Fidel Castro dead at 90

[ChangeAndChance]

NYT: "Fidel Castro, the fiery apostle of revolution who brought the Cold War to the Western Hemisphere in 1959 and then defied the United States for nearly half a century as Cuba’s maximum leader, bedeviling 11 American presidents and briefly pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war, died Friday. He was 90. His death was announced by Cuban state television. In declining health for several years, Mr. Castro had orchestrated what he hoped would be the continuation of his Communist revolution, stepping aside in 2000 when he was felled by a serious illness. He provisionally ceded much of his power to his younger brother Raúl, now 85, and two years later formally resigned. Raúl Castro, who had fought alongside Fidel Castro from the earliest days of the insurrection and remained minister of defense and his brother’s closest confidant, has ruled Cuba since then, although he has told the Cuban people he intends to resign in 2018."

Thoughts?

[RedSonRising]

While the Cuban government has many structural flaws stemming from the bureaucratic nature of 20th century Leninism, Fidel's legacy can be none other than the historic and invaluable advancement of the Cuban working class. Not only did Cuba, under Fidel's leadership, keep US imperialism at bay, see him survive hundreds of assassination attempts and suffer various subversive/terrorist plots; it also stayed committed to its form of socialism after the fall of the USSR. Cuba has been nearly unparalleled in crucial quality of life indicators in Latin America despite a crippling embargo and a small cash-crop & service economy. All the while showing solidarity to other oppressed nations through military support (namely Angola, in the face of Soviet hesitancy) as well as the humanitarian brigades of doctors sent all over the world.

Fidel was brutal, Fidel was power-hungry. The Cuban state remains both. But Fidel empowered the Cuban working class to achieve what seemed impossible, and for that he shall be remembered.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

RIP Fidel, a great strive forward, and set up a high class medical system. Of course Cuba has flaws, but this man is a hero.

Edit: i know as an anarchist i'm supposed to be anti-fidel. But i am not.

[Devrim]

No tears for dead bourgeois politicians.

Devrim

[General Winter]

The last of the Greatests is gone.

Known since childhood Sierra Maestra, Playa Girón, Moncada barracks ... Fidel, Cienfuegos, Che Guevara and the legendary barbudos ...And the delight of the Cuban Revolution.

Sorrow

[The Intransigent Faction]

This. I shudder to think of the direction Cuba's been heading in for the past few years, but as far as the potential for genuine socialism, it's undeniably beyond what it was under his predecessor.

[Blake's Baby]

That's true of everywhere isn't it? Do you think the world was closer to a socialist society in 1958 than it is now?

[The Intransigent Faction]

That's true of everywhere isn't it? Do you think the world was closer to a socialist society in 1958 than it is now?

Honestly? I think North America, in particular, has regressed since the 1970s in its struggle to push back against a neoliberal assault. Among other things, the rise of precarious labour has compounded the problem of a fragmented bargaining structure. This clearly holds true for feminist and civil rights movements, as well, which have hit a wall after significant progress earlier on. The collapse of the Eastern Bloc may have opened up space for the Western left, in a way, but it was in too much of a mess to take advantage of that and say "Leninism failed and now we can focus on building real socialism." Rather, they simply no longer had the threat of "expansionism" by a nominally "socialist" world power to exploit for concessions from Western capital. Then there's the matter of the former Soviet Union, which I've commented on elsewhere. For all the USSR's faults, it's collapse into several states run by private capital and in some cases obviously hostile to each other wasn't what I'd consider a step forward (nor for that matter was its initial repression of a socialist movement, in favour of Leninism). Hell, it was probably closer to socialism in terms of potential for spontaneous democratic action in 1917 than in 1937. Whatever genuine movement for socialism existed in China alongside Leninists in its revolutionary period has been, obviously, repressed.

The tools of bourgeois states to suppress revolution have also adapted and expanded beyond what they were (granted, so have tools for organizing).

So, in short, notwithstanding progress in civil rights, I'd say there's a case to be made that the potential for socialism rose and then declined everywhere, but from my admittedly limited knowledge of the mood in Cuba and the degree of neoliberalism's impact, it seems the move from Batista's military dictatorship to Cuba's present status is a more pronounced move toward socialist potential than that of the labour movement in North America, which has only lost steam and remained fragmented since the 1970s. Even if socialism in Cuba is just lip service from the state, in the U.S. it's just one of the state's boogeymen.

None of that is to say we should go back to the good old days. It's just that crisis periods of the past look more promising in hindsight than the crisis period we're living through. The means (or at least the organizational ability) to take advantage of crises just don't seem to be there, and that shift is not globally uniform.

Sorry if that was disjointed. I just don't think there's an easy one-size-fits-all answer to that question.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRkNDHW3nog
He doesn't say anything particularly new, but enough for the reactionary leftists complain on the comments. How can this be controversial? It's like they don't understand Zizek, the 2 top comments argue something that I'm sure Zizek knows, that's not what Zizek is arguing about.

[ComradeAllende]

Inspiring figure, terrible human rights record, somewhat decent improvement in the standard of living for impoverished Cubans. Can't say that I don't admire him, but I also can't say he deserves any more than critique and contextual analysis. Viva la Revolucion.

[John Nada]

Rest in power, Fidel Castro!:star2::cubaflag::castro::cubaflag::hammers ickle:
He doesn't say anything particularly new, but enough for the reactionary leftists complain on the comments. How can this be controversial? It's like they don't understand Zizek, the 2 top comments argue something that I'm sure Zizek knows, that's not what Zizek is arguing about.It's RT. The interviewer's line of questioning was for an anti-communist narrative, but with enough wiggle room to not piss off leftists. I mean what the fuck does Sanders have to do with Castro, or what would Zizek know about Washington's plans after Castro?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRkNDHW3nog
He doesn't say anything particularly new, but enough for the reactionary leftists complain on the comments. How can this be controversial? It's like they don't understand Zizek, the 2 top comments argue something that I'm sure Zizek knows, that's not what Zizek is arguing about.

I think this is a first-world perspective. Sure, Castro was not able to refigure politics in a radically new way from the stance of a European academic, however his government was able to create conditions whereby health, education, housing, access to farmland and other basic necessities were no longer viewed as commodities. These are viewed as privileges that come with wealth and the power of individual labor throughout the rest of Latin America. Alongside the achievements of the Mexican revolution, the Cuban revolution continues to offer lessons for those Latin Americans who want a different system. We have to accept that Cuba did not offer the alternative to the future for those living in the US and Europe or for what Cubans themselves need tomorrow, but we cannot ignore the significance of their achievements for many of those living outside the first world (especially in Latin America).

[Exterminatus]

I think this is a first-world perspective. Sure, Castro was not able to refigure politics in a radically new way from the stance of a European academic, however his government was able to create conditions whereby health, education, housing, access to farmland and other basic necessities were no longer viewed as commodities. These are viewed as privileges that come with wealth and the power of individual labor throughout the rest of Latin America. Alongside the achievements of the Mexican revolution, the Cuban revolution continues to offer lessons for those Latin Americans who want a different system. We have to accept that Cuba did not offer the alternative to the future for those living in the US and Europe or for what Cubans themselves need tomorrow, but we cannot ignore the significance of their achievements for many of those living outside the first world (especially in Latin America).

But that isn't Zizek's point. He's not condemning Cuban revolution as such - i'm sure he sees it as preferable to previous regime. His point is that socialism of Fidel Castro has no place in the 21th century as a model for future struggles and revolutions. And he's spot on, just like there's no place even for much more authentic models of communism like Bolshevism or 19th century socialism.

Also it's so disgusting watching all these far-right wingers honoring Castro as if they were on the same side somehow.

[GLF]

He started out okay. Then he tasted power and wanted more. In truth, this man was no friend to the revolution.

But...if nothing else he was a thorn in the side of Uncle Sam. So for that, RIP comrade.

[Blake's Baby]

Honestly? I think North America, in particular, has regressed since the 1970s in its struggle to push back against a neoliberal assault...

That's not what I asked. I asked about 1958, and I'm not concerned about a North American perspective, you do after all have less than 10% of the world's population in North America. I asked about the working class, not the working class in North America.

Do you not think the working class made significant advances in the capitalist metropoles between 1958 and the 1970s? I do. And worldwide, the working class has developed massively since the 1970s, particularly in China and India. That must bring us closer to the possibility of a socialist society. Yes, so has the capacity of the state to frustrate us, but to be frank, after 1945, the state has had the capacity to destroy any revolutionary territory pretty rapidly.

As to neo-liberalism, it didn't exist as a praxis until the 1970s, so of course it's advanced since then. Pinochet's Chile was the first neo-liberal state and Thatcher's Britain the first state where a neo-liberal government was elected, so it's only a 45- or 40-year experiment; what about the 20 years before that?

[Radical Atom]

Thoughts?

He was a left-populist, nationalist ("Patria o muerte"), "pragmatic" and romantic bourgeois revolutionary and he acted as such.
I think American animosity towards Cuban autonomy pushed him towards the Soviet Union and "socialism" rather than the other way around; that doesn't mean that he was scheming cynic, I'm actually convinced that he believed, just as Stalin did, that he was fighting for socialism. But identifying as socialist doesn't make you one.
It ought to not be forgotten that Cuba and fascist Spain maintained relations (I can't confirm whether the story of a Cuban 3 day mourning on Franco's death is true or not), the support of the Argentinian right wing military junta on the Falklands War (and don't give me this cheap "anti-imp" crap), the persecution of gays during the cold war (which, to be fair, he apologized and took responsibility for it, although the harm was done), and didn't he try to cosy up to Noriega shortly after the collapse of the SU?
While he took part in Cuba's greatest achievements (specially taking into account what they had to work with and a massive crippling embargo): the improvement of literacy rates and living and medical conditions, which are to be envied even by many first world nations, credit should be for all Cubans, not just him.
Just as all abuses and errors of the Cuban government should not be attributed solely to a single man.

Overall, both "Leftists" and open reactionaries will give him to much credit for everything: ones on the "goods" ("a shining example of Marxism-Leninism(r) in teh world") and the others on the "bads" ("eevel mass murdering dictator tyrant!").
He was progressive for Cold War standards but I don't think there is anything leftists should look up to in him, not anymore than any other "progressive" nationalist figure.

With that said, he died at 90 of old age, having taken part in Cuba's liberation from American imperialism and the improvement of the living conditions of its people, having outlasted 9 US presidents while surviving around 630 attempts on his life and being revered even to this day by "left"-populists and other "leftists". I don't think even his defenders have much reason to lament his death in that respect.

Fun fact: he might hold the record on the longest speech ever made in the United Nations (4 hours 29 minutes), and that isn't even hist longest (+7 hours).


He started out okay. Then he tasted power and wanted more.
This is idealist nonsense, power in on itself is meaningless. Power to do what? And how? Over what? From where?


But that isn't Zizek's point. He's not condemning Cuban revolution as such - i'm sure he sees it as preferable to previous regime. His point is that socialism of Fidel Castro has no place in the 21th century as a model for future struggles and revolutions. And he's spot on, just like there's no place even for much more authentic models of communism like Bolshevism or 19th century socialism.
Zizek's right, the sooner the left transcends the 20th century once and for all a big step towards a genuine rebuilding of the worker's movement will be made.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

But that isn't Zizek's point. He's not condemning Cuban revolution as such - i'm sure he sees it as preferable to previous regime. His point is that socialism of Fidel Castro has no place in the 21th century as a model for future struggles and revolutions. And he's spot on, just like there's no place even for much more authentic models of communism like Bolshevism or 19th century socialism.

Also it's so disgusting watching all these far-right wingers honoring Castro as if they were on the same side somehow.

No, I understood what Zizek was saying, and I did not take him to be condemning the Cuban revolution. What I am saying is that we in the US and Europe might not see much use for his "model" in the 21st century, but that does not mean that people in other parts of the world might not make good use of the lessons of the Cuban revolution. That's not to say, of course, that they should emulate it as some kind of perfect model either, but there are positive lessons and examples for people living in parts of the world directly suffering from a colonialist (or neo-colonialist) relation to the first world. This is why he, Che Guevara, the Cuban revolution etc retains such stature in Latin America.

Also, we can still learn lessons from historical events and systems without using them as a model. I don't think we should "forget" 19th century socialism, Bolshevism, the Paris commune, or any of these other events insofar as they still hold lessons. That does not mean, of course, failing to develop something new, or remaining stuck in and worshiping the past.

[willowtooth]

The USA has killed far more Cubans than Castro did. The Cuban revolution occurred in 1959. When the USA still had segregation laws, interracial dating laws sodomy laws etc. So to say that Castro compared to any US president was some kind of tyrant is ridiculous. Only in the sort of ethereal sense that all politicians are tyrants can you really denounce Castro in anyway. If the US was not genuinely threatened from the bay of pigs it may still be a segregated apartheid state today. So even Americans can thank Castro for their new found freedom in a way. Also it should be recognized that in the same way western states focus on the holocaust to block out from history the immense suffering of Russians in WW2. They also focus on the sufferings of post revolution Cubans to block out from the history books, the suffering and death caused by the capitalist regimes throughout the Caribbean. Aside from some small resort islands and panama which profits from the canal, Cuba has the 3rd highest Human development index in North and South America higher than even Mexico. Also I hear a lot of comparisons from leftists being made about the western nations hypocritically supporting the Saudi monarchy while condemning Cuba but a more coherent example could be Mexico, Haiti, or even Puerto Rico.

Going forward the embargoes and sanctions need to be lifted against Cuba, the embargo itself is a human rights violation, and with the new right wing government in place in America, there is no current sign that all sanctions will be lifted, in fact they may just introduce new ones (if they can create enough of a spectacle by doing so). I will say that it is interesting to see these right wingers in the USA after electing a reality tv host as president who openly brags about how many human rights laws he will violate, and how he will torture and murder families of combatants, and quite literally says he will use sanctions and embargoes to subjugate Cubans and make them bend to his will, they will do a complete 180 degree turn and condemn Castro for basically doing all of things the man they elected promises to do.

The King is dead all hail the King

[Blake's Baby]

Death to kings.

Really, not much more than this. Not just kings need to go but the idea of monarchy. How far from 'socialism' Cuba is can be seen from the fact his brother inherited his position. If that's your idea of 'socialism' you can stick it up your arse (but don't let Fidel catch you doing it, you would be sent to a re-education camp).

[RedMaterialist]

Death to kings.

Really, not much more than this. Not just kings need to go but the idea of monarchy. How far from 'socialism' Cuba is can be seen from the fact his brother inherited his position. If that's your idea of 'socialism' you can stick it up your arse (but don't let Fidel catch you doing it, you would be sent to a re-education camp).

You plan on signing up for the invasion of Cuba?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You plan on signing up for the invasion of Cuba?

How silly! BB is right to criticize the antidemocratic and antisocialist characteristics of the Cuban government. It does not mean he supports outside intervention of some form or another.

[Blake's Baby]

You plan on signing up for the invasion of Cuba?

You can't export socialism at bayonet-point, did Poland 1920 teach you nothing?

[Wessex Way Monster]

Man doesn't this whole conversation seem a bit pointless? I mean, who gives a shit about whether we pretend to be sad on the internet, or alternatively, play internet tough guy? Really the reactions to this itt all seems a bit phoney, and just trying to find a way to socially maneuver ourselves to find the social spot we feel comfortable within leftist scenes.

[ckaihatsu]

¡Fidel Castro presente! (http://fightbacknews.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a29530af96a02fc55d345e735&id=181bea3d56&e=d323598fe4)

A life dedicated to revolution, proletarian internationalism and Marxism-Leninism

http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/article-lead-photo/castroliberation.jpeg

By Freedom Road Socialist Organization

On Nov. 25, 2016 workers and oppressed peoples of the entire world lost a giant with the passing of Fidel Castro Ruz. Fidel lived a life worth honoring, studying and emulating. He was a key leader in the 1959 Cuban revolution, in building socialism in Cuba for more than five decades to the present day, and in exemplary acts of international solidarity.

Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) extends our condolences to the family, friends and comrades of Fidel Castro, and to the Cuban people as a whole for this tremendous loss.

Fidel Castro was a revolutionary who fought against seemingly impossible odds and won. He led a guerrilla movement against the vicious U.S.-backed Batista regime which governed Cuba in the interests of U.S. imperialism while Cuban workers and peasants suffered harshly. Despite experiencing defeats in its early days, the revolutionary movement learned lessons, rebounded and won national liberation. Fidel played a key role in leading the revolutionary movement to victory.

The 1959 revolutionary victory in Cuba inspired people throughout the Americas and the world to fight for liberation in their own countries. The Cuban revolution created the conditions for incredible gains for the Cuban people, despite it being a poor country. The revolution swiftly solved problems that capitalism can’t solve. Illiteracy and starvation were wiped out in Cuba and the best education and health care systems in the Americas were created. This continues to this day in socialist Cuba and stands in stark contrast to Cuba’s neighboring countries which are dominated by imperialism.

The Cuban revolution, under the guidance of Fidel Castro and his comrades, also unleashed a boundless internationalism and sacrifice in support of revolutionary movements and attending to human needs throughout Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. The exemplary internationalism displayed by Cuba over decades - providing whatever they could and asking nothing in return - leads to the enthusiastic embrace of socialist Cuba and its leaders such as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara throughout the world.

U.S. imperialism had no intention to stand by idly and let a revolution survive on the small island nation which the U.S. had held as a colony just 90 miles off its coast. Barely in its infancy, the Cuban revolution faced invasion from U.S. imperialism at the Bay of Pigs in 1961. Under Fidel’s leadership, the U.S.-led military invasion was repelled. The U.S. government lashed out, imposing a barbaric economic embargo which continues to this day. U.S. imperialism has engaged in countless acts of sabotage against the Cuban revolution and hundreds of assassination attempts against Fidel Castro personally. But they failed to stop the revolution.

They failed because of the collective leadership of the Communist Party of Cuba, of which Fidel was a key leader. Fidel Castro became a communist and adopted the ideology of Marxism-Leninism through learning from experience in making revolution. As the Cuban revolution confronted concrete problems about how to move forward, Fidel saw that only socialism could solve the problems of the Cuban people, and that Marxism-Leninism provided the theory and practice that could guide the revolutionary process forward. Once he adopted Marxism-Leninism, Fidel never wavered.

The Cuban revolution faced its most trying period in the 1990s when it was left politically and economically isolated. Fidel Castro led the way in Cuba’s difficult decision to hold firm to Marxism-Leninism, anti-imperialism and proletarian internationalism despite the incredible difficulties they knew they would face. They confronted those difficulties and overcame them when very few thought it would be possible. At that time Cuba was isolated on the world stage and in the Americas. The U.S. government tightened the noose by making its blockade more severe, hoping to end the Cuban revolution once and for all. But through staying true to principle and continuing to struggle ahead with dignity, Cuba was able to turn isolation into its opposite.

By 2014 it was U.S. imperialism that was isolated in the Americas while Cuba had many friends, and in the U.N. General Assembly nearly the entire world had voted repeatedly for the U.S. to end the unjust blockade of Cuba. In the face of this isolation, the U.S. finally admitted its decades-long efforts to defeat the Cuban revolution had failed, and took initial steps to normalize relations with socialist Cuba. But the unjust U.S. blockade remains in place and the struggle continues to end it.

As the leader of the Chinese revolution Mao Zedong said, “All people must die, but death can vary in its significance...it may be weightier than Mount Tai or lighter than a feather. To die for the people is weightier than Mount Tai, but to work for the fascists and die for the exploiters and oppressors is lighter than a feather.”

It is clear that comrade Fidel Castro’s death is weightier than Mount Tai. He lived and died for the Cuban people and for the working class and oppressed peoples around the world. He was a revolutionary, a communist, a Marxist-Leninist.

Because of the example of Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution, we know another world - a socialist world - is possible. Fidel’s example inspires us to continue to support the socialist revolution in Cuba, and carry forward the struggle against imperialism and for socialism in our country.

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]

[The Intransigent Faction]

I don't take issue with most of what you just said...but I wasn't just talking about North America, and I did say there was progress followed by decline, which you'd know if you read what I said. I could've gone on a rant about the cyclic nature of struggle in 20th-century labour history and the way social movements and their goals were coopted by the system, but I think we know about that.

Also, while neoliberalism didn't exist as a praxis until the 1970s, it sure as hell didn't spring up out of nowhere, overnight. It was a response to the earlier struggles and a consequence of their organizational, strategic and ideological limits.

Look, I get where you're coming from, and you're right about a lot of things, but if you're gonna cherry-pick a sentence where I mention North America and try to act like I was ignoring the rest of the world, even when I specifically say there's no one-size-fits-all, globally uniform answer before answering with regard to other regions, then I don't see a point in continuing. Have a nice day.

[Blake's Baby]

I asked a question about whether we were closer to a socialist society now or in 1958. Half your answer was devoted to North America, and some of it to Russia in 1917.

I think there has to be a 'one size fits all' answer, because the answer is global in scope. If you think there can be socialism in Venezuela or some other country, then it isn't 'socialism' as I define it. Venezuela (or wherever) is no closer to socialism than Saudi Arabia. So, the question is 'is the world closer to a socialist society than it was in 1958?' and to me the answer a) is obvious and b) doesn't depend on regional details.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I asked a question about whether we were closer to a socialist society now or in 1958. Half your answer was devoted to North America, and some of it to Russia.

...not just 1917, and some of it to China, yes. The reality is those countries had a major influence on the development of socialism (or lack of it) in the rest of the world, even if we (rightly) reject both superpowers' and their closest allies' notions of socialism.

If the answer is obvious, why even ask? You may not like the answer, but while socialism is a global struggle, it inarguably depends on regional details.

If you don't believe me, try using the same methods of building class consciousness in the DPRK as you would in Toronto. I don't think it would end well for you.

There are differences in the situations of the working class in Afghanistan, Cuba, Canada, Britain, Spain, Russia, and China, (and obviously, across time within these countries) whether you want to acknowledge them or not. Today, workers in some places can speak more openly than others. Some can organize more effectively. Some are generally more, or less, inclined toward revolutionary organizing. Marx, Engels, Pannekoek and others have called on workers of the world to unite, but they never suggested ignoring the tactical differences for organizing in different localities, or assuming all workers will be equally receptive to revolutionary organization at a given point in time.

Is the world as a whole closer to socialism? I can't say. That depends on how far there is to go, which depends on different regional conditions and how workers everywhere are resolved toward or away from socialism (or barbarism). By regional conditions I don't mean within single states, either. I mean regional, whether or not borders are redrawn. If those conditions move toward socialism, then we're obviously closer in a temporal sense, but in terms of the conditions for it, some places may be more or less ready. If they don't move toward socialism and there's some impending doom for civilization, we won't be closer to it.

On the topic of this thread...this was interesting to see from a social democrat columnist.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/fidel-castro-was-no-friend-of-socialism/article33073767/

[Exterminatus]

On the topic of this thread...this was interesting to see from a social democrat columnist.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/fidel-castro-was-no-friend-of-socialism/article33073767/

I don't see anything of worth to socialists here. These are all standard, cheap, left-liberal talking points a la Orwell and so on. "Castro betrayed revolution" implies there was a socialist revolution in the first place. Of course most Marxists know this wasn't the case, but even if it was let's ask ourselves: what exactly could communists do with an isolated, backward country like Cuba, other than bow down to Moscow?

"He simply followed Moscow line" implies there was any other choice for Cuba. Cuba was not a self-sufficient state, but one whose economy completely depended on the SU. Was he supposed to let the Cubans starve en masse? "Commies kill ppl" yeah we know and what of it? "No free speech" implies that there was a choice that included both firm anti-imperialist, anti-colonial stance at the US doorstep and freedom of press. Even if actual socialist revolution happened, who can honestly say any of these frankly stupid requests would be respected, especially in an isolated place like Cuba? If there was freedom of speech, independence from Moscow, respect for political opponents etc.. you know what would happen - Cuba would pretty fucking soon return back to being a whorehouse of capitalist scum from the US and then these fucking shitty leftists would talk for eternity how "epic" and "graceful" this defeat was.

I can't tell which criticisms are more pathetic, those ultraleft fools on facebook or these left-liberals.

[ckaihatsu]

The political legacy of Fidel Castro

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/11/28/pers-n28.html





The role of Pabloite revisionism

Among the most prominent proponents of this false perspective was the Pabloite revisionist tendency that emerged within the Fourth International under the leadership of Ernest Mandel in Europe and Joseph Hansen in the US, subsequently joined by Nahuel Moreno in Argentina. They insisted that Castro’s coming to power had proven that armed guerrillas led by the petty-bourgeoisie and based on the peasantry could become “natural Marxists,” compelled by objective events to carry out the socialist revolution, with the working class reduced to the role of passive bystander.

They further concluded that Castro’s nationalizations created a “workers state” in Cuba, despite the absence of any organs of workers’ power.

Long before the Cuban Revolution, Leon Trotsky had explicitly rejected the facile identification of nationalizations undertaken by petty-bourgeois forces with the socialist revolution.




The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) fought intransigently against the Pabloite perspective, insisting that Castroism represented not some new road to socialism, but rather only one of the more radical variants of the bourgeois nationalist movements that had come to power through much of the former colonial world. It warned that the Pabloite glorification of Castroism represented a repudiation of the entire historical and theoretical conception of the socialist revolution going back to Marx, and laid the basis for the liquidation of the revolutionary cadre assembled by the Trotskyist movement internationally into the camp of bourgeois nationalism and Stalinism.




Castro himself, acting both as a client of the Soviet bloc and a practitioner of realpolitik in the attempt to secure the stability of his own regime, sought to forge ties to the same Latin American bourgeois governments that those who emulated him were attempting to overthrow. Thus, in 1971 he toured Chile, extolling the “parliamentary road to socialism” in that country, even as the fascists and the military were preparing to crush the working class. He hailed military regimes in Peru and Ecuador as anti-imperialist and even embraced the corrupt apparatus of the ruling PRI in Mexico, after it had overseen the massacre of students in 1968.

[John Nada]

Slavoj Zizek wrote an article on Castro's death: http://inthesetimes.com/article/19677/the-left-fidelity-castration-slavoj-zizek-fidel-castro-cuba-che-communism Though he's kind of wrong on Cuba importing 80% of its food. That's for the food rations, not all food is part of that: http://monthlyreview.org/2012/01/01/the-paradox-of-cuban-agriculture/

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Slavoj Zizek wrote an article on Castro's death: http://inthesetimes.com/article/19677/the-left-fidelity-castration-slavoj-zizek-fidel-castro-cuba-che-communism Though he's kind of wrong on Cuba importing 80% of its food. That's for the food rations, not all food is part of that: http://monthlyreview.org/2012/01/01/the-paradox-of-cuban-agriculture/

A lot of Cuba's agriculture is committed to sugar and tobacco production too, which pays for the food imports, so it's not like they're not growing anything. You are also right to point out that a lot of food they eat is not a part of the rationing system, like food grown in Organiponicos.

His point about Cubans being proud of their dilapidated houses is interesting, although I imagine they were more proud of the fact that they were poor people with a house in the first place, whatever its condition.