Castro - he is a hero and should be applauded?

[MonsterMan]

I believe Fidel Castro is a hero - what do you guys make of him?

And while we're at it - how about Che Guevara?

Some on the Left seem to bash Castro as he's considered oppressive, but how else could his regime have survived so long.

Anyone actually been to Cuba, and how is life really like for the average man on the street?

[Illegalitarian]

Castro is no bastion of revolutionary purity, but in the end he will be remembered as a folk legend, a progressive liberator along the lines of Pancho Villia, Emiliano Zapata, etc, as he should be.

Che is already there.


Again, neither of the two contributed much to socialism outside of perhaps entrenching it into the heart of politics in Latin America, but should they be hounded and bashed? Nah, they have their place in history, and it's a good place.

[Illegalitarian]

As for life for the average person in Cuba, like life for anyone in a third world island nation sanctioned by the most powerful state on earth, it can be pretty rough, and the poorest of their poor do without basic goods just as the poor everywhere do.


They do, however, enjoy one of the highest standards of living in Latin America, with better healthcare than the US, a right to housing and work, food on their plate, and many other luxuries not known to their neoliberal contemporaries.

[Creative Destruction]

Fuck "heroes".

[Illegalitarian]

That's uh.. not a really helpful way to put it, but the above poster is correct:

It's fine to have personal heroes, people to look up to for certain reasons, but we can't allow ourselves to give way to "Great Man" syndrome, believing that revolutions and other such movements are capable of being in the hands of one person, that one single person can by a linchpin for an ideology or a social movement.


Any such system is bound to fall to despotism at worst, and 'benevolent dictatorship' at best, with everything falling to pieces when that 'benevolent dictator' dies (re: Lenin, Tito, Hoxha, Mao, etc)

[MonsterMan]

ok, well how about the 'Communist Party of Cuba' - how do they rate in the pantheon of Communist parties?

[Sewer Socialist]

It is difficult to rank parties as if they were in a vacuum, because they exist in different economic circumstances.

What is the purpose of such a ranking? What difference will it make if we can establish that the Communist Party of Cuba is objectively better than the Party of Labor of Albania?

[Bala Perdida]

I got a stencil of castro as my lockscreen wallpaper. I don't like him, but I just think it looks cool. To me, him and Ernesto are basically the same person.

[Blake's Baby]

All hail dynastic communism! Let us bow down to the twin pillars of the proletariat, who support our glorious future-revolutions, the Kims and the Castros! We will know the true socialist society when dictators leave their power to their family-members, 'cause that's totally how it should work!

[Remus Bleys]

Who really cares castro is "oppressive" (to whom and to what?) but castro and Che are hardly working class heroes, more like second rate romantic revolutionaries.

[therealdeal83]

I don't know a whole lot about the cuban revolution, or castro's real role. In general, I tend to view Ho Chi Minh and Castro as twins. Both wore the mantle as democracy to push forward an anti-imperialist agenda. The Vietnamese were probably more supported by the masses, especially strongly by the peasantry. The Cuban movement was much more of a pure guerilla movement and gained control through more of a coup type revolution. Castro's political ideas are largely unknown to me, but that probably goes to show how little of use his ideas were. Guerilla war didn't work for Latin America, and in hindsight it isn't so difficult to see why. The Cuban government was very repressive against both it's right and left critics and moved towards Stalinism.

It's not much, but I think better than most of your other responses. Che is definitely more influential of a figure...

[Ismail]

It is difficult to rank parties as if they were in a vacuum, because they exist in different economic circumstances.

What is the purpose of such a ranking? What difference will it make if we can establish that the Communist Party of Cuba is objectively better than the Party of Labor of Albania?Differing economic circumstances are one thing, revisionism is another. I am reminded of those who defend the DPRK's Songun policy (which places the army as the most progressive and leading class in society, rather than the workers) because, after all, it's a poor country surrounded by opportunistic "friends" and avowed enemies.

Castro entered Havana as a bourgeois revolutionary, his program was a popular one but he was also an avowed anti-communist. Because of the hostility of US imperialism he instead bound his country to Soviet social-imperialism, which perpetuated the neo-colonial sugar monoculture economy. The Soviet revisionists sold out the Cubans over the missile crisis (which Castro privately told Mikoyan came as a great shock to Cubans) and the USSR's collapse in 1991 put the country in dire straits, which it has "solved" by opening up its economy to market mechanisms, foreign investment and tourists.

In international affairs Castro slavishly followed the Soviet revisionist course, extolling the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, sending troops to Angola and Ethopia to serve as proxy armies for Soviet social-imperialism, and so on. In 1992 he said that Gorbachev had struggled to "perfect socialism," praised Dengist China afterwards, and in his memoirs spoke of Trotsky's "intellectual superiority" and whatnot over Stalin, whom he attacked as a non-theorist.

The line of the PCC was very much different from that of the PLA and this had importance insofar as the PCC can delude leftists on what proper lines to take on various issues. To give just one example, the PCC claims that whatever parties in other countries do, that is their business. The Communist Party of China shouldn't be criticized by others since it is supposedly up to the CPC to find its own road to "socialism" in Chinese conditions. The Workers' Party of Korea takes the same nationalist and anti-Marxist position vis-à-vis others (and of others towards itself, of course.) The PLA, suffice to say, did not.

[Lower Case S]

All hail dynastic communism! Let us bow down to the twin pillars of the proletariat, who support our glorious future-revolutions, the Kims and the Castros! We will know the true socialist society when dictators leave their power to their family-members, 'cause that's totally how it should work!

Do you know how the Cuban government operates? There's nothing resembling a dynastic succession--either de jure or de facto. Why shouldn't Raul Castro be in a position of leadership? He's been a leading figure in the Cuban Revolution since it's inception. That fact has very little to do with his relation to Fidel.

It's not as if Fidel got sick and just passed his position onto the Castro family or something like that. There are mechanisms in place in every system to ensure continuity of government if a leader is no longer able to perform his or her functions. In this case, the person was Raul. Besides, he's been nominated and elected twice since that time. And I can assure you that there aren't any plans to artificially place another Castro in power after Raul steps aside in 2018. As someone who's studied and followed Cuban politics for a number of years, I can tell you that I'm 100% sure that such a thing won't happen. Rest assured!

[Lower Case S]

You really believe that Cuba was acting as some servile Soviet proxy in Angola and Ethiopia? Especially in the case of Angola, that's just a repetition of decades-old U.S. State Department propaganda which has very little basis in reality. Far from bending to Soviet will, it was, in fact, Cuba's role in Angola which forced the Soviet Union's hand--not the other way around. And the archives show that even the U.S. government recognized this fact at the time--despite its public statements. The Cuban and Soviet governments clashed constantly over Cuba's role in the conflict. It was a major point of tension precisely because Cuba acted as a sovereign country, standing on principled grounds in its support of Angola against South African aggression--even when the leadership of the USSR was more than ready to sell out its presumed allies in the name of detente.

Cuba never even consulted the Soviet government when it first deployed troops to Angola in the Fall of 1975. In fact, this action was in direct contravention to Brezhnev's wishes. Luanda would have fallen to South African forces in 1975 if not for emergency assistance from Cuba. The USSR would not have offered support. In the Spring of 1976 Brezhnev explicitly demanded the withdrawal of Cuban troops--an order the Cuban Revolution's leadership unequivocally rebuffed. That doesn't sound like the actions of a servile proxy.

The same sorts of interactions between the USSR and Cuba occurred constantly throughout the conflict. The final Cuban-led offensive in 1987--which ultimately forced the South Africans out of Angola and Namibia, precipitating the end of the entire apartheid system--was also staunchly opposed by the Soviet leadership. There's no doubt about it. Cuba was the driving force in Angola. The USSR only offered any meaningful support in the first place because they were pushed to do so by Cuba. So, your characterization is either totally disingenuous or simply reflects an ignorance of the facts.

If you're interested in the topic, I'd highly recommend Piero Gleijeses' Visions of Freedom. It's one of the best books I've ever read--and it dispels all those myths about Cuba acting as a puppet of Soviet imperialism. The Cuban Revolution's role in Africa is one of unmatched heroism. It's support for Angola is one of the greatest examples of solidarity and internationalism in world history.

[Lower Case S]

It should be pretty clear that I consider Fidel a hero, so I won't do too much to address that part of the OP. As far as how the average Cuban lives, I'll just try to give a really superficial picture. Always keep in mind that Cuba is a poor country. There's simply no way around that. A typical Cuban citizen won't live anything resembling a life of luxury. However, when I discuss this subject, I'm always reminded of one of my favorite quotes from Fidel: "In a revolution, there are moral factors that are decisive. Our countries are too poor to give men great material wealth, but they can give them a sense of equality, of human dignity." That's what Cuba has done.

Cubans are spared many of the usual effects of poverty which affect so many people throughout the world--including in the so-called developed countries. For example, Cuban health indicators are, across the board, on par with or exceeding those of North America, Western Europe, Japan, etc. Cuba is the only country in Latin America free from child malnutrition. This is the result of an excellent universal healthcare system with more doctors per capita than any country in the world--with the exception of San Marino, which only has a population of something like 30,000.

Cuba is also free from illiteracy and boasts one of the most highly educated populations in the Western hemisphere (if not the world). Education is universally available and free of cost at all levels. The quality and widespread availability of these public services has also created an environment in which racism, misogyny, etc. have been greatly curtailed--although there is still some fairly significant work to be done.

Additionally, homelessness (as a widespread social phenomenon) does not exist in Cuba. Something like 80% of Cubans own their own homes--although many are quite crowded family environments. Rent is capped at 10% of a person's income for those who do not own a place of residence. And, unlike most impoverished environments, there is very little violent crime in Cuba. And the list could go on and on.

It's also important to note that Cuba has one of the most politically engaged populations in the entire world--with nearly every citizen active in a number of political, social, and economic organizations. The way in which the Cuban government is structured also assures mass public input on all key issues of political and economic life. I would argue that the Cuban people have far more power over shaping their own collective destiny than any national population on the planet, but that's another issue for another time.

Of course, there are also a number of problems. Cubans tend to have extremely low incomes--estimated at around $20 (US) per month. This isn't a major hindrance in many areas of daily life since all basic human necessities are either provided free of cost or highly subsidized. However, it's far from ideal when, for example, the average Cuban wouldn't even be able to afford a new mattress with an entire years' worth of pay.

Additionally, inequality has increased since the demise of the USSR. The introduction of limited market mechanisms in the 90s (albeit necessary) inevitably led to increased stratification. The "updating" beginning with the 6th Communist Party Congress in 2011 has also contributed to some added inequality and instability in daily life--although necessary measures have been and are being implemented to counteract these effects as much as possible. Unfortunately, much of this stratification has taken place along racial lines. This is in large part due to the power of remittances in the Cuban economy. Generally speaking, Afro Cubans are less likely to have wealthier relatives abroad. And, because of lingering prejudices, white(r) Cubans are far more likely to be employed in the tourist sector--where tips and access to dollars can provide a major economic boon.

Again, this is a really superficial sketch of the Cuban reality (from someone who's never set foot in Cuba, I should add). There are plenty of positives and negatives that I've omitted, but I hope this has been helpful.

[FieldHound]

I think he did what he had to given his/Cuba's situation. I think of him along the same lines as Tito, benevolent dictator. He was a socialist hero in relative terms - he'll continue to be criticised by theoretical anarchists that use lots of poetic utopian linguistics and contribute nothing pragmatic whatsoever. I'd consider him a positive force in the political world.

[Ismail]

You really believe that Cuba was acting as some servile Soviet proxy in Angola and Ethiopia? Especially in the case of Angola, that's just a repetition of decades-old U.S. State Department propaganda which has very little basis in reality. Far from bending to Soviet will, it was, in fact, Cuba's role in Angola which forced the Soviet Union's hand--not the other way around. And the archives show that even the U.S. government recognized this fact at the time--despite its public statements. The Cuban and Soviet governments clashed constantly over Cuba's role in the conflict. It was a major point of tension precisely because Cuba acted as a sovereign country, standing on principled grounds in its support of Angola against South African aggression--even when the leadership of the USSR was more than ready to sell out its presumed allies in the name of detente.It should be noted that South Africa also had its own interests and at times clashed with US imperialism over Angola. The Soviet revisionists were always skeptical about the ability of the MPLA to assume power on its own, since it was based on the mestiço elite of the country, whereas UNITA represented more or less a good chunk of the peasantry. When the Cubans did intervene, however, the Soviets had no problem backing them, just as the US had no problem backing the South Africans.

As Hoxha noted at the time, "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. The fight between them was a struggle of cliques for power. Each of them was supported by different imperialist states." (Imperialism and the Revolution, 1979, p. 207.)

Castro also sent a considerable amount of black Cubans who were disaffected of life at home. He was also to portray this as "racial solidarity."

The Cubans likewise intervened in Ethiopia both to assist the Ethiopian military regime in its war with Somalia, and to assist it in crushing the national liberation movement of the Eritrean people, a movement the Soviet revisionists had previously "supported" until the Derg came to power.