too much freedom to the bourgeois.they can roam freely,and in such a state of anarchism quickly take power.There is no one to stop them.Your proposals for Cuba are not bad,but I wouldn't really identify these things with Anarchism.Then again,maybe I have the wrong impression of it.I am willing to hear what you have to say about this.

[Pete]

Noo you do have the wrong impression. The bourgeoise cannot exist in anarchism and cannot 'take power' since their will be no 'power' to 'take.' By slowly implementing it a better society can come eventually, and I think that is what Marxism says about the state withering away. These things are relevant to anarchism, as is a strong community, high levels of literacy, educatoin, and conciousness ect. I think some people provided links in debates over what anarchism is whcih would be helpful (I haven't broswed them, but I doubt people would post counterproductive links)

-Pete :)

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 03:00 AM
The bourgeoise cannot exist in anarchism and cannot 'take power' since their will be no 'power' to 'take.'
Plus there would not be such a thing as a bourgeoisie anyway, because there should be no person with any sort of monopoly on resources and capital.

[Faceless]

My pal recently went to Cuba and saw the contrast of poverty there compared to here in the UK. But when he came back (he was a right winger before going, only going to get a tan) he said "Che Guevara was a freedom fighter" upon hearing someone suggest he was a terrorist and also, on Communism, said, "I don't know much about it but it works in Cuba". Not a bad transformation.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Noo you do have the wrong impression. The bourgeoise cannot exist in anarchism and cannot 'take power' since their will be no 'power' to 'take.' By slowly implementing it a better society can come eventually, and I think that is what Marxism says about the state withering away. These things are relevant to anarchism, as is a strong community, high levels of literacy, educatoin, and conciousness ect. I think some people provided links in debates over what anarchism is whcih would be helpful (I haven't broswed them, but I doubt people would post counterproductive links)

Thank you.I will keep this in mind.


My pal recently went to Cuba and saw the contrast of poverty there compared to here in the UK. But when he came back (he was a right winger before going, only going to get a tan) he said "Che Guevara was a freedom fighter" upon hearing someone suggest he was a terrorist and also, on Communism, said, "I don't know much about it but it works in Cuba". Not a bad transformation.


Not at all!Stories like this make me very happy.