Fidel - Communist, or not?

[Subversive Pessimist]

Before and after the revolution, Fidel was, from what I know, an anti-communist. Carlos Franqui, who was part of the revolution and had close contact with both Camilo, Ernesto Guevara, Fidel and the other main characters from the revolution.

Carlos points out in one of his books that nobody suspected Fidel of being a communist. He talks about Castro's personality, and reveals his disgust for homosexuals, his macho attitude etc. and the way he describes Fidel reminds me more of a conservative rather then a communist. It seems to me strange, that after being an anti-communist for so long time, he suddenly switched, and became a Marxist-Leninist...

After the US blockade of Cuba, Eastern Europe and China took care of Cuba, and I think that one of the reasons that Fidel took the opportunity of calling himself communist, was because of the support from USSR etc.

What communist would praise the pope and support the USSR after Stalin, anyways?

You thoughts?

[Palmares]

I believe he actually refers to himself as a 'socialist'. He clearly made this distinction a sort time after the revolution. In other words: he is not a 'communist'.

From I know, he is also more liberal about his views about homosexuals and various other 'moral' type issues.

Castro has mixed ideas though. He is invariably a nationalist. His 'socialism' is much like that of Ho Chi Minh. Just Fidel hasn't died yet.

[dotcommie]

on the subject of fidels death? what do you think would happen there?
I suppose providing the americans don't get involved we may find out if the cubans actually liked fidel and remain socialist or if the venture into the self destruction of capitalist democracy.

[Droes lee]

after and during the revolution he said that he was a socialist.

he said only once that he was a communist but that was just for the trading of goods with the ussr.

but after the fall of the ussr he said again that he was a socialist.

If he was a communist would he invite the pope on cuba?...

[Sabocat]

I suspect that Fidel was Marxist, but steered away from declaring it openly for fear of incurring the wrath of the U.S.

I remember reading (In Jon Lee Anderson's book if I'm not mistaken) that Che and Fidel spent many hours long into the night in Mexico prior to their departure on the Granma for Cuba, discussing Marx.

Che and Raul were both pretty hard core Marxists at that point. I doubt that Fidel would have that different a view, or Che probably wouldn't have joined up with him. Che by that point was pretty determined to emancipate the working class.

[h&s]

(From Wikipedia)

He returned to Cuba with a number of other exiles, clandestinely sailing from Mexico to Cuba on the 60-ft pleasure yacht Granma. They were called the 26th of July Movement. At this stage Castro was not yet a communist or even a socialist. He described himself and his movement as believing in "Jeffersonian philosophy" and adhering to the "Lincoln formula" of cooperation between capital and labor. As late as 1959, Castro told U.S. News and World Report that he had "no intention of nationalizing any industries."


Seems like he was either persuaded to go socialist (as Roosevelt used to be his hero) by his fellow revolutionaries, or he was a very good liar (well he is a lawyer....)


In recognition of his efforts, on April 12, 1988, Castro became the only head of government to receive the Health for All medal from the World Health Organization

He's very socialist on healthcare though!

On religion: (again from Wikipedia)

Castro is an atheist and has not been a practicing Catholic since his childhood. Pope John XXIII excommunicated Castro on January 3, 1962. This was consistent with a 1949 decree by Pope Pius XII forbidding Catholics from supporting communist governments. For Castro, who had previously renounced his Roman Catholicism, this was an event of very little consequence, nor was it expected to be. It was aimed at undermining support for Castro among Catholics; however, there is little evidence that it did.

His relations with Pope John Paul II have been somewhat better. In the early 1990s Castro agreed to loosen restrictions on religion and even permitted church going Catholics to join the Cuban Communist Party. In 1998, Castro hosted the pope on his visit to Cuba, the first by a ruling pontiff to the island. Pope John Paul II was extremely critical of both the Castro regime and the US embargo

I don't think there is anything wrong with that - he invited someone to his country that he knew would critisise him. So much for the allegations that he allows no opposition...

But it seems like he is still a homophobe :angry:

Originally posted by wikipedia
On March 28, 1980, a bus of asylum seekers crashed through the gates of the Peruvian Embassy in Havana. Over 10,000 Cubans fled to the embassy within 48 hours. Castro announced on April 20 that anyone could leave by boat at the port of Mariel in Havana. Cuban exiles began sailing to Mariel in what became known as the "freedom flotilla". According to U.S. Coast Guard figures 124,776 Cubans had fled their homeland when Castro closed Mariel on September 26.

Although the vast majority of Cubans who fled during the Mariel Boat Lift, were legitimate asylum seekers, Castro used the event as an opportunity to expel an estimated 20,000 convicts, homosexuals and mentally disabled citizens.


Not sure how reliable that is though...

[Palmares]

1980? I would hardly call that 'recent'.

Castro and Cuba were certainly homophobic in the past, but even US media recognise some improvement in Cuban treatment of homosexuals.

Link (http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/asylum/ric/documentation/CUB99001.htm)

But to be fair to Fidel, this is what he had to say on the issue from an interview in 1992:

"There is still machismo in our people. I believe a much lower level than any other people in Latin America, but there is still machismo. That has been part of the idiosyncrasy of our people for centuries. I won't deny that, at a certain time, this machista thing influenced the attitude toward homosexuality. I, personally, do not suffer from that sort of phobia against homosexuals. I have never been in favor of, nor promoted, nor supported policy against homosexuals. That corresponded, I would say, to a particular stage and is very much associated with that legacy, with machismo.

We inherited male chauvinism and many other bad habits from the conquistadors. That was an historical legacy. We have made a real advance-we can see it, especially in the young people, but we can't say that sexual discrimination has been completely wiped out and we mustn't lower our guard ...

For example, men's and women's conduct was judged by different standards. We had that for years in the Party, and I waged battles and argued a lot about it. If a man was unfaithful, it didn't constitute a problem or a worry, but if a woman was unfaithful, that became the subject of discussion in the Party nucleus. There was a double standard for judging the sexual relations of men and women. I had to fight hard, very hard, against those deep-rooted prejudices. There wasn't any doctrine or education in this regard, instead, there were many male chauvinist concepts and prejudices in our society ...

I am not going to deny that, at one point, male chauvinism also influenced our attitude toward homosexuality. I, myself, you're asking me for my own opinion-don't have any phobia toward homosexuals. I've never felt that phobia and I've never promoted or supported policies against homosexuals I would say that it corresponded to a given stage and is largely associated with that legacy of chauvinism. I try to have a more humane, scientific approach to the problem. Often, it becomes a tragedy, because of what the parents think-some parents whose son is homosexual turn it into a tragedy. It's really too bad they react this way and make it a tragedy for the individual, as well.

I don't consider homosexuality to be a phenomenon of degeneration. I've always had a more rational approach, considering it to be one of the natural aspects and tendencies of human beings which should be respected ... It would be good if the families themselves had another mentality, another approach, when a circumstance of this nature occurs. I am absolutely opposed to any form of repression, contempt, scorn, or discrimination with regard to homosexuals. That's what I think."

Source (http://www.metrog.com/travel/castro.html)

[h&s]

1980? I would hardly call that 'recent'
Didn't realise that..... :rolleyes:


We inherited male chauvinism and many other bad habits from the conquistadors. That was an historical legacy.
I do like fidel, but I rekon that is just him trying to excuse his past crimes.
e.g.Fidel Castro denounced homosexuality as "a bourgeois perversion."
We shouldn't worship the guy you know - he needs a lot of critisism.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by hammer&sickleforever+Aug 31 2004, 11:48 PM--> (hammer&sickleforever @ Aug 31 2004, 11:48 PM)We shouldn't worship the guy you know - he needs a lot of critisism.[/b]
Whre did I say worship??? :huh:

But I understand what you are saying. That's why I gave the US media link, because it had alot of relevant stuff. And though you are perhaps right in saying he was "just trying to excuse himself", he nevertheless is making progress. But if his views had stayed the same (or if they are the same)... :angry:


Originally posted by hammer&[email protected]
Didn't realise that..... :rolleyes:

You can roll your eyes, but you did say:


hammer&sickleforever
But it seems like he is still a homophobe :angry:

Whilst, though you did say seems, the overall implication of that sentence was that you believe Castro to be homophobic now.

[Hate Is Art]

Castro is a socialist, and some of the banning of homo-sexual literature came with the banning and restrictions of free press after the revolution.

[redtrigger]

Fidel is no communist. He said he was to gain favor with the Soviet Union.