Fidel - What Happened?

[Ace High]

Seriously though.

The revolution went perfectly, and his new government in Cuba instituted amazing reforms. They kick out the mafia, they began redistribution of wealth so quickly to the point where unemployment and homelessness was solved, including providing food and healthcare for their people. Not to mention the government was very anti-racist and took a stand against the United States' racist policies towards black people. Oh and they kicked out foreign multinational interests of the elite who had assets in Cuba under Batista. They always took a stance against imperialism and left one of the lowest carbon footprints in Latin America while still providing for their people.

Then Fidel apparently randomly loses his mind many years later.

I am mainly critical of his mass rounding up of alleged "political dissidents" to absurdly lengthy prison sentences on trumped-up arbitrary charges. That is simply immoral and a violation of human rights. Also, he committed one of the biggest crimes against freedom of speech/information that you can commit, which was his decision to censor the internet. Restricted internet use at designated cafes (which there are barely any at all) deprives Cubans of interaction with the world and new ideas. Not only those examples, but he seems to have lost any type of coherent revolutionary zeal.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the reasons for his authoritarian crackdown?

[Brutus]

Well, in order to keep his power, he was forced to suck up to the soviets as he had made enemies with US by kicking them out. The political dissidents is just what happens when you set up a dictatorship.

[KurtFF8]

Then Fidel apparently randomly loses his mind many years later.

What on earth are you talking about?


I am mainly critical of his mass rounding up of alleged "political dissidents" to absurdly lengthy prison sentences on trumped-up arbitrary charges. That is simply immoral and a violation of human rights.

While I agree that the extent of who was considered a "threat" to the state was a bit absurd, I'm not sure that political repression amounts to a wholesale failure of the revolution as you seem to be suggesting.


Also, he committed one of the biggest crimes against freedom of speech/information that you can commit, which was his decision to censor the internet. Restricted internet use at designated cafes (which there are barely any at all) deprives Cubans of interaction with the world and new ideas. Not only those examples, but he seems to have lost any type of coherent revolutionary zeal.

I'm not aware of a society that doesn't engage in some kind of censorship. It seems like you're holding Cuba's society up to the standards of a place like the United States with a focus on "freedom of speech" and anti censorship as opposed to a class analysis of what the Cuban state and society are like here so far though.


Anyway, what are your thoughts on the reasons for his authoritarian crackdown?

Actually the "worst" of this was probably the later 70s and 80s which has since vastly decreased. There is still censorship in Cuba of course but the most "authoritarian" policies are in the past at this point. And this isn't just because of the recent economic reforms but rather has been a trend from the Special Period on.

[Comrade Jacob]

The restricted internet use is because that most cables run through America and because of it's very weak bandwidth it must ration it. (They are planning an agreement with Venezuela to use theirs). Many things he did could be seen a authoritarian but I have found their is always something behind it. I am happy the Cuban people have kept their faith in him throughout his rein, it wasn't perfect but it has paid off.

[KurtFF8]

Also, it's interesting how perspectives on places like Cuba are so vastly different. For example take the sentiment of the OP versus what the Monthly Review said in 2009 (http://monthlyreview.org/2009/01/01/why-cuba-still-matters):


It was this which led to the launching of the “Rectification Campaign” in 1986 and to Fidel’s rejection of the Soviet policies of glasnost and perestroika. Seen by many as “Stalinist” or “conservative,” this rejection of Gorbachev’s policies was in fact anything but: it reflected the Cuban leader’s prescient understanding that this type of top-down liberalization would necessarily lead in a capitalist direction. It also reflected the belief that in Cuba, where—unlike the Soviet Union—grassroots participation and revolutionary idealism had not yet been totally crushed by decades of authoritarianism and sometimes brutal repression, socialism could be reinvigorated by a combination of visionary leadership and popular mobilization.

[Ace High]

The restricted internet use is because that most cables run through America and because of it's very weak bandwidth it must ration it. (They are planning an agreement with Venezuela to use theirs). Many things he did could be seen a authoritarian but I have found their is always something behind it. I am happy the Cuban people have kept their faith in him throughout his rein, it wasn't perfect but it has paid off.

Ok, well that explanation makes sense, and I am very ignorant as to how the internet even works to be honest. So are you saying that because Cuba is supposed to be an "American enemy", the US has banned Cuba from attempting to access their internet cables? Does it really require that to bring the internet into the country? If so, then I stand corrected on that.


What on earth are you talking about?



While I agree that the extent of who was considered a "threat" to the state was a bit absurd, I'm not sure that political repression amounts to a wholesale failure of the revolution as you seem to be suggesting.



I'm not aware of a society that doesn't engage in some kind of censorship. It seems like you're holding Cuba's society up to the standards of a place like the United States with a focus on "freedom of speech" and anti censorship as opposed to a class analysis of what the Cuban state and society are like here so far though.



Actually the "worst" of this was probably the later 70s and 80s which has since vastly decreased. There is still censorship in Cuba of course but the most "authoritarian" policies are in the past at this point. And this isn't just because of the recent economic reforms but rather has been a trend from the Special Period on.

What on earth am I talking about? His inexplicable mass imprisonment of dissidents. That is why I said he lost his mind. I mean, during the actual revolution, imprisoning Batista loyalists makes complete sense and was justified, I'm talking about decades after that.

And you're saying that because most societies use censorship, that makes it justified for Castro to implement it in Cuba? Do you not agree that censorship is wrong?

I'm actually a fan of his government overall. Obviously I think Guevara should have been running things really, but Castro seriously reformed Cuba, don't get me wrong. I'm simply criticizing him because he lost his revolutionary values. A socialist government shouldn't be imprisoning its own citizens on arbitrary made-up charges. I am simply wondering why he became so increasingly authoritarian when the early days of the revolution were not at all like that.

[Old Bolshie]

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the reasons for his authoritarian crackdown?

I don't see the surprise. Fidel and the Cuban regime have been authoritarian since the beginning and like KurtFF8 already said it the system today is much less authoritarian than it was in the past. Dissidents have been arrested since the revolution. And if you concern about human rights you might don't wanna hear about the executions in the earliest days of the revolution.

The problem today of Cuba is very similar to that of North Korea: economic isolation. The fall of USSR produced dramatic effects for those countries which received a lot of economic aid from it. North Korea had a higher GDP than South Korea until USSR entered in the stagnation period which eventually led to its downfall. Cuba's economy did it very well even during the stagnation period. From 1981 to 1985, Cuba's GDP growth averaged 7.3%.

[KurtFF8]

Ok, well that explanation makes sense, and I am very ignorant as to how the internet even works to be honest. So are you saying that because Cuba is supposed to be an "American enemy", the US has banned Cuba from attempting to access their internet cables? Does it really require that to bring the internet into the country? If so, then I stand corrected on that.

Cuba and the US essentially border each other, and the US has one of the most (if not the most) developed internet infrastructures in the world. It would make plenty of sense for Cuba to use the US's infrastructure to get the kind of internet access that you believe they should have, but of course the blockade not only makes it impossible for Cuba to get this via the US, but the blockade makes it harder for other countries to help Cuba do this as well.

This is why the project with Venezuela is important, and has actually already in a large part been implemented for public cafes and university systems (and is apparently being developed for more home usage)




What on earth am I talking about? His inexplicable mass imprisonment of dissidents. That is why I said he lost his mind. I mean, during the actual revolution, imprisoning Batista loyalists makes complete sense and was justified, I'm talking about decades after that.

Which dissidents are you talking about exactly? You're talking in quite vague generalities here.


And you're saying that because most societies use censorship, that makes it justified for Castro to implement it in Cuba? Do you not agree that censorship is wrong?

I think that it can be perceived as a liberal position to criticize Cuba for its censorship when it has been the target of US imperialism for decades, yes. Does it go "too far" compared to US bourgeois standards? Perhaps. But are those the standards we really need to adopt when analyzing Cuba? I would say of course not.


I'm actually a fan of his government overall. Obviously I think Guevara should have been running things really, but Castro seriously reformed Cuba, don't get me wrong. I'm simply criticizing him because he lost his revolutionary values. A socialist government shouldn't be imprisoning its own citizens on arbitrary made-up charges. I am simply wondering why he became so increasingly authoritarian when the early days of the revolution were not at all like that.

When did Cuba lose its revolutionary values? I think statements like that make little sense when you actually analyze Cuba's history after the revolution.

And again, what period are you even talking about? There were more repressive eras (70s/80s) and less repressive eras (90s-now, and to some extent the 60s).

It sounds like you're adopting the US/Western narrative about Cuba in all honesty. That's not meant as a jab at you, but I'm just not seeing much in your posts that is different than what we can get in the Miami Herald in all honesty: to claim that Cuba is "just authoritarian!" or "arbitrarily rounds up dissidents" doesn't seem to be based on much else other than empty rhetoric.

[Ace High]

I don't see the surprise. Fidel and the Cuban regime have been authoritarian since the beginning and like KurtFF8 already said it the system today is much less authoritarian than it was in the past. Dissidents have been arrested since the revolution. And if you concern about human rights you might don't wanna hear about the executions in the earliest days of the revolution.

The problem today of Cuba is very similar to that of North Korea: economic isolation. The fall of USSR produced dramatic effects for those countries which received a lot of economic aid from it. North Korea had a higher GDP than South Korea until USSR entered in the stagnation period which eventually led to its downfall. Cuba's economy did it very well even during the stagnation period. From 1981 to 1985, Cuba's GDP growth averaged 7.3%.

I'm not against the death penalty for violent offenders. In fact, I advocate for it. I'm aware of the executions in the early days of the revolution. I would consider right wing Batista loyalists who want to set up a government that put most Cuban citizens in intense poverty as violent offenders.

And what does their economic decline have to do with Castro's authoritarian policies? Or were you just sort of adding info? If so, that's totally cool, just wondering.

[Ace High]

Cuba and the US essentially border each other, and the US has one of the most (if not the most) developed internet infrastructures in the world. It would make plenty of sense for Cuba to use the US's infrastructure to get the kind of internet access that you believe they should have, but of course the blockade not only makes it impossible for Cuba to get this via the US, but the blockade makes it harder for other countries to help Cuba do this as well.

This is why the project with Venezuela is important, and has actually already in a large part been implemented for public cafes and university systems (and is apparently being developed for more home usage)





Which dissidents are you talking about exactly? You're talking in quite vague generalities here.



I think that it can be perceived as a liberal position to criticize Cuba for its censorship when it has been the target of US imperialism for decades, yes. Does it go "too far" compared to US bourgeois standards? Perhaps. But are those the standards we really need to adopt when analyzing Cuba? I would say of course not.



When did Cuba lose its revolutionary values? I think statements like that make little sense when you actually analyze Cuba's history after the revolution.

And again, what period are you even talking about? There were more repressive eras (70s/80s) and less repressive eras (90s-now, and to some extent the 60s).

It sounds like you're adopting the US/Western narrative about Cuba in all honesty. That's not meant as a jab at you, but I'm just not seeing much in your posts that is different than what we can get in the Miami Herald in all honesty: to claim that Cuba is "just authoritarian!" or "arbitrarily rounds up dissidents" doesn't seem to be based on much else other than empty rhetoric.

Oh come on, you can't defend censorship by acting like the people are just idiots that will all leave Cuba at once and overthrow the gov't at the slightest hint of imperialist propaganda. You can't treat people like animals that must be fenced in so that they don't escape. That's completely inhumane and shows a lack of respect for the proletariat.

And really? You should see how I advocate Castro's regime off this site. This site is the ONLY place where I have ever criticized Castro because here, we all know he made great reforms and did a good job overall. So now it's time to examine some criticisms. That's all. I know you didn't mean to be offensive, but comparing me to Miami anti-Castro people? Like I said, I am a fan of him over all. Just because I criticize literally two things that he did and his loss of revolutionary zeal, does not mean that I am denouncing his government. If you look at my original post, I wrote specifically what I liked that he did.

By the way, it is not empty rhetoric if it actually happened. I mean these are facts, and you are defending the fact that he rounded up people arbitrarily and put them in prison.

[Old Bolshie]

I'm not against the death penalty for violent offenders. In fact, I advocate for it. I'm aware of the executions in the early days of the revolution. I would consider right wing Batista loyalists who want to set up a government that put most Cuban citizens in intense poverty as violent offenders.

And what does their economic decline have to do with Castro's authoritarian policies? Or were you just sort of adding info? If so, that's totally cool, just wondering.

I was just adding my opinion on Cuban's problems of today that are much more economic like it has been since the fall of the USSR than political.

The economic decline has nothing to do with Castro's authoritarian policies since like I said Cuba was much more authoritarian in the past than it is now.

[Ace High]

I was just adding my opinion on Cuban's problems of today that are much more economic like it has been since the fall of the USSR than political.

The economic decline has nothing to do with Castro's authoritarian policies since like I said Cuba was much more authoritarian in the past than it is now.

Oh ok, well in that case I agree with you, the trading network of the USSR was a major asset to allied countries such as Cuba. I certainly am not blaming their economic decline on Castro. If anything, he tried his best to reverse it honestly.

[Ismail]

the trading network of the USSR was a major asset to allied countries such as Cuba.No it wasn't, it transformed Cuba from an American neo-colony to a Soviet neo-colony which in the name of "internationalism" carried out mercenary wars in Angola and Ethiopia on behalf of Soviet social-imperialism. Hoxha once referred to Castro's role in international meetings as being a gramophone of the Soviets.

[Ace High]

No it wasn't, it transformed Cuba from an American neo-colony to a Soviet neo-colony which in the name of "internationalism" carried out mercenary wars in Angola and Ethiopia on behalf of Soviet social-imperialism. Hoxha once referred to his role in international meetings as being a gramophone of the Soviets.

Yes, which is why they were a major trading asset to Cuba! Or am I missing something?

[KurtFF8]

Yes, which is why they were a major trading asset to Cuba! Or am I missing something?

Yes, Cuba did not simply transfer colonial masters. The relationship to the USSR, as well as internal development were quite radically different than the pre-revolutionary periods.

And of course I think that Ismail's narrative of Cuba as a "mercenary for the USSR" in Angola is nonsense when you look at how that conflict actually started and played out (with Cuba pushing the reluctant USSR to be more involved from the beginning). But we've already had this argument so I'm not sure whether it's worth repeating it once more.

[Ismail]

And of course I think that Ismail's narrative of Cuba as a "mercenary for the USSR" in Angola is nonsense when you look at how that conflict actually started and played out (with Cuba pushing the reluctant USSR to be more involved from the beginning). But we've already had this argument so I'm not sure whether it's worth repeating it once more.Just because the Soviet Union was reluctant at first doesn't actually mean anything. First, the Soviets did not want a conflict in Angola because it would undermine the "détente" they sought to achieve with US imperialism, including greater investments by Western capital in the USSR. This did not prevent them from siding with whatever faction would be more profitable for them if forced to do so. Thus in Angola they supported the MPLA, just as in the dispute between Ethiopia and Somalia they sided with the Derg and denounced the Eritrean national liberation struggle of which they had previously paid lip-service, as did the Cubans.

When the Cubans did intervene, the Soviets had no problem giving all tons of assistance to the MPLA regime. As Castro himself stated in a 1977 report (http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112142) to Erich Honecker, "The Soviet military advisors are active at the highest levels.... The Soviet advisers are primarily concerned with planning. Neto wanted us to take the entire army in hand. In practical terms that might have been the best solution, but not politically. The Soviet Union is the chief weapons supplier and the Angolans must speak directly to the Soviets.... The Soviet Union has committed itself to supplying the entire material needs of the Angolan and our units."

The hesitation the Soviets experienced was not much different than the hesitation the Americans experienced when South Africa had invaded Angolan territory for their own purposes. The Americans quickly decided to back South Africa, just as the Soviets quickly decided to back the Cubans.

As Hoxha wrote, "Under the cloak of aid for peoples' liberation the Soviet Union and its mercenary, Cuba, are intervening in other countries with armies equipped with artillery and machine-guns, allegedly to build socialism, which does not exist in either the Soviet Union or Cuba. These two bourgeois-revisionist states intervened in Angola in order to help a capitalist clique seize power, contrary to the aims of the Angolan people who had fought to win their freedom from the Portuguese colonialists. Agostinho Neto is playing the game of the Soviets. In the struggle against the other faction, in order to seize power for himself, he called in the Soviets to help him. The struggle between the two opposing Angolan clans did not have anything of a people's revolutionary character." (Imperialism and the Revolution, 1979, p. 207.)

And that is why the Albanians called for both superpowers and their mercenaries to leave Angola, for so long as either or both intervened there could be no question of genuine independence.

[Brutus]

Che states here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1967/04/16.htm) that the USSR is imperialist, as it began subsidising the lives of its own workers by exploiting other countries. Cuba played ball, suckled the teat of the USSR for oil, supported it in its wars, and became a pawn of soviet imperialism.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

No it wasn't, it transformed Cuba from an American neo-colony to a Soviet neo-colony which in the name of "internationalism" carried out mercenary wars in Angola and Ethiopia on behalf of Soviet social-imperialism. Hoxha once referred to Castro's role in international meetings as being a gramophone of the Soviets.

While I agree that Cuba played a part in Soviet imperialism, I do not think the relationship between Cuba and the Soviet Union is as cut and dry as this makes it seem. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet Union wanted to get the missiles back, the Cuban government was reluctant to give the weapons back and Noam Chomsky (whether you like him or not his foreign policy writings are pretty decent if somewhat problematic at times) notes that this lead to conflict between the countries. The United States played a role in trying to escalate the conflict through "The Cuban Project" or "Operation Mongoose". Castro and Cuba did play a role in Soviet imperialism, but they did have, to a degree, a certain amount of independent action. More than most countries anyway.

While I am not an apologist for state capitalist regimes, Cuba was a country that turned itself from a deeply wealth divided country with terrible conditions for the poor to a country with great health facilities, almost 100% literacy, elimination of child labor and child hunger, etc. etc. The July 26th Movement did not "end freedom" in Cuba, there was no freedom before it. It was the Batista rightist dictatorship and a US client state. The July 26th Movement added "freedoms" (in a sense, again) without destroying any that didn't previously exist, and extended better living conditions to a larger portion of society. It must be remembered, too, that American imperialism, in the form of the blockade, has greatly hindered the ability for prosperity in Cuba and "freedom" in a certain sense of the term (although Cuba is and has been by far the least "authoritarian" of the state capitalist fake socialist states).

"Freedom" is not why we support a state, but whether the workers are "free" from capitalist exploitation and have taken political power into their own hands and are radically destroying capitalism. Cuba is and has been a state capitalist regime, and the Cuban state must be overthrown by the proletariat in the next global revolution.

[Ismail]

While I agree that Cuba played a part in Soviet imperialism, I do not think the relationship between Cuba and the Soviet Union is as cut and dry as this makes it seem. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet Union wanted to get the missiles back, the Cuban government was reluctant to give the weapons back and Noam Chomsky (whether you like him or not his foreign policy writings are pretty decent if somewhat problematic at times) notes that this lead to conflict between the countries.Castro was at the head of a petty-bourgeois guerrilla band that took power without any assistance whatsoever from the Soviet revisionists. Naturally this produced a growth in anti-imperialist sentiment across Latin America which the Castroites, propagating their anti-Marxist "foco" theory, sought to take advantage of. This produced some strains between Castro and Khrushchev, but such differences largely dissipated when Brezhnev unseated the latter and adopted a more "hardline" posturing which was beneficial in allowing Cuba to demagogically enhance its "internationalist" image.


Castro and Cuba did play a role in Soviet imperialism, but they did have, to a degree, a certain amount of independent action. More than most countries anyway.Cuba's economy was neo-colonial and it was, after the 60's, obsequious towards Soviet revisionism. Logic and life itself showed that all of its actions were in the service of the Soviet social-imperialists.

Claims of relative "independence" don't mean anything. Ceaușescu and Kim Il Sung likewise had "independence" (and more of it than Castro), but in the end this mattered very little as they all came solidly down on the side of Soviet revisionism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Think you're somewhat mistaken, OP.

The Cuban Revolution wasn't a popular uprising of millions of Cuban workers (though they certainly had reason/motive to do so!), it was a guerilla uprising of Castro and a few of his then petty-bourgeois comrades, though granted it did liberate many working class Cubans from the shackles of US imperialism.

Following the revolution, up until fairly recently, Cuban society extolled attitudes of rampant homophobia and racism against blacks. This is quite well-documented, i'm sure you can google this. Only recently has Fidel and others recanted and admitted that the homophobia and anti-black attitudes were a mistake.

Also, the lack of internet in Cuba is, I believe, mainly due to a lack of infrastructure, not censorship. Even as a 'rich' white tourist in Cuba, I found it very difficult to access the internet; they're still at dial-up speeds, if that, and in general the internet doesn't seem to be 'censored' per se, just not a sort of 'basic need' that it is in many developed western countries.

[KurtFF8]

Following the revolution, up until fairly recently, Cuban society extolled attitudes of rampant homophobia and racism against blacks. This is quite well-documented, i'm sure you can google this. Only recently has Fidel and others recanted and admitted that the homophobia and anti-black attitudes were a mistake.

While the homophobia as state policy is well known (and Castro himself later apologized for it, stating that it was wrong), what anti-black racism are you referring to exactly?


When the Cubans did intervene, the Soviets had no problem giving all tons of assistance to the MPLA regime.

I'm not sure how this is a response to what I've said.


As Hoxha wrote

There we go. Hoxha made rhetorical claims to the lack of socialism in Cuba, therefore it is a valid source of course!


Logic and life itself showed that all of its actions were in the service of the Soviet social-imperialists.

This is quite a bold claim and it doesn't really make much sense IMO. It's amazing what passes for arguments on this website sometimes.

But as I said before: I'm not sure why we have to re-do this argument that we've had elsewhere when this is a thread about internal class/state relations in Cuba.

[Ismail]

I'm not sure how this is a response to what I've said.You're implying that a superpower not having complete unity of views with an adventuristic client state somehow means that their interests differ, which obviously wasn't the case in Angola where the Soviets, though not expecting the Cuban invasion, quickly gave it full support and sent all sorts of military officials and materials to the MPLA regime, just as the USA collaborated with South Africa in arming UNITA.

If you want to end the argument that's fine by me.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

What on earth am I talking about? His inexplicable mass imprisonment of dissidents. That is why I said he lost his mind.

In Michael Parenti's book Blackshirts and Reds he notes that in 1994 a State Department report on human rights described hundreds of people tortured, killed, etc. across Latin America, and only mentions six alleged political prisoners when talking about Cuba. The "mass imprisonment of dissidents" is something that should be taken with a grain of salt.


I'm actually a fan of his government overall. Obviously I think Guevara should have been running things really

Why?

[Brutus]

Guevara did good at his position as head of banks, but overall he was a horrible statesman. Che was a revolutionary, a soldier, not a statesman.

[KurtFF8]

You're implying that a superpower not having complete unity of views with an adventuristic client state somehow means that their interests differ, which obviously wasn't the case in Angola where the Soviets, though not expecting the Cuban invasion, quickly gave it full support and sent all sorts of military officials and materials to the MPLA regime, just as the USA collaborated with South Africa in arming UNITA.

If you want to end the argument that's fine by me.

I do reject your characterization of Cuba as a client state of the USSR, yes. I think that claim is quite weak and difficult to back up without ideological acrobatics

[Old Bolshie]

Che states here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1967/04/16.htm) that the USSR is imperialist, as it began subsidising the lives of its own workers by exploiting other countries. Cuba played ball, suckled the teat of the USSR for oil, supported it in its wars, and became a pawn of soviet imperialism.

The issue with this is that people living in countries under soviet imperialism such as East Germany or Hungary had living standards superior to USSR's own living standards.

[argeiphontes]

How is Cuba doing these days? I'm afraid that it'll go full-on capitalist and lose their revolution.

My personal pie-in-the-sky hope for them would be decentralization in the form of worker cooperatives, but occasionally you hear things about limited form of capitalism being allowed.

[Lokomotive293]

Cuba does not censor the internet, it has problems with the infrastructure, mostly because of the blockade (as a lot of others already said)

Also, you were talking about censorship more generally, maybe you could give examples of where censorship exists, and what "dissidents" are being put into prison?

Yes, Cuba puts people into prison for planning terrorist attacks, and yes, the Western media loves to obscure facts, and claim that people who were comitting real crimes are being locked up for being "dissidents". But Cuba puts no one in prison just for stating their opinion. Even that stupid blogger Yoani Sanchez or what her name is is still free and blogging (and is not censored).

Sure Cuba has huge economic problems, but if there's one thing Cuba hasn't done, that would be losing its revolutionary spirit.

I'd encourage you to visit the place one day :)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The issue with this is that people living in countries under soviet imperialism such as East Germany or Hungary had living standards superior to USSR's own living standards.

How is that an issue? Load of bollocks. They had higher living standards because they were at a more advanced industrial and technological level than the SSSR when they fell within its sphere. The initial shift of technology and the poor treatment of the new associates to the SSSR as war reparations ceased because it proved very unpopular - i.e. the riots in East Berlin and backlash against the Soviet rule.

[Red HalfGuard]

Yeah, how dare those Russians treat the innocent workers of Germany badly? What did Germany ever do th...oh, right.

[Brutus]

Yeah, how dare those Russians treat the innocent workers of Germany badly? What did Germany ever do th...oh, right.

Do you mean like the time where they used tanks to crush the workers' uprising in 1953?

[Lokomotive293]

Do you mean like the time where they used tanks to crush the workers' uprising in 1953?

There was no such thing as a workers' uprising. Yes, people were dissatisfied with certain measures taken by the state, like the raise of norms, but that raise was taken back before the "protest" even started.

What happened, though, is that Western TV and agent provocateurs used that dissatisfaction to stir up people against the socialist state, hoping that could lead to a counterrevolution.

There are many good articles about what really happened, but unfortunately, they're all in German...

[Hiero]

The Cuban Revolution wasn't a popular uprising of millions of Cuban workers (though they certainly had reason/motive to do so!), it was a guerilla uprising of Castro and a few of his then petty-bourgeois comrades, though granted it did liberate many working class Cubans from the shackles of US imperialism.

What makes them petty-bourgeois?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What makes them petty-bourgeois?

Fidel Castro was a lawyer from a well-to-do family.

He wasn't a worker.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Fidel Castro is not a perfect revolutionary or "leader" but as far as anti-American dictatorships are concerned it did a better job of resisting foreign pressure without resorting to top-down hierarchical police state policies to the same extent (though I'm sure there are some in Miami who would disagree with me about that).

We should really stop revering leaders anyhow ... Castro was a man of his era, but he and his brother are fading. It's time for the next generation of Cubans to chart the future course of the country.


No it wasn't, it transformed Cuba from an American neo-colony to a Soviet neo-colony which in the name of "internationalism" carried out mercenary wars in Angola and Ethiopia on behalf of Soviet social-imperialism. Hoxha once referred to Castro's role in international meetings as being a gramophone of the Soviets.

Supporting the Derg was a mistake but as far as Angola and Namibia is concerned the only mistake was not sending enough Cuban soldiers to make it all the way to Pretoria to arm the workers and kill all the fuckers running Apartheid South Africa. Angola was a victim of first Portuguese then South African Imperialism and lacked the means to stand up on its own. That the supposed socialists in Angola were turncoats who have for the most part just enriched themelves is another problem altogether.

[Old Bolshie]

How is that an issue? Load of bollocks. They had higher living standards because they were at a more advanced industrial and technological level than the SSSR when they fell within its sphere. The initial shift of technology and the poor treatment of the new associates to the SSSR as war reparations ceased because it proved very unpopular - i.e. the riots in East Berlin and backlash against the Soviet rule.

By 1939 USSR was already the third most industrialized nation only behind USA and Germany and by 1949 was detonating its first atomic bomb by thus becoming only the second nation to do it after the US, not to speak about the first satellite launched into space or the first human sent to space.

The uprisings against the Soviet rule were more concerned with lack of individual freedoms and subjugation to a foreign power than with living standards which in some cases were even superior to some western countries.

[Ismail]

Fidel Castro is not a perfect revolutionary or "leader" but as far as anti-American dictatorships are concerned it did a better job of resisting foreign pressure without resorting to top-down hierarchical police state policies to the same extent (though I'm sure there are some in Miami who would disagree with me about that).Such is the "socialism" of liberals. Cuba serving a mercenary force for Soviet social-imperialism and working to inspire an entire continent (Latin America) to abandon Marxism-Leninism for "focoism" apparently doesn't matter, nor do any other aspects of Castro's state capitalism.

He was opposed to US imperialism because it opposed him. He had no problems with Soviet social-imperialism, nor did he have problems with the Chinese imperialists from Deng onwards. He spoke in 1992 of how Gorbachev struggled to "perfect socialism" and had no problem praising all other pro-Soviet revisionists. And of course it is not coincidental that he attacked Stalin.


Supporting the Derg was a mistake but as far as Angola and Namibia is concerned the only mistake was not sending enough Cuban soldiers to make it all the way to Pretoria to arm the workers and kill all the fuckers running Apartheid South Africa. Angola was a victim of first Portuguese then South African Imperialism and lacked the means to stand up on its own. That the supposed socialists in Angola were turncoats who have for the most part just enriched themelves is another problem altogether.The MPLA was backed by Soviet social-imperialism. Its leadership represented the relatively well-off indigenous elite. UNITA head Jonas Savimbi, by contrast, had met with Che Guevara and Malcolm X, trained in China, and represented much more the "regular" Angolan peasant.

When the Portuguese were defeated the MPLA, UNITA and FNLA (which was funded by the CIA and Zaire, and almost entirely confined to the Bakongo people in the north-east) were about equally strong. An attempt to create a national unity government quickly broke down; UNITA and the FNLA allied to take down the MPLA, which called upon Cuban troops to save it from defeat. UNITA in turn was willing to become a proxy for the South Africans while the FNLA disintegrated under the strain of military defeats and internal dissensions.

All three groups genuinely participated in the struggle against Portuguese colonialism, they all had a popular basis among certain tribes. The Soviets and Cubans simply sided with that faction loyal to them, which was able to hold onto state power with Cuban support. The ensuring war was fratricidal and was waged for the benefit of imperialist rivalry between the two superpowers and their proxies.

[KurtFF8]

Such is the "socialism" of liberals. Cuba serving a mercenary force for Soviet social-imperialism and working to inspire an entire continent (Latin America) to abandon Marxism-Leninism for "focoism" apparently doesn't matter, nor do any other aspects of Castro's state capitalism.

How is "focoism" a replacement for Marxism-Leninism? And how can you explain Cuba as simply a mercenary force when it remains just as committed to the same overall project this long after the fall of the USSR?


He was opposed to US imperialism because it opposed him. He had no problems with Soviet social-imperialism, nor did he have problems with the Chinese imperialists from Deng onwards. He spoke in 1992 of how Gorbachev struggled to "perfect socialism" and had no problem praising all other pro-Soviet revisionists. And of course it is not coincidental that he attacked Stalin.

Yet he also rejected Perestroika and Glasnost and didn't implement similar policies in Cuba. But yes had he only praised Stalin more I'm sure you would be changing your avatar to Fidel

[Ismail]

How is "focoism" a replacement for Marxism-Leninism?To quote Hoxha, speaking to Peruvian Marxist-Leninists: "As we have heard, the elements whom you purged were influenced by Castroite leftist adventurists, whose efforts were directed especially at students. From what we know, reading the 'theories' of Castro and others like him on the party, the armed struggle, the role of the peasantry and the confidence which the party should have in it, we see that all these 'theories' of theirs are not Marxist at all. In reading Che Guevara's notebook which was published in Cuba we ask the question: what sort of Marxist can live as a savage in the Sierra and organize the work in secrecy from the masses, in whom he has no confidence?" (Speeches, Conversations, and Articles: 1969-1970, p. 208.)

The revolution is carried out by the conscious vanguard of the working-class, not a bunch of guerrillas.


And how can you explain Cuba as simply a mercenary force when it remains just as committed to the same overall project this long after the fall of the USSR?The fall of the Soviet Union marked the fall of Soviet neo-colonialism. You don't see Cuban troops going around the world occupying countries anymore, do you? And obviously neither China nor modern-day Russia are interested in Cuba fulfilling such a role for them. Otherwise all that's left is a façade of "socialism," which under Raúl is eagerly emulating "socialism with Chinese characteristics" and developing an open market economy.


Yet he also rejected Perestroika and Glasnost and didn't implement similar policies in Cuba.So did Kim Il Sung and Ceaușescu. Deng wasn't too fond of Glasnost either. What's your point? Gorbachev's policies constituted the creative development of Soviet revisionism to a new level. Some revisionists found Gorbachev's policies advantageous for their own interests, whereas others didn't.

That Castro attacks Stalin is not coincidental, just as it isn't coincidental that he praised Trotsky and Khrushchev in his autobiography.

[adipocere]

I am mainly critical of his mass rounding up of alleged "political dissidents" to absurdly lengthy prison sentences on trumped-up arbitrary charges. That is simply immoral and a violation of human rights. Also, he committed one of the biggest crimes against freedom of speech/information that you can commit, which was his decision to censor the internet. Restricted internet use at designated cafes (which there are barely any at all) deprives Cubans of interaction with the world and new ideas. Not only those examples, but he seems to have lost any type of coherent revolutionary zeal.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the reasons for his authoritarian crackdown?

Ace, Have you been reading the corporate drivel of Yoani Sanchez, the "dissident" Cuban blogger? That is the type of stuff she pisses and moans about on Radio Marti and her HuffPo blog. You do realize that she's CIA right?

[Ismail]

Not to mention that "interaction with the world and new ideas" doesn't actually say anything, unless one is under the impression that Cubans don't learn about the outside world, never meet foreigners, and Cuba censors itself from any advancements in terms of medicine and general knowledge. None of that is the case.

In fact, the Albanians were already pointing out in the 60's that Castro was not combating bourgeois culture on the island. To those who tried to tie the culture of socialist Albania with that of Western bourgeois culture, Hoxha replied: "No, comrades, we cannot and should not follow 'the European road'; on the contrary, it is Europe which should follow our road, because, from the political standpoint, it is far behind us, it is very far from that for which Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin fought, and for which our Party fights today." (On the Further Revolutionization of the Party and the Whole Life of the Country, p. 261.)

[KurtFF8]

The revolution is carried out by the conscious vanguard of the working-class, not a bunch of guerrillas.

There are quite a few things wrong with this conception. The main of which is the assumption that the gurrilla activity was isolated from urban centers of resistence, when in reality the J26M was not just the original group that landed but grew to be quite a broad coalition to overthrow Batista.


The fall of the Soviet Union marked the fall of Soviet neo-colonialism. You don't see Cuban troops going around the world occupying countries anymore, do you? And obviously neither China nor modern-day Russia are interested in Cuba fulfilling such a role for them. Otherwise all that's left is a façade of "socialism," which under Raúl is eagerly emulating "socialism with Chinese characteristics" and developing an open market economy.The USSR certainly helped to provide the basis for Cuban missions like in Angola, but again you have simply claimed over and over that these were all the actions of a manipulative USSR telling Cuba what to do, when if one looks at the actual history, a vastly different portrait appears.

Most of this post is just putting quotes around the word socialism and saying "nuh uh!" to claims of Cuban socialism however. As for the emulation of the Chinese reforms, this is simply not the case, we haven't seen the same thing happen in Cuba whatsoever. Yes there have been market reforms because of the conditions which Cuba finds itself in, but it's simply a false characterization to claim that they are emulating the Chinese model.


So did Kim Il Sung and Ceaușescu. Deng wasn't too fond of Glasnost either. What's your point? Gorbachev's policies constituted the creative development of Soviet revisionism to a new level. Some revisionists found Gorbachev's policies advantageous for their own interests, whereas others didn't.

That Castro attacks Stalin is not coincidental, just as it isn't coincidental that he praised Trotsky and Khrushchev in his autobiography.My point is that on the one hand you point to some empty rhetoric by Fidel praising the head of state of Cuba's stongest ally as evidence that Cuba was "revisionist." I responded by pointing out that the reforms that Gorbachev were making were not being implemented in places like Cuba, so I'm not really even sure how what Fidel said or didn't say about Gorbachev is even relevant when it seems to have had little bearing on actual Cuban policy or the structure of Cuba's economy at the time (minus the eventual cessation of Soviet help)


To those who tried to tie the culture of socialist Albania with that of Western bourgeois culture, Hoxha replied: "No, comrades, we cannot and should not follow 'the European road'; on the contrary, it is Europe which should follow our road, because, from the political standpoint, it is far behind us, it is very far from that for which Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin fought, and for which our Party fights today." (On the Further Revolutionization of the Party and the Whole Life of the Country, p. 261.)

It doesn't seem that Hoxha was saying much of anything there then. He simply made the claim that Europe should follow them and that they don't have bourgeois culture. I believe pretty much all socialist (or if you will, "revisionist") states were making these same claims throughout the 20th century, what separates this particular line of Hoxha's from the others?

[soso17]

Op


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[Ismail]

There are quite a few things wrong with this conception. The main of which is the assumption that the gurrilla activity was isolated from urban centers of resistence, when in reality the J26M was not just the original group that landed but grew to be quite a broad coalition to overthrow Batista.The J26M was not a vanguard, it was a loose organization which had all sorts of elements in it, from revisionist "communists" to anarchists and liberals. Stalin pointed out that the party is not an arena of different class interests, and the J26M obviously was not even a party.

It is a fact that the only interaction the working-class had with the J26M was that, in the last days of the Batista regime, it held demonstrations against it. This is obviously a very tenuous connection.


The USSR certainly helped to provide the basis for Cuban missions like in Angola, but again you have simply claimed over and over that these were all the actions of a manipulative USSR telling Cuba what to do, when if one looks at the actual history, a vastly different portrait appears.And again, South Africa often had its own interests separate from the US, and in fact there were more differences in policy between the Apartheid regime and the US government than between Cuba and the USSR. Yet that doesn't mean that South African presence in Angola was somehow not of benefit to US imperialism, which assisted its invasions, just as the fact that Cuba intervened in Angola without the express consent of the USSR does not change the fact that the USSR immediately came to Cuba's assistance, and to the assistance of the MPLA regime in Angola.


As for the emulation of the Chinese reforms, this is simply not the case, we haven't seen the same thing happen in Cuba whatsoever. Yes there have been market reforms because of the conditions which Cuba finds itself in, but it's simply a false characterization to claim that they are emulating the Chinese model.The DPRK is undergoing market reforms of its own. It is quite strange to believe in either cases that the hand of Chinese imperialism is absent, or that the failure of both regimes to denounce the Chinese state is coincidental.


My point is that on the one hand you point to some empty rhetoric by Fidel praising the head of state of Cuba's stongest ally as evidence that Cuba was "revisionist."Except Castro was saying the Gorbachev struggled to "perfect socialism" i a 1992 interview, not on a state visit to Moscow or whatever (which hardly would have been less objectionable.)


I responded by pointing out that the reforms that Gorbachev were making were not being implemented in places like Cuba, so I'm not really even sure how what Fidel said or didn't say about Gorbachev is even relevant when it seems to have had little bearing on actual Cuban policy or the structure of Cuba's economy at the time (minus the eventual cessation of Soviet help)You don't think it's an issue that Fidel was calling on the revolutionaries of the world to unite with the Soviet social-imperialists, let alone the likes of Gorbachev. You don't have an issue with this because you are an apologist of Soviet and Cuban revisionism, wherein "material conditions" are not factored in for somber analysis but are used to explain every right-wing and anti-Marxist policy.


It doesn't seem that Hoxha was saying much of anything there then. He simply made the claim that Europe should follow them and that they don't have bourgeois culture. I believe pretty much all socialist (or if you will, "revisionist") states were making these same claims throughout the 20th century, what separates this particular line of Hoxha's from the others?First off, in the USSR, GDR, etc., there were constant attempts to recreate Western music trends. Dean Reed is a good example, who covered all sorts of Western songs while praising Soviet revisionism.

As Hoxha wrote after the Soviet social-imperialists invaded Czechoslovakia under various pretexts of "defending socialism,"

"Of what fight against bourgeois ideology can the Soviet revisionists speak while revisionism is nothing else by a manifestation of the bourgeois ideology in theory and practice, while egoism and individualism, the running after money and other material benefits are thriving in the Soviet Union, while careerseeking and bureaucratism, technocratism, economism and intellectualism are developing, while villas, motor-cars and beautiful women have become the supreme ideal of men, while literature and art attack socialism, everything revolutionary, and advocate pacifism and bourgeois humanism, the empty and dissolute living of people thinking only of themselves, while hundreds of thousands of western tourists that visit the Soviet Union every year, spread the bourgeois ideology and way of life there, while western films cover the screens of the Soviet cinema halls, while the American orchestras and jazz bands and those of the other capitalist countries have become the favorite orchestras of the youth, and while parades of western fashions are in vogue in the Soviet Union? If until yesterday the various manifestations of bourgeois ideology could be called remnants of the past, today bourgeois ideology has become a component part of the capitalist superstructure which rests on the state capitalist foundation which has now been established in the Soviet Union." (The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism, pp. 508-509.)

From notes (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n1/cubaalb.htm) taken in a 1968 visit to Cuba by members of the Students for a Democratic Society, in conversation with a member of the Albanian embassy there:

We talked about the culture problem, and he said that there was a great influx of bourgeois culture, in the music on the radio, the English, French, U.S. movies, etc. Then he went into a criticism of the Cuban film Memorias de Subdesarrollo (Memories of Underdevelopment), partly about its not condemning for (as) taking the clothes from him, for his being let off in the trial, and also for not really condemning him. He also objected to the love (not sex) scenes. He said that movies should educate the working class and that anyone who made a film like that in Albania would have his head cut off. He also objected to the modern art style paintings and posters, that he was discussing with two soldiers a painting representing Che in Bolivia, and he (or they, it wasn’t quite clear) said, ‘But where is Che?, why don’t they show him, with a rifle, in Bolivia?’

We asked whether Albanian literature was available in Cuba, like in news stands, etc., and he said no, that they had asked but had been told no because they always attack the Soviet Union and it is divisive.

[Bea Arthur]

Che states here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1967/04/16.htm) that the USSR is imperialist, as it began subsidising the lives of its own workers by exploiting other countries. Cuba played ball, suckled the teat of the USSR for oil, supported it in its wars, and became a pawn of soviet imperialism.

Well, if Che said it, then it must be true! Right, person with an avatar of Trotsky? You are mixing up the boundaries separating one Leninist cult from another.

[Ismail]

Well, if Che said it, then it must be true!Che was pretty much told to leave Cuba at Soviet insistence. Of course Che saying something doesn't automatically make it true, but considering that Che headed Cuba's economy for a while, he is certainly an authority on the subject.

[Bea Arthur]

Che was pretty much told to leave Cuba at Soviet insistence. Of course Che saying something doesn't automatically make it true, but considering that Che headed Cuba's economy for a while, he is certainly an authority on the subject.

Judging by your avatar, I'm sure you'd love this logic if you substituted Che with Trotsky, and Cuba with the Soviet Union.

[Brutus]

Well, if Che said it, then it must be true! Right, person with an avatar of Trotsky? You are mixing up the boundaries separating one Leninist cult from another.
It doesn't matter who said it, but the whether reasoning is correct. I'd still agree with the statement whether Che, Bush, Chavez of Kim il Sung said it.

Judging by your avatar, I'm sure you'd love this logic if you substituted Che with Trotsky, and Cuba with the Soviet Union.
Trotsky wasn't head of the economy, though. This aside, Trotsky would've been correct if he said this at the same time che did using the same reasons che did- Ismail would agree (he's not lost all of his critical thinking ability, yet ;) ). AFAIK, Trotsky never called the USSR imperialist beside it wasn't at his time. I suggest you check your definition of imperialism.

[Ismail]

Judging by your avatar, I'm sure you'd love this logic if you substituted Che with Trotsky, and Cuba with the Soviet Union.No I wouldn't, because there's no logical continuity. The Soviet revisionists attacked Stalin, restored capitalism, turned the USSR into an imperialist superpower, and exploited Cuba. Trotsky complained that Stalin presided over a "degenerated workers' state" and "betrayed" the October Revolution. Considering that Trotskyists deny the imperialist character of the USSR after the rise of revisionism, and the fact that a great many Trots act as apologists for Castroism and its role as a prop for Soviet interests abroad, I fail to see how you can make such a comparison.

Hoxha noted that Che did not go into battle as a Marxist, but as a petty-bourgeois revolutionary against imperialism. The influence of anarchism and other negative ideologies prevented him from being a consistent Marxist-Leninist. I mention Che's disapproval of Soviet revisionism because it's relevant to the subject at hand, because he himself had direct experience with the Soviet revisionists from the perspective of heading the economy of a country whose people were trying to cast off the chains of neo-colonialism.

I doubt any "Stalinist" would find much to fault in Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism, which he wrote while Lenin was alive and in reply to Kautsky's anti-Bolshevik writings.

[KurtFF8]

I feel that this will go on Ad nauseam so after this I will try my best to not reply (although I did say that before as well)


The J26M was not a vanguard, it was a loose organization which had all sorts of elements in it, from revisionist "communists" to anarchists and liberals. Stalin pointed out that the party is not an arena of different class interests, and the J26M obviously was not even a party.

Right, the J26M never claimed to be a Party so I'm not sure what your point is here. On of those in the coalition, the PSP, did end up supporting the revolution and most certainly had a working class base of support and went on to help found the Communist Party.


It is a fact that the only interaction the working-class had with the J26M was that, in the last days of the Batista regime, it held demonstrations against it. This is obviously a very tenuous connection.The working class movement in the urban centers was quite defeated indeed, which is why the J26M focused on rural workers, of which their base of support was largely comprised.

I'm sure if they had only used slogans written by Hoxha, it would have been a whole different story though!


And again, South Africa often had its own interests separate from the US, and in fact there were more differences in policy between the Apartheid regime and the US government than between Cuba and the USSR. Yet that doesn't mean that South African presence in Angola was somehow not of benefit to US imperialism, which assisted its invasions, just as the fact that Cuba intervened in Angola without the express consent of the USSR does not change the fact that the USSR immediately came to Cuba's assistance, and to the assistance of the MPLA regime in Angola.Well as I've mentioned time and time again, you have the whole thing backwards here. You've insisted that Cuban involvement in Angola was at the directive of the USSR which is false as it was the other way around. The USSR got involved in Angola because Cuba essentially dragged them into it (not, mind you, for "Cuban interests" but rather as an effort to directly combat neo-colonialism). Did the USSR ultimately benefit strategically from the conflict? Perhaps to an extent of course, but your narrative here just doesn't fit your conclusions all that well.


The DPRK is undergoing market reforms of its own. It is quite strange to believe in either cases that the hand of Chinese imperialism is absent, or that the failure of both regimes to denounce the Chinese state is coincidental.Explain how Cuba is being influenced directly by Chinese reforms in any way. China essentially has a "hands off" approach when it comes to influencing policy via trade, in other words I have yet to read a case where China has recently attempted to shape policy of a place like Cuba. I think you will be hard pressed to find any basis in reality for this claim.


Except Castro was saying the Gorbachev struggled to "perfect socialism" i a 1992 interview, not on a state visit to Moscow or whatever (which hardly would have been less objectionable.)Again, how is that even relevant?


You don't think it's an issue that Fidel was calling on the revolutionaries of the world to unite with the Soviet social-imperialists, let alone the likes of Gorbachev. You don't have an issue with this because you are an apologist of Soviet and Cuban revisionism, wherein "material conditions" are not factored in for somber analysis but are used to explain every right-wing and anti-Marxist policy.More empty sloganeering and less content. You seem to be resorting to simple name calling rather than any analysis at this point.


First off, in the USSR, GDR, etc., there were constant attempts to recreate Western music trends. Dean Reed is a good example, who covered all sorts of Western songs while praising Soviet revisionism.:lol: what? You realize that accusations of Western influence alone was throughout most of the existence of many of these countries a basis for censorship right? The idea that art of these countries being promoted by the state was an attempt at emulation of the West is quite a bizarre claim when you actually examine the history of art production in the countries mentioned which often had the goal of being non-Western.


As Hoxha wroteOf course he did.


From notes (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n1/cubaalb.htm) taken in a 1968 visit to Cuba by members of the Students for a Democratic Society, in conversation with a member of the Albanian embassy there:Damning evidence against the entire history of post-revolutionary Cuban culture :lol:

[Ismail]

Right, the J26M never claimed to be a Party so I'm not sure what your point is here.That it was a rebellion representing primarily the interests of the national and petty bourgeoisie. That it could not have been a proletarian revolution.


On of those in the coalition, the PSP, did end up supporting the revolution and most certainly had a working class base of support and went on to help found the Communist Party.The PSP was the pro-Soviet revisionist party in Cuba, and it only joined the coalition of groups after Castro took power.


I'm sure if they had only used slogans written by Hoxha, it would have been a whole different story though!If they had organized on the lines of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, if they had actually been communists, perhaps Cuba would have had a proletarian revolution and their contribution to the revolutionary movements in Latin America would have been significantly better off, not encouraging them to subscribe to focoism.


You've insisted that Cuban involvement in Angola was at the directive of the USSR which is false as it was the other way around. The USSR got involved in Angola because Cuba essentially dragged them into it (not, mind you, for "Cuban interests" but rather as an effort to directly combat neo-colonialism). Did the USSR ultimately benefit strategically from the conflict? Perhaps to an extent of course, but your narrative here just doesn't fit your conclusions all that well.And South Africa dragged the USA into Angola. What's your point?


Explain how Cuba is being influenced directly by Chinese reforms in any way.See:
* http://www.npr.org/2012/08/21/159466378/cuba-views-china-vietnam-as-economic-hope
* http://www.cubanews.com/sections/china-behind-rauls-economic-reforms-says-expert-in-chinese-cuban-relations


Again, how is that even relevant?Because Castro was no longer bound by geopolitical considerations (which is the claim you were making.) He could have said whatever he liked about Gorbachev. He took that opportunity to praise him.


You realize that accusations of Western influence alone was throughout most of the existence of many of these countries a basis for censorship right?So what? Opposing Soviet neo-colonial interests turned Soviet media coverage of a country overnight from pursuing "non-capitalist development" and having a "socialist orientation" into being a reactionary regime and plaything of Western imperialism (as can be seen in the cases of Egypt under Sadat, Sudan under Nimeiry and Somalia under Barre.) When the Soviet revisionist clique in power felt the need to consolidate itself after a period of runaway liberalism it began to clamp down, to attack Western influence and whatnot, just as it denounced Dubček's revisionism only after it conflicted with their own revisionism.

Again, explain the phenomenon of Dean Reed, or of officially sanctioned rock music in general in the USSR, GDR and Hungary, or of American-style country music in Czechoslovakia. The intelligentsias of these countries allied with the revisionists in return for such concessions.


The idea that art of these countries being promoted by the state was an attempt at emulation of the West is quite a bizarre claim when you actually examine the history of art production in the countries mentioned which often had the goal of being non-Western.Again, much popular music in Eastern Europe aped Western European and American music, up to outright covering Western songs.