Castro as a Dictator

[parecon3]

CASTRO as a dictator (I mispelled)

Okay, so I am a little confused on how I should view Castro in Cuba. Because of his government there has been a great many reforms in education, health care, and agrarian reforms. But, despite this Castro still remains a dictator and oppresses the people in some ways. If he is not self-critical of himself, he may not realize some of the the oppressive actions taken.

What do you think?

CyM: title edited

[h&s]

This comletely depends on your own personal opinion on this issue. Do you believe that having a leadership is an acceptable thing in a world hostile to socailism? Or do you think, regardless of situation, that as much power should be given to the people as possible during socialism, which would mean the setting up of soviets? Or do you (like anarchists) think that no leaders should ever be permitted?
Many people here agree with my first point - they say that Cuba will be attacked by the US as soon as a strong central leadership is taken away, meaning that it should remain untill revolution takes over the world.
Personally I think that the central leadership should be abolished, and semi worker-run soviets should be set up. That way the state apparatus would be intact enough to resist hostile foreign policy. It would also organise the workers together, to make them strong.
Anarchists would say that no one should ever have power, as the state is a tool for oppression (which it is), and any use of it will end up degenerating into state oppression (just like the USSR). They would say that the workers in Cuba should take control to make it a communist island, which would organise them enough to withstand any invasion.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 04:09 AM
CASTRO as a dictator (I mispelled)

Okay, so I am a little confused on how I should view Castro in Cuba. Because of his government there has been a great many reforms in education, health care, and agrarian reforms. But, despite this Castro still remains a dictator and oppresses the people in some ways. If he is not self-critical of himself, he may not realize some of the the oppressive actions taken.

What do you think?
There is no way that you "should" view Castro. I even agree with you for the most.

[NovelGentry]

I tend to find Castro extremely self-critical of himself, although more often than not it is in a somewhat egotistical manner. However, this is not to say he is not aware of his own flaws, he very much is if you've ever seen any of the more personal interviews with him, and unlike his imperialist neighbors to the north he is willing to admit and take responsibility for certain acts (such as the execution of those guys who hijacked that boat) to which he responded that he accepts his share of the responsibility.

Castro is not insane, despite what people may think, nor is he evil. If anything he is more pragmatic than a majority of capitalist leaders and leaders of nations who have had leftist revolutions. He justifies his actions very clearly when asked, and more to the point he strictly follows the laws set down by Cuba.

Cuba's democracy is in fact one of the best there is if you ask me, it is first strongly based on a local level which extends more narrowly towards the central government, which I'll mind you Castro actually has little say in. There are a number of strong members in the Cuban government who are keeping democracy and diversity alive.

Sadly, you will rarely if ever hear this story if you are in the U.S. and probably a number of other countries.

[Agent provocateur]

What can I say? I have nothing but enthusiastic admiration for Fidel Castro.

[Sabocat]

Just out of curiosity, do you think that when Fidel dies he will be elevated to cult status like Che?

Could the revolutionary past of Fidel ignite the same passion within the left, or will Fidel and his history be swept into the dustbin of history because he will have died of old age rather than during a "glorious romantic battle"? In other words, will there be a Fidel tee-shirt or perhaps a Fidel-Lives website in the future?

Will people look kindly on the things that Fidel actually did accomplish for Cuba? I suppose a great deal will depend on what happens to Cuba between now and his passing.


I'm curious as to other peoples thoughts.

[Agent provocateur]

If they make a Fidel t-shirt, I'll wear it proudly. Heck, I just might go out and make one. Why wait until he dies? Anything to outrage the Cuban exiles and the fascists is o.k.

[Paradox]

I like Castro's response to Bush's claim about prostitution in Cuba. Bush claimed that the Cuban government was involved in human traficking. Bush also said he wanted to help the Cuban people "free" themselves, and that he'd create literacy programs and provide vaccinations for Cuban children. Understandably, Castro got pissed. Castro responded in a speech by asking Bush how he planned to improve on what Cuba has already accomplished. He pointed out to Bush that illeteracy has long been eliminated, and all children, without exception, receive 13 different vaccinations FREE of charge. He suggested that Bush worry about helping the millions of people here in the u.$. that have no health coverage at all. Damn, this guy is good!


Just out of curiosity, do you think that when Fidel dies he will be elevated to cult status like Che?

I don't know about that, but it's possible I suppose. I don't think he'll quite reach the status of Che, though. Che isn't in the news, and many people don't even know who he is (at least not here in the states). Castro, however, is recognized worldwide. Likewise, he is criticized tremendously by the capitalists, especially with right-wing idiots like Bush in office. Because of this propaganda, many people have a negative view of Castro, so I doubt many people here in the u.$. will exhalt him as a hero when he passes. In Third World countries however, it might be a different story. Personally, I haven't read a whole lot about Castro. But I haven't really found anything incredibly negative about him that would make me see him as a failure, either. All in all, nobody can say for sure. Only time will tell.

[NovelGentry]

I don't know about you guys, but I see Fidel as the father figure and Che as the prodigal sun. While Che commanded much respect he thought very highly of Fidel in general. It seems to me like when FIdel dies he will continue to be seen more as a "father figure" - Someone who has done a lot of good but never really wanted to stake a claim in instant fame from it. Granted I don't think Che wanted to stake a claim in instant fame either, but we are not all masters of our own legacy.

[PinkoCommieScum]

What is going to happen to Cuba after Fidel dies? Is Cuba going to hold elections or is Raul going to step in or what?

[NovelGentry]

Raul will probably step into Castros place... but you should be aware Cuba already holds elections.

[APRandolph]

Every other socialist country that allowed for vast western interference in their elections was overthrown. Unfortunately, Leninism is the only method proven to be able to resist the onslaught by the US and counterrevolutions from within. Democratic socialism and anarchism are too weak. You need something to protect revolutionary states from outside attack and internal sabotage.

I think Castro is the one leader the radical left uniformly supports.

[NovelGentry]

Unfortunately, Leninism is the only method proven to be able to resist the onslaught by the US and counterrevolutions from within. Democratic socialism and anarchism are too weak. You need something to protect revolutionary states from outside attack and internal sabotage.

Lenin's idea of the state was required to protect it because the majority of people from Russia and the countries that made up the USSR were reactionary -- they would not willfully fight on their own to supress an invasion, particularly a capitalist one. An advanced capitalist nation doesn't have this problem as it's majority is the proletarians, of which in order to have successful revolution to begin with must become revolutionary. More important, will surely require a revolutionary majority in order to bring down the sheer strength of capitlaist military forces.

As far as the "counterrevolutions from within" -- what exactly do you think happened? the USSR collapsed because of what could be considered counterrrevolutions, a counterrevolution waged by reformist politicians who push for revisionism. And what do you really expect? There was never such a chance for the people of these nations to become revolutionary, they were lead into revolution and followed because of reactionary ideals, many of which thought it would be a lot different than it ended up -- and many of those fought against the post-revolutionary government.

While Democratic Socialism is useless to begin with, your view of anarchism is extremely flawed. Anarchism builds it's principals around the revolutionary masses, who unlike reactionary people are not going to welcome a return to capitalism or settle for "democratic socialism"... they are revolutionary, there's something more they're after -- and they won't give it up without a fight.

It should be noted I'm not an anarchist, but at least they recognize the need for revolutionary masses (even if they still appeal to reactionaries).

[parecon3]

Raul will probably step into Castros place... but you should be aware Cuba already holds elections.
What kind of elections are taking place? I thought Castro was a dictator NovelGentry.

[APRandolph]

Lenin's idea of the state was required to protect it because the majority of people from Russia and the countries that made up the USSR were reactionary -- they would not willfully fight on their own to supress an invasion, particularly a capitalist one. An advanced capitalist nation doesn't have this problem as it's majority is the proletarians, of which in order to have successful revolution to begin with must become revolutionary. More important, will surely require a revolutionary majority in order to bring down the sheer strength of capitlaist military forces.

No argument here, don't forget to add the part about the USSR being invaded by seven foreign nations immediately after the revolution acquired power.


As far as the "counterrevolutions from within" -- what exactly do you think happened? the USSR collapsed because of what could be considered counterrrevolutions, a counterrevolution waged by reformist politicians who push for revisionism. And what do you really expect?

Again, no argument here. The USSR was defeated by revisionism, a defeat that was not inevitable nor caused by some 'flaw' within the socialist system. All I said was Leninism has proven to be the only method successful at acquiring power through revolution and maintaining it through onslaught both within and without, although the USSR did collapse, this collapse was not inevitable. But in every case a 'democratic' populist revolution came to power, it was promptly overthrown. In some cases (Yugoslavia) it was torn apart by outright war, a premeditated plan by the imperialist powers America and Germany to divide a successful independent socialist state. But once again I point to Cuba as an example of a socialist regime that survived, largely because Leninism defended against internal sabotage and there has been no revisionist transition.


While Democratic Socialism is useless to begin with, your view of anarchism is extremely flawed. Anarchism builds it's principals around the revolutionary masses, who unlike reactionary people are not going to welcome a return to capitalism or settle for "democratic socialism"... they are revolutionary, there's something more they're after -- and they won't give it up without a fight.

It should be noted I'm not an anarchist, but at least they recognize the need for revolutionary masses (even if they still appeal to reactionaries).

Point me to a successful anarchist revolution. The one place where anarchism could have had a chance was Spain, and the anarchists & Trots attacked the Republic along with the Fascists, rather than work with it.

[Yazman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 09:27 AM
What kind of elections are taking place? I thought Castro was a dictator NovelGentry.
They do hold elections in Cuba, they're just not party-based. Party-based elections are simply ridiculous, anyway.

I myself admire Fidel Castro and his accomplishments, he is a great man.

[parecon3]

They do hold elections in Cuba, they're just not party-based. Party-based elections are simply ridiculous, anyway.
What are the elections for? Are they for government office? There is no election for president though, right? Castro just remains dictator during these elections to right?

[NovelGentry]

There are over 600 positions in the national government, all of which are open to anyone who wishes to run, most if not all of these are filled by the same people who are consistently elected without opposition. If you think this is because of fear look at the voting numbers. Cuba's voter turnout is consistently over 90% and voting is not mandatory. If people wanted to protest they could easily do so simply by not voting -- which some groups have tried. In one recent election it was the case that over 90% of the peole voted, less than 3% did not fill out their ballot in protest, and less than 1% vandalized the ballot in protest. This means you still have a huge majority of the population willing to vote these leaders in -- it seems to have been made blatantly clear time and time again that the people are supportive of the current "regime."

On top of this they cary local community elections, there is a document that's been linked on various threads many times that explains Cuban vs. American democracy and how these local positions work and what their function is.

Believe it or not Castro is elected, while the US may argue that it's similar to the elections in Iraq where people are threatened for opposing, this is simply not the case as there are a number of groups who oppose the government and have suffered no consequences for doing so, they have done this actively within Cuba and outside of Cuba. These groups exist and have existed for some time.

In response to other things:


although the USSR did collapse, this collapse was not inevitable.

This is something we disagree on, and the fact that it collapsed alone proved it cannot withstand all onslaughts both within and outside the state itself. The state had served.

There is an inherent flaw within socialist revolutions who base their revolutionary forces on reactionary people, and that is that the reactionary ferver, both outside and within the government is never taken care of. You can try to do so by appealing to these reactionaries, as Lenin did with the NEP, or you can try and destroy these reactionaries as Stalin did. The problem is that the reactionary number is a lot bigger than it initially looks. Just because you are proletarian does not make you automatically revolutionary, and this serves the grounds for failure alone -- if not through influences in the state than through economic collapses which the state will constantly have to deal with.

Lenin's revolution was not the only one that served to show this, many of the other revolutions based on Lenin's ideas with changes to try and fix this (Mao and his cultural revolution which followed) have proven ineffective. There are of course surviving examples that fit the Leninist paradigm to some extent (once again with changes, some major, some minor) including DPRK and Cuba, however, by and large these nations are still in a stage of infancy on their way to communism. It is, however, the case with Cuba that many people were already familiar with the issues of capitalism, despite having a large peasant population -- this is primarily due to the U.S. influence there which generated a large number of capitalist features for the country over the period of it's influence. Given this, Cuba has probably one of the best shots at overcoming this initial problem of excessive reactionary mindsets. I'm not familiar enough with the DPRK's revolution to say the same about it.

I do believe Leninism has it's place, but it's place is where there is reactionary appeal and as such it will always be in danger of the large reactionary influence.

On the Cuba issue, it is also questionable as to whether they are even focused on communism. While Castro is certainly left, it was Che who drove it the furthest in that direction -- Castro had said from earlier days that he wanted to see Social Democracy, not necessarily communism. You must remember they have dodged repeatedly back and fourth to appeal to reactionary mindsets by allowing and disallowing private enterprise throughout various stages of their history and within different areas of the country. If I'm not mistaken Cuba's tourism market is still dominated by private business. These appeals show not only the will of the reactionary people within the nation, but Castro's willingness to comply with a lot of it. In the end, this may be the saving grace of Cuba's revolution, but the revolution will not be a communist one.


Point me to a successful anarchist revolution. The one place where anarchism could have had a chance was Spain, and the anarchists & Trots attacked the Republic along with the Fascists, rather than work with it.

The difference is that anarchism has been constantly shown to die in the face of external influences, where Leninism is shown to die in the face of internal influences. For anarchism this is largely due to the fact that it has only occured on small levels, and if I'm not mistaken it is the point of anarchism to attempt to create the necessary infrastructure for post-revolutionary society BEFORE the revolution. Given this it is tough to say it will ever grow big enough to make a full revolution possible. Once the infrastructure begins to show it's true nature it can be crushed by external influences while it's still small. Thus the major issue with anarchism would appear to be timing. It would seem necessary to first ensure HUGE support before begin building the infrastructure, but still build the infrastructure prior to revolution, so that the state becomes effectively unnecessary and the revolutionary people alone become the necessary protection.

[Commie Rat]

i rekon castro will be held in regard with Lenin and MAo as a founding father

[NovelGentry]

i rekon castro will be held in regard with Lenin and MAo as a founding father

Castro has committed nothing on their level to communist theory and it's arguable he's not even communist, so I doubt it.

[Yazman]

Here is a link for you all to read, particularly parecon3, concerning Cuba's democratic system (which is actually much more democratic than any western nation has ever been).

*edit* WOOPS! Forgot to post the link, sorry!

http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html

[Guest1]

You posted no link....

[cubalibra]

Anyone that wants to see a great documentary on Fidel, look for 'Fidel: The Untold Story' which is on dvd here in the states. Now if they can only release Oliver Stone's doc called 'Commandante.'

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 01:00 PM
Anyone that wants to see a great documentary on Fidel, look for 'Fidel: The Untold Story' which is on dvd here in the states. Now if they can only release Oliver Stone's doc called 'Commandante.'
:) You can see Comandante at our webiste (http://www.rdab.ca/cuba).

It is on the Video Clips page at the bottom! Enjoy! This has been widely seen in Canada.

[duk]

i support castro! we should be proud of him! anyway just 2 questions : raul is a good guy ? is he like fidel? whats his policy???
when and how did usa control guantanamo in cuba ?
thx in advance for replying guys

[Yazman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 05:31 AM
i support castro! we should be proud of him! anyway just 2 questions : raul is a good guy ? is he like fidel? whats his policy???
when and how did usa control guantanamo in cuba ?
thx in advance for replying guys
Raul and Che were the "hardcore commies" of the Cuban Revolution, if you get what I mean. He is like Fidel, but more like Che in terms of politics.

*edit*

Regarding your question about the USA's control of Guantanamo, the US originally signed a contract with Fulgencio Batista that allowed them to lease Guantanamo Bay (I'm not sure for how long though, somebody else could help you with that!), but the new revolutionary Cuba did not recognise the contract as legal, because it wasn't (new government, old deals became irrelevant). The USA refused to accept this however and continued on as if the contract was still legal, and every year they send cheques to the Cuban government, cheques which Fidel Castro has never cashed. I think he said he'll send them back to the Americans once they get Guantanamo back.

[duk]

Originally posted by Yazman+Dec 8 2004, 01:00 AM--> (Yazman @ Dec 8 2004, 01:00 AM)
[email protected] 8 2004, 05:31 AM
i support castro! we should be proud of him! anyway just 2 questions : raul is a good guy ? is he like fidel? whats his policy???
when and how did usa control guantanamo in cuba ?
thx in advance for replying guys
Raul and Che were the "hardcore commies" of the Cuban Revolution, if you get what I mean. He is like Fidel, but more like Che in terms of politics.

*edit*

Regarding your question about the USA's control of Guantanamo, the US originally signed a contract with Fulgencio Batista that allowed them to lease Guantanamo Bay (I'm not sure for how long though, somebody else could help you with that!), but the new revolutionary Cuba did not recognise the contract as legal, because it wasn't (new government, old deals became irrelevant). The USA refused to accept this however and continued on as if the contract was still legal, and every year they send cheques to the Cuban government, cheques which Fidel Castro has never cashed. I think he said he'll send them back to the Americans once they get Guantanamo back. [/b]
thx man 4 all the information !!

[DaCuBaN]

do you think that when Fidel dies he will be elevated to cult status like Che?

The real question of course: Would Fidel's face look good on a T-Shirt? :D

Che wasn't a "special" revolutionary - he was flawed and weak, like the most of us. Fidel is no different - and given that Lenin was a pretty ugly bastard by any account, my crystal ball is screaming to tell you all that Fidel's face will grace the "next generation" of pseudo-leftists's chests.

[bolshevik butcher]

I used to view Casdtro like Mao as someone who didn't practised what he prieched, but then the other day I found out how Cuba function as a democracy so yeah I admire him.

[jwijn]

Hey NovelGentry,

Although I am enthusiastic supporter of Che Guevara, my view of Fidel has never been too good. I plan on going on the Venceremos Brigade to Cuba not this summer, but the following one, however, so I will see for myself.

However, I was wondering where you got your facts about Cuba from (websites, books, etc.) I tried looking on the Cuban Communist party page, but my spanish is not as good as I would like (partly the reason for not going to Cuba this summer).

[NovelGentry]

I get most of my information by reading U.S. news articles actually. Which may seem strange because of how biased they are. But just because they are biased doesn't mean that they don't contain facts (particularly about the government structure of Cuba). I've also seen a number of documentaries including two by Oliver Stone, and several that were sorta independent an aired on the US channel PBS or a foreign equivalent.

There's also a very good book on Castro (I've not read all of it, and it is severely right wing, so you have to cut through that bullshit)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...084815?v=glance (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0836280172/002-1434917-4084815?v=glance) -- Guerrilla Prince

Once again, do not discredit right wing nonsense as a source of fact. I find the key to being able to cut through the bullshit is realizing how Castro things. Which if you accept my proposal is surely not "evil." He has problems yes, but he realizes he has problems. This obviously serves what can only be considered an egotistical propaganda machine, but also serves in a very truthful sense to realize that he's not trying to harm the cuban people in any way. If there is one thing Castro wants more than anything else it is to be loved by these people.