Fidel Castro?

[VDS]

I've seen comments here and there, but I was wondering, how is it that Fidel Castro is viewed here on RevLeft?

First let me give a tiny bit of background information. I myself am a Cuban-American living in Miami. As such, it's hard sometimes to tell the difference between propaganda and truth. I don't regard Castro as evil as most here do, but at the same time, I have a hard time being able to tell apart some things. I've visited Cuba, and it wasn't the horror story my family tried to paint. In fact, many of my family members even to this day when my mother goes to visit, make sure to send me back pictures of Fidel and/or other Cuban Revolutionary figures with messages written on the back of them.

So really, I'm hoping maybe my question will also spark conversation into Fidel Castro as a man and a leader, helping me better understand.

[Brutus]

Castro paints himself as a Leninist, but when it comes down to it is just another leader of a capitalist country. Cuba is, at best, a social democracy, as the modes of production are still capitalistic in nature.

[VDS]

Castro paints himself as a Leninist, but when it comes down to it is just another leader of a capitalist country. Cuba is, at best, a social democracy, as the modes of production are still capitalistic in nature.

This I understand, mostly at least. I've spent time reading on this site before ever signing up. I've seen almost every leader of a "communist" or "socialist" country referred to as just another capitalist, or other terms.

[garrus]

Castro paints himself as a Leninist, but when it comes down to it is just another leader of a capitalist country. Cuba is, at best, a social democracy, as the modes of production are still capitalistic in nature.

Despite that, it's pretty high on the "socialism scale", and light years ahead most capitalist countries.
Healthcare,education,popular support and police are pretty acceptable by socialism standards.
What annoys me is the "family rule" of the castros.

Also keep in mind the embargo and the proximity to the US.

[Art Vandelay]

He's probably my favorite bourgeois politician.

[Brutus]

He's probably my favorite bourgeois politician.

I must agree with you. I've never had so much interest in a social democrat (not in the original sense).

[Art Vandelay]

I must agree with you. I've never had so much interest in a social democrat (not in the original sense).

Me as well, I got into radical politics through an avid interest in the Cuban revolution when I was younger. His book 'My Life,' which is an oral biography is pretty interesting if you're looking for a read.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well to be honest I haven't read enough about Fidel Castro or Cuba to know whether or not they are a socialist state or not so I really don't have much of a right to say. However if you are interested the PSL wrote a commentary on recent efforts on economic reforms in Cuba that might be worth a read.

http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14493&news_iv_ctrl=1261

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There is something heroic and romantic in Fidel Castro's personality, rise to power and his ultimate exit.

What I find most redeemable about him is that he stepped down, rather than being elected out, overthrown or beaten by mortality. After so many attempts by the CIA to kill him, that's something of a big 'fuck you' to the United States.

[VDS]

There is something heroic and romantic in Fidel Castro's personality, rise to power and his ultimate exit.

What I find most redeemable about him is that he stepped down, rather than being elected out, overthrown or beaten by mortality. After so many attempts by the CIA to kill him, that's something of a big 'fuck you' to the United States.

This is essentially how I view it. I just watched a documentary today and plan on reading a biography, if you or anyone else cold recommend one.

The way that he's carried himself and his nation in spite of assassination attempts, it's sort of the ultimate middle finger, especially since it comes from such a tiny island nation.

[Buck]

Castro paints himself as a Leninist, but when it comes down to it is just another leader of a capitalist country. Cuba is, at best, a social democracy, as the modes of production are still capitalistic in nature.

His administration polices are almost identical to those of Lenin's, who was not a marxist, nor was the USSR at any point "socialist" or a "worker's state"(it was state capitalist), since the workers have no state, only the one's imposed on them, demonstrated by the USSR, with political repression, nationalization(State ownership of the principal means of production), and then privatization(the new economic program), elite rule, welfare, monetary system, wages/wage labor, state, A relatively free market for consumer goods in the form of agricultural products and light industrial products, Wide-scale planning activity, allocating supplies and directing products within the sphere of heavy industry, setting production targets, fixing prices and directing the flows of capital etc...
It is important to note that Cuba and the USSR were/are not examples of socialism but state capitalism. State capitalism is essentially, the wages system under new management. State ownership or nationalization is not socialism, nor is it a step towards socialism. Capitalism is not just a particular form of property holding, but is essentially an impersonal economic mechanism; impersonal in the sense that it is a mechanism that operates independently of the will of people and imposes itself on them as an external force.

State capitalism and private capitalism have never existed as pure forms of society; every country has its own historically developed mix, using some of the afore mentioned policies.

[one10]

Fidel Castro is the most complete human being alive. A truly admirable revolutionary and Latin American figure.

I fear that Cuba will never be the same without him.

[VDS]

There is something heroic and romantic in Fidel Castro's personality, rise to power and his ultimate exit.

What I find most redeemable about him is that he stepped down, rather than being elected out, overthrown or beaten by mortality. After so many attempts by the CIA to kill him, that's something of a big 'fuck you' to the United States.

Might I add, completely off topic, and your name and avatar are simply the Best. The Boss happens to be my favorite artist.

[Crabbensmasher]

The thing that surprised me was that he didn't start off as a socialist. He was originally just a nationalist politician, and even after the Cuban Revolution, he was a bit ideologically lost until about '61. I think that if it were a different time period, the revolution could have gone a different way. But during this time, he was adamantly anti-US and if he wanted the revolution to succeed, he kind of had to side with a great power, therefore choosing USSR. So yes, there are those who say he was only a "socialist" by convenience.

What impresses me is that he seems like a really honest guy. As the old adage goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but the guy held enormous power for decades. When you think of old Fidel, you don't think of absolutely corrupted. I think the only explanation was a really distinct personality. Really, nobody else could've done what he did. He's a resilient bastard too. Still standing up for the things he did 50 years ago. Also, he gave up cigars in the 80s to encourage healthy living in Cuba.
Like, if you put politics aside, I think I'm a big fan.

[one10]

The thing that surprised me was that he didn't start off as a socialist. He was originally just a nationalist politician, and even after the Cuban Revolution, he was a bit ideologically lost until about '61. I think that if it were a different time period, the revolution could have gone a different way. But during this time, he was adamantly anti-US and if he wanted the revolution to succeed, he kind of had to side with a great power, therefore choosing USSR. So yes, there are those who say he was only a "socialist" by convenience.

What impresses me is that he seems like a really honest guy. As the old adage goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but the guy held enormous power for decades. When you think of old Fidel, you don't think of absolutely corrupted. I think the only explanation was a really distinct personality. Really, nobody else could've done what he did. He's a resilient bastard too. Still standing up for the things he did 50 years ago. Also, he gave up cigars in the 80s to encourage healthy living in Cuba.
Like, if you put politics aside, I think I'm a big fan.

He always maintained a nationalist approach to politics. People label his politics as "Castroism", which is a mixture of Marxist-Leninist ideals with the Cuban nationalist and conservative ideals of Jose Marti.

If you read some of his writings and take a look at everything that was done in Cuba after the victory of the July 26th movement, you can clearly see that Fidel Castro became a passionate and devoted Communist.

[Ismail]

Fidel Castro started out as a liberal. Upon taking power he claimed that the color of his revolution was green, the fatigues of the rebel army, and that both capitalism and communism exploited man. His revolution was of a bourgeois-democratic nature and his economic policies contradicted the interests of US imperialism in favor of a Cuban national bourgeoisie.

Under US pressure Castro moved to the left, but this leftwards turn before long became one of transforming Cuba from a neo-colony of US imperialism into a neo-colony of Soviet social-imperialism. Castro became zealously pro-Soviet, endorsing the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, praising Gorbachev (in 1992 no less) as a man who "struggled to perfect socialism." Cuban troops served on behalf of the Soviets in Angola and Ethiopia. Nowadays he praises China as a "socialist" state.

There are two good reads on the Cuban economy of the 70's and 80's. The first can be viewed here: http://revolutionaryspiritapl.blogspot.com/2012/06/cuba-evaportion-of-myth-from-anti.html

The second is a PDF and people can PM me their emails if they want it.

On the theoretical plain, Castro promoted Che's "foco" theories which replaced the vanguard of the proletariat with "heroic" figures walking about in jungles with AK-47s isolated from working-class struggles. This was obviously an anti-Marxist course, and in fact in 1968 Kang Sheng told the Albanian defense minister, Beqir Balluku, that Guevara's death weakened revisionist influence on the anti-imperialist struggle in Latin America.

In a 1965 conversation, when the Cubans came up:

Enver Hoxha: They are not and have never been Marxists. They are only a bunch of anarchists.

Zhou Enlai: They are bourgeois revolutionaries. They simply took a step toward Marxism-Leninism and then retreated.

Beqir Balluku: They returned to their roots.

[MP5]

Well as far as countries that claim to be Marxist-Leninist go Cuba would be the one i dislike the least. It's still a despot state and one that become almost a colony of the USSR for all intensive purposes but i don't dislike it as much as say Vietnam, North Korea or the USSR from Stalin onwards. Some of the things Castro did was pure lunacy such as the Cuban missile crises but he did help the Cuban people more then Capitalism that was not nationalized would i think. Cuba is certainly not Socialist at all however.

[Ismail]

Some of the things Castro did was pure lunacy such as the Cuban missile crisesActually Castro privately noted to Mikoyan that the Cuban people expressed deep disappointment with the Soviets. See: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/110955

As Hoxha wrote in his diary at the time:

TUESDAY OCTOBER 23, 1962
In connection with Kennedy's war-mongering speech on the question of Cuba, the Soviet government, wanting to appear unalarmed before world opinion, made a wishy-washy, non-committal pacifist statement after some delay. The statement does not say that the Soviet Union will defend Cuba, nor does it reply to the direct attacks and threats which Kennedy made. The Khrushchevites are showing themselves to be what they are, cowards, compromisers and traitors who leave their friends in the lurch, individuals devoid of principles and morals, therefore, they are unmasking themselves in the eyes of world opinion. They will come to terms with Kennedy, will make concessions to him, but if they leave heroic Cuba in the lurch. this will be a great crime and mean total exposure for them.

SATURDAY OCTOBER 27, 1962
It turned out as we thought. Khrushchev capitulated to Kennedy and left Cuba in the lurch, Messages were exchanged. Kennedy issued an ultimatum to Khrushchev that he must stop the construction of missile launching pads, dismantle those he has established and remove the missiles from Cuba. The traitor Khrushchev accepted Kennedy's conditions in a servile tone and with fear in his belly. The terrible thing is that with his stand the traitor has utterly discredited the Soviet Union. This is a new great betrayal which has been committed against the Soviet Union, Marxism-Leninism, socialism, mankind and peace. This stand whets the imperialists' appetite.

THURSDAY NOVEMBER 8, 1962
The news agencies report that the Soviet missiles are being shipped away from Cuba, and that American warships are going to verify their removal on the high seas. Shame on Khrushchev and his henchmen who have stooped so low as to humiliate the Soviet Union such a degree! But the day will come when they get their just desert.

THURSDAY DECEMBER 13, 1962
Yesterday Khrushchev delivered a speech on the international situation and Soviet foreign policy at the session of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. Beside him in the presidium of the meeting he had his brother and close comrade, the traitor Tito. The main purpose of his long speech was to make a long-winded explanation of his betrayal (in fact, to avoid explaining it), of his retreat before the strength of American imperialism. His whole problem was to try to clear himself, to wipe out the bad impression created and the great disgrace which he brought upon the Soviet Union. But he could not and never will be able to do this. Now the whole revisionist chorus has adopted this theme and aim. Nikita Khrushchev presented the removal of missiles from Cuba as a victory, as a road open (through a catastrophe) to new victories (new scandalous compromises and concessions). The second aim of the speech was the complete, official, public rehabilitation of the Titoite renegades, both from the state stand-point and, especially, from the ideological stand-point. On this issue he threw off all disguise. The predictions of the Party of Labour of Albania have been confirmed.

As usual, Khrushchev attacked the Party of Labour of Albania and its leadership without any argument. In this way he pleased Tito greatly. Likewise, he attacked the Communist Party of China. The treacherous aims of the Khrushchevite revisionist group, the splitting of the camp, the formation of the international revisionist bloc, the feverish open approaches to American imperialism, the efforts on Khrushchev's part to provide Kennedy with more and more proofs of his goodwill so that the agreements they will reach with his agent Tito will be welcomed by Kennedy, are becoming clearer every day. The future will make clear all their intrigues and capitulationist plans.

[tuwix]

I've seen comments here and there, but I was wondering, how is it that Fidel Castro is viewed here on RevLeft?

First let me give a tiny bit of background information. I myself am a Cuban-American living in Miami. As such, it's hard sometimes to tell the difference between propaganda and truth. I don't regard Castro as evil as most here do, but at the same time, I have a hard time being able to tell apart some things. I've visited Cuba, and it wasn't the horror story my family tried to paint. In fact, many of my family members even to this day when my mother goes to visit, make sure to send me back pictures of Fidel and/or other Cuban Revolutionary figures with messages written on the back of them.

So really, I'm hoping maybe my question will also spark conversation into Fidel Castro as a man and a leader, helping me better understand.

I think he's best example of man who wanted good but failed very badly. The reason of that is soviet mode tht he adopted.


But I admire you that you are Cuban exile and you're revolutionary lefitist. It isn't easy.

¡Felictaciones compañero!

[Comrade Alex]

Fidel Castro to put it simply he is a legend
He is still one of the few people who can say no to imperialism and not suffer the consequences
He really came out of nowhere in the 50s and yet he was able to depose Batista, and with the embargo and countless CIA espionage acts he and the Cuban people were able to build a strong nation they have an excellent healthcare system, free education, but above all cuba has honor
Viva che Viva camilo viva Raul Viva Fidel viva el 26 de Julio viva cuba libre

[Dropdead]

He's a really great man overall in my opinion, the things he has done are just amazing. Of course he has done stupid things but again, nobodys perfect.

[Bostana]

I think he went into the Cuban revolution with good intentions of overthrowing the evil, U.S. backed, Batista Dictatorship. But was corrupted towards the end of it. He remained a dictator till he retired in 2008

[Ismail]

He's a really great man overall in my opinion, the things he has done are just amazing. Of course he has done stupid things but again, nobodys perfect.Praising Deng and his successors as communists is not "stupid," being slavishly supportive of the Soviet revisionists was not "stupid," he didn't somehow stumble into turning his country into a neo-colony and proxy for Soviet social-imperialism just as he didn't accidentally preside over a capitalist state.

It's always amusing to see when actions anyone else undertakes gets them branded as "Stalinists" (fulsome praise for the revisionist USSR, endorsement of its invasions, etc.) instead get branded either as "mistakes" or stuff "forced on" Castro, to the point that one user actually attributed Castro's early homophobia to the Soviets.

[dēmistĕfī]

The so-called Cuban "Revolution" preserved commodity production and alienated labour, so one may wonder it's termed a 'revolution' when there simply wasn't one at all. Castro and the rest of M-26-7 were nothing other than romantic nationalists who simply turned to Comecon for economic aid.

It's truly disheartening to see people revere him as a "progressive" or an "anti-imperialist" figure, when both of these assertions are quite simply bizarre on multiple levels.

[Ismail]

The so-called Cuban "Revolution" preserved commodity production and alienated labour, so one may wonder it's termed a 'revolution' when there simply wasn't one at all. Castro and the rest of M-26-7 were nothing other than romantic nationalists who simply turned to Comecon for economic aid.It was an anti-imperialist revolution led by liberal petty-bourgeois forces. As the rebels gained ground the working-class could give only vocal support, obviously quite limited in character since there was no vanguard or organization outside of a handful of guerrillas isolated from the cities. Upon taking power the rebels promised bourgeois democracy and carried out progressive economic measures. The immense pressure of US imperialism impeded the further development of a national bourgeoisie willing to cut a "fair" deal with American interests in the country, and instead transformed the leading group into a comprador bourgeoisie serving the interests of Soviet social-imperialism.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

Castro set up CDR's and gay people were forced to labor camps to work. Fuck Castro. Cuba was decades behind even the fucking USA on the LGBT movements. Also as an Anarchist, I don't support the state, not even a romanticized state capitalist one.

[dēmistĕfī]

It was an anti-imperialist revolution led by liberal petty-bourgeois forces.
It is pure folly to subscribe to the idea that there are "anti-imperialist" capitalist states that are counter-posed to the imperialist ones. Imperialism is an unavoidable stage in the evolution of world capital and — in the same breadth — a response to the falling rate of profit and the inherent need to expand world markets, and thus every state is forced to enter into this competitive relationship between all capitalist states (even if it must be resigned to being a junior and somewhat disadvantaged member of a partnership, such as Comecon and precious little Castro-era Cuba). The only "anti-imperialist" revolution is one which abolishes all internal contradictions that make the epoch of imperialism a reality; that is, a communist one.

Despite the Castro regime's modest origins in a liberal armed revolt (which is just about all you've gotten right), it soon succumbed to the very real needs of Cuban capital to secure cheaper imports from whomsoever was willing, following a somewhat careless nationalisation programme.

As for being petit-bourgeois in nature, well that doesn't make much fucking sense (except in the superficial sense of it having been orchestrated by those with an intermediary, undeveloped and transitory position between proletariat and bourgeoisie) since the petit-bourgeoisie aren't a class with coherent interests and historical trajectory.


Upon taking power the rebels promised bourgeois democracy and carried out progressive economic measures.
Stop it, this doesn't mean anything. All I can take from this is the implicit assertion that human history adjusts to predetermined ideals, and is not the result of men acting in their own material interests. There's a reason why 'progress' ought to be removed from the scientific socialist lexicon.


The immense pressure of US imperialism impeded the further development of a national bourgeoisie willing to cut a "fair" deal with American interests in the country, and instead transformed the leading group into a comprador bourgeoisie serving the interests of Soviet social-imperialism.
My point has been made clear. All arguments focusing on the subject of imperialism vs. the mythical beast of anti-imperialism are bound to be circular in fashion.

[Ismail]

It is pure folly to subscribe to the idea that there are "anti-imperialist" capitalist states that are counter-posed to the imperialist ones. Imperialism is an unavoidable stage in the evolution of world capital and — in the same breadth — a response to the falling rate of profit and the inherent need to expand world markets, and thus every state is forced to enter into this competitive relationship between all capitalist states (even if it must be resigned to being a junior and somewhat disadvantaged member of a partnership, such as Comecon and precious little Castro-era Cuba). The only "anti-imperialist" revolution is one which abolishes all internal contradictions that make the epoch of imperialism a reality; that is, a communist one.You are confusing "anti-imperialist states" with anti-imperialist revolutions. The Cuban revolution weakened US imperialism and inspired anti-imperialist sentiment throughout Latin America and even Africa; it stagnated precisely because the working-class had no notable role in this process, and thus the new bourgeoisie simply continued to drape itself in "anti-imperialist" colors while serving Soviet social-imperialism.

In contradiction to the line of Lenin and Stalin, the Soviet revisionists spoke of "independent progressive development" and other shibboleths which supposedly allowed for avowedly bourgeois regimes to march towards socialism by having "revolutionary democrats" at the helm rather than the proletariat.


Despite the Castro regime's modest origins in a liberal armed revolt (which is just about all you've gotten right), it soon succumbed to the very real needs of Cuban capital to secure cheaper imports from whomsoever was willing, following a somewhat careless nationalisation programme.Well yes, Cuba obviously remained a capitalist state.


As for being petit-bourgeois in nature, well that doesn't make much fucking sense (except in the superficial sense of it having been orchestrated by those with an intermediary, undeveloped and transitory position between proletariat and bourgeoisie) since the petit-bourgeoisie aren't a class with coherent interests and historical trajectory.Of course the revolt was petty-bourgeois in nature, it certainly wasn't led by proletarian politics nor were large landowners and capitalist at the helm. Again you seem to be confusing the composition of the revolt with its objective and subjective end-result: the overthrow of one bourgeois grouping by another. Using this logic any movement led by workers will, due to its "material interests," naturally result in the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Stop it, this doesn't mean anything.Yes it does, nationalization of land among various social services were gains for the working-class. They were not "socialist" gains as the revisionists claimed, but they certainly disrupted the interests of American imperialism in Cuba and were an important point for greater demands on the part of the working-class.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

If you support the castro regime you support gay and lesbian people being sent to forced labour camps and not becoming anything like regular citizens until the late 90's

Fuck castro, freedom for everyone or fuck off and stop calling yourself a communist.

Thomas Paine was more radical than castro lol.

[Ismail]

If you support the castro regime you support gay and lesbian people being sent to forced labour camps and not becoming anything like regular citizens until the late 90'sUsing that logic people who support Planned Parenthood also support eugenics.

Engels wrote (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_06_22.htm) to Marx about how "lucky" both men were that they were old and didn't have to worry about paying "physical tribute" to homosexuals in the future. Denouncing Castro as an unabashed homophobe is quite weak, considering how many leftists were homophobic, including anarchists like Durruti and ultra-lefts like C.L.R. James.

It's not good to criticize a revisionist for bad reasons.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

Using that logic people who support Planned Parenthood also support eugenics.

Engels wrote (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_06_22.htm) to Marx about how "lucky" both men were that they were old and didn't have to worry about paying "physical tribute" to homosexuals in the future. Denouncing Castro as an unabashed homophobe is quite weak, considering how many leftists were homophobic, including anarchists like Durruti and ultra-lefts like C.L.R. James.

It's not good to criticize a revisionist for bad reasons.

Yeah it is exactly klike that. Sigh.

Yeah fuck Marx and Engels too. I accept their analytic method, I don't think they should get a pass for being wankers. Also their era is no excuse, people as early as the 1700s were arguing for gay people to be equal citizens, even bourgeois ones like Paine.

[Ismail]

Also their era is no excuse, people as early as the 1700s were arguing for gay people to be equal citizens, even bourgeois ones like Paine.And how many of the Founding Fathers agreed with Paine? Nowadays people praise Thomas Jefferson for his relatively moderate stand on "sodomy": he called for castrating the offender rather than the popular option of executing him.

Many abolitionists thought blacks were subhuman yet advocated their emancipation since slavery was said to tarnish the "white race." It wasn't until blacks themselves developed their own voice that genuine equality could be sought after rather than the white paternalism of prior generations. The point is that material conditions are important; today homosexuals have the advantage of active gay rights movements, science, and other things they completely lacked 50 years ago.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

And how many of the Founding Fathers agreed with Paine? Nowadays people praise Thomas Jefferson for his relatively moderate stand on "sodomy": he called for castrating the offender rather than executing him.

Many abolitionists thought blacks were subhuman yet advocated their emancipation since slavery was said to tarnish the "white race." It wasn't until blacks themselves developed their own voice that genuine equality could be sought after rather than the white paternalism of prior generations. The point is that material conditions are important; today homosexuals have the advantage of active gay rights movements, science, and other things they completely lacked 100 years ago.

Back in the day gay people openly rocked out with our cock out. We were the best at sword fighting and battlefield anal. Why was being gay badass in fuedal times but horrible to society today?

[Bostana]

Back in the day gay people openly rocked out with our cock out. We were the best at sword fighting and battlefield anal. Why was being gay badass in fuedal times but horrible to society today?

Oh my god you sound so un-educated it's ridiculous.

Ismail don't waste your time with this moron. You're going to present an argument and he say something off-topic and fucking stupid.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

Oh my god you sound so un-educated it's ridiculous.

Ismail don't waste your time with this moron. You're going to present an argument and he say something off-topic and fucking stupid.

Did the CDR's not send gay people to forced labour camps? When jews point out jews being sent to camps do you call them uneducated too? You are so prejudice. go fuck your self.

If castro had sent black people to forced labour camps instead of gays, you would not support him, but hunting down and gulaging queers is just a slight blemish on the record. Again go fuck yourself.

[Bostana]

Did the CDR's not send gay people to forced labour camps? When jews point out jews being sent to camps do you call them uneducated too? You are so prejudice. go fuck your self.

I don't support Castro and I was referring to this idiotic beginning of this one-liner:

Back in the day gay people openly rocked out with our cock out. We were the best at sword fighting and battlefield anal. Why was being gay badass in fuedal times but horrible to society today?

[Ismail]

Back in the day gay people openly rocked out with our cock out. We were the best at sword fighting and battlefield anal. Why was being gay badass in fuedal times but horrible to society today?Well in Japan and Athens and whatnot during the times homosexuality was not taboo, it served a specific function in society. You didn't see people going around having gay orgies 24/7 or any conservative fantasy like that. This is why a lot of early Marxists (Engels included) seem to have treated it as a strange part of certain feudal and pre-feudal societies connected somehow with the subordination of women. They gave fleeting mention of it at best because they had no particular reason to do otherwise, they just assumed that it was all "deviant" behavior and moved on, making insightful critiques and analyses of the rest of said societies.

We've now gone from Castro to gay sex, something I feel isn't that uncommon on RevLeft. Feel free to make a topic in this forum area about the subject ("why did views on homosexuality change throughout history") though.

[Deliverous]

I've seen comments here and there, but I was wondering, how is it that Fidel Castro is viewed here on RevLeft?

First let me give a tiny bit of background information. I myself am a Cuban-American living in Miami. As such, it's hard sometimes to tell the difference between propaganda and truth. I don't regard Castro as evil as most here do, but at the same time, I have a hard time being able to tell apart some things. I've visited Cuba, and it wasn't the horror story my family tried to paint. In fact, many of my family members even to this day when my mother goes to visit, make sure to send me back pictures of Fidel and/or other Cuban Revolutionary figures with messages written on the back of them.

So really, I'm hoping maybe my question will also spark conversation into Fidel Castro as a man and a leader, helping me better understand.

It is really great to know that there are some Cubans living in Miami who have not been completely converted through constant propaganda. You made my day.

There are different sets of Cubans living in Miami, as I am sure you know.

The hard core of that community is the old brigade, mostly those who decided to leave to protect their financial interests. Naturally, they make up the leading and most powerful bloc in Miami.

But Fidel Castro is a man who was always loved when in the political movement. He was noticed long before the Cuban revolution. As a student leader in the University of Havana, he was at the forefront of the protests against Batista.

The point is, when you look at Fidel Castro, whether you believe he built a genuine socialist society or not, he was always driven by love and good intentions, as he more than showed long before he decided to take the great risk of rebellion. This is a point that annoys me. Most of those who dismiss Fidel Castro have never done much for anybody. Fidel Castro, with 80 guerrillas, facing death in the face, rose up against all odds to overthrow the Batista dictatorship. Who of those who criticise Fidel Castro can claim such willingness to put themselves in such danger and be ready to die for a belief they consider just?

I support Cuba but I tried to be objective with what I said. I do not want you to be thinking that he is the monster that is portrayed in Miami.
That said, I believe Cuba is a guiding example of dignity in the world, representing a massive resistance to US imperialism. I am sure you know this, but given the blockade against Cuba, they have achieved great things in terms of education and healthcare, with the country having the highest doctor to population ratio in the world. I am travelling to Cuba for three and a half months this summer to study Spanish in preparation for a Masters there next year, hopefully when I get back I will give a more detailed analysis.
I would strongly suggest, if you truly want to understand Fidel Castro, read his autobiography, where he was asked some tough questions. The documentary by Oliver Stone titled ‘Comandante’ is also a fantastic way to get into the mind of the man. ‘Fidel Castro: The Untold Story’ is also a great documentary which I recommend you to watch.
I, like many others, particularly in Cuba and throughout Latin America, consider Fidel Castro one of the greatest men of our time. I can only ask you to do your own research, look into him more, while trying to gain an understanding of socialism, then make your own decision of him yourself.
Hope that helped in some way.

[Deliverous]

For those talking here on the internet in such hostility towards Fidel Castro, I only hope in 50 or 60 years, you can claim you mustered enough courage and determination to be able to say that, at least like Castro, you went to the edge of the darkest and steepest cliff to fight for what you claim to be liberation.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

For those talking here on the internet in such hostility towards Fidel Castro, I only hope in 50 or 60 years, you can claim you mustered enough courage and determination to be able to say that, at least like Castro, you went to the edge of the darkest and steepest cliff to fight for what you claim to be liberation and round gay people up and force them to do hard labour because you think gay people are subhuman.

Fuck you and fuck armed cliques of people taking state power, while killing anarchists and sending queers to the gulag.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

Ban this troll already.

I will not respond to you, don't even address me, thanks.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

Fidel Castro has said that he is ultimately responsible for the persecution suffered by homosexuals in Cuba after the revolution of 1959.

The former president told the Mexican newspaper La Jornada that there were moments of great injustice against the gay community.

"If someone is responsible, it's me," he said.

In the 1960s and 70s, many homosexuals in Cuba were fired, imprisoned or sent to "re-education camps".

I am finished in this thread. Please do not rewrite history to fit your political stance. Thank you.


Muslims imprisoned in Guantanamo without trial, revleft cries islamophiobia, someone points out castro sent gays to forced labor camps without trial... BAN THE TROLL

IS THIS REAL LIFE?

[Deliverous]

Fuck you and fuck armed cliques of people taking state power, while killing anarchists and sending queers to the gulag.

You sound more like one of those anarchists driven by the passion of opposing authority simply because you dislike any authority, than the rationally thinking, who understands that in our hostile world of aggressive states, no anarchist or socialist society can be built in one or a few countries. Cuba needs a state. If it had no state, there would be no Cuban revolution. A revolution is a process that cannot be finally accomplished overnight.

I also dislike such authority, at least, from a theoretical ideal conception. But unfortunately, we do not live inside ideal circumstances. The road to peace and emancipation is a long road, filled with obstacles, felt with feelings of aggression and hatred, from every government that puts wealth before health.

I say it proudly, I support the Cuban revolution, and will do so until the moment of my death.

[Deliverous]

Fidel Castro has said that he is ultimately responsible for the persecution suffered by homosexuals in Cuba after the revolution of 1959.

The former president told the Mexican newspaper La Jornada that there were moments of great injustice against the gay community.

"If someone is responsible, it's me," he said.

In the 1960s and 70s, many homosexuals in Cuba were fired, imprisoned or sent to "re-education camps".

I am finished in this thread. Please do not rewrite history to fit your political stance. Thank you.


Muslims imprisoned in Guantanamo without trial, revleft cries islamophiobia, someone points out castro sent gays to forced labor camps without trial... BAN THE TROLL

IS THIS REAL LIFE?

As for the alleged persecution of homosexuals, from Fidel Castro’s autobiography:

“I can guarantee you that there was no [government] persecution of homosexuals, or internment camps for homosexuals”.

“I can’t deny that there were prejudices against the homosexuals. I personally asked for a review of that issue”.

“I should tell you too, that there were – and still are – very distinguished, outstanding personalities in culture, literature, very prestigious figures in many areas of knowledge, who were and are homosexual and who have many areas of knowledge, despite the prejudices, a great deal of privilege and respect in this country”.

“I’d like to think that discrimination against homosexuals is a problem that is being overcome, and I do see it that way. I trust in that [progress] as I trust in the fact that our nation will soon be one of the most cultured, educated, and sensitive and fair nations in the world. Old prejudices and narrow mindedness will increasingly be things of the past”.

It does not appear that Fidel Castro is homophobic at all. In fact, today, Cuba is a hotspot for gay people who want to go on holiday.

With this said, over recent years, we have learnt a great deal more about the issue of homosexuality. We must put the issue of homophobia in a historical context, while being critical, and insisting that we never return to the negative ways of the past, like many did - even with good intentions.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

As for the alleged persecution of homosexuals, from Fidel Castro’s autobiography:

“I can guarantee you that there was no [government] persecution of homosexuals, or internment camps for homosexuals”.

“I can’t deny that there were prejudices against the homosexuals. I personally asked for a review of that issue”.

“I should tell you too, that there were – and still are – very distinguished, outstanding personalities in culture, literature, very prestigious figures in many areas of knowledge, who were and are homosexual and who have many areas of knowledge, despite the prejudices, a great deal of privilege and respect in this country”.

“I’d like to think that discrimination against homosexuals is a problem that is being overcome, and I do see it that way. I trust in that [progress] as I trust in the fact that our nation will soon be one of the most cultured, educated, and sensitive and fair nations in the world. Old prejudices and narrow mindedness will increasingly be things of the past”.

It does not appear that Fidel Castro is homophobic at all. In fact, today, Cuba is a hotspot for gay people who want to go on holiday.

With this said, over recent years, we have learnt a great deal more about the issue of homosexuality. We must put the issue of homophobia in a historical context, while being critical, and insisting that we never return to the negative ways of the past, like many did.

He has since admitted the extent of homosexual repression and persecution you idiot. Also just so you know, Biographies do not count as sources. That is like asking the Japanese, you tell us about your treatment of Koreans in ww2.

[Deliverous]

He has since admitted the extent of homosexual repression and persecution you idiot. Also just so you know, Biographies do not count as sources. That is like asking the Japanese, you tell us about your treatment of Koreans in ww2.

Do you think you achieve anything by name-calling over the internet? If he has admitted the persecution of homosexuals, you must do me the privilege of sending me the information. As we see here, he claimed otherwise in the autobiography. If he has since modified his views, then simply help everybody, as I have tried to do, by showing the source or linking us to it.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

Do you think you achieve anything by name-calling over the internet? If he has admitted the persecution of homosexuals, you must do me the privilege of sending me the information. As we see here, he claimed otherwise in the autobiography. If he has since modified his views, then simply help everybody, as I have tried to do, by showing the source or linking us to it.


Are you seriously imnplying the revolution brought in legislation to crimninalise homosexuality and sent people to hard labour camps? How are you on a leftist forum. Do people who deny the holocaust get away with posting on here. This is so shocking. This is supposed to be an anti capitalist nfucking forum.

[Deliverous]

Are you seriously imnplying the revolution brought in legislation to crimninalise homosexuality and sent people to hard labour camps? How are you on a leftist forum. Do people who deny the holocaust get away with posting on here. This is so shocking. This is supposed to be an anti capitalist nfucking forum.

I am not denying anything. I used a source from the leader of the Cuban revolution - who apparently, using the authority you claim to oppose - would be banned. I am simply asking you to back up your statement in order to know that, as you claim, Fidel Castro believes that actually, there was government persecution of homosexuals.

Rather than employing rhetoric, in a rather weak way I might add, please, put up, or shut up.

You cannot expect me, when reading Fidel Castro's autobiography and after reading him say that homosexuals were not persecuted by the government, that I should automatically believe a claim stating the opposite, with a source you do not provide.

Unfortunately, in this world we need to work on sources very often. When you say Fidel Castro has admitted to the government persecution of homosexuals, it is only right that you show the statement that differs with his statements in his autobiography.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

I am not denying anything. I used a source from the leader of the Cuban revolution - who apparently, using the authority you claim to oppose - would be banned. I am simply asking you to back up your statement in order to know that, as you claim, Fidel Castro believes that actually, there was government persecution of homosexuals.

Rather than employing rhetoric, in a rather weak way I might add, please, put up, or shut up.

You cannot expect me, when reading Fidel Castro's autobiography and after reading him say that homosexuals were not persecuted by the government, that I should automatically believe a claim stating the opposition, with a source you do not provide.

Unfortunately, in this world we need to work on sources very often. When you say Fidel Castro has admitted to the government persecution of homosexuals, it is only right that you show the statement that differs with his autobiography.

He criminalised homosexuality, that is not a secret. He set up CDR's that sent gay people to forced labour camps.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/cuba/7976488/Fidel-Castro-regrets-discrimination-against-gays-in-Cuba.html

Other than his vague confessions I suggest the pro cuban revolution book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cuba-Revolution-History-Fifties-Contemporary/dp/1861894023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366556174&sr=1-1&keywords=cuba+cdr

It basically lays out gays were sent to labor camps but tries to justify it by saying the CIA would use gays as a sabotage network lol. Has plenty of sources on the issue. It is unique in admitting the camps while being pro regime.

Also obviously castro has not mentioned labour camps, just apologized for the repression, does that mean the camps did not fucking exist lol?

[Comrade Nasser]

Back in the day gay people openly rocked out with our cock out. We were the best at sword fighting and battlefield anal. Why was being gay badass in fuedal times but horrible to society today?

http://meowcheese.com/files/lolpics/2008/04/stop-posting.jpg