Log in

View Full Version : Cuban Anarchist Movement



The Feral Underclass
24th May 2005, 11:37
Responding to the invitation extended a few days ago from Havana by Celia Hart Santamaria – member of the Cuban Communist Party and daughter of prominent figures of the regime – calling for discussions on leftist alternatives for Cuba's future, and where she explicitly asks for an anarchist opinion, the Cuban Libertarian Movement makes public its proposals for the debate.

Letter - Fighting for a real workers society (http://www.enrager.net/newswire/stories.php?story=05/04/27/7152643)

redstar2000
24th May 2005, 18:13
Very interesting piece!

It would have been good to know what Hart had actually written...evidently, she is a poet or something like that, right?

Left ferment in Cuba?

That would be terrific if it really materialized. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

bolshevik butcher
24th May 2005, 19:08
It would be actually, i wonder if the beauracracy would allow it though.

chebol
25th May 2005, 03:34
Celia Hart is the daughter of Armando Hart and Haydee Santamaria, two leaders of the cuban revolution. She has written extensively on the need for a "left alternative" in Cuba, but doesn't fall into the trap of assuming that that leftwards movement must take the form of outright oppposition to the current revolution- which would be simply destructive, given the present objective circumstances facing Cuba.

She has also called for the Cuban revolution to 'reclaim' Trotsky and the Permanent Revolution. She has had some dealings with the Grantites, but is a member of the CCP, and her exposure too Trotsky came from her father, Armando Hart, who was minister of culture for 20 odd years, giving her Deutscher's trilogy on the life of Trotsky and Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed".

Who is Celia Hart?
Some brief biographical notes
http://www.marxist.com/History/who_is_celia_hart.html

The Celia Hart Controversy
Stalinism or Leninism? By Alan Woods
Part One: http://www.marxist.com/Theory/celia_hart_controversy.html

"Socialism in one country" and the Cuban Revolution, by Celia Hart
http://www.dsp.org.au/links/back/issue26/hart.htm

Celia Hart: Selected Writings
http://www.walterlippmann.com/celiahart.html

ErikuSz -sXe-
25th May 2005, 07:33
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:34 AM
Celia Hart is the daughter of Armando Hart and Haydee Santamaria, two leaders of the cuban revolution. She has written extensively on the need for a "left alternative" in Cuba, but doesn't fall into the trap of assuming that that leftwards movement must take the form of outright oppposition to the current revolution- which would be simply destructive, given the present objective circumstances facing Cuba.

She has also called for the Cuban revolution to 'reclaim' Trotsky and the Permanent Revolution. She has had some dealings with the Grantites, but is a member of the CCP, and her exposure too Trotsky came from her father, Armando Hart, who was minister of culture for 20 odd years, giving her Deutscher's trilogy on the life of Trotsky and Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed".

Who is Celia Hart?
Some brief biographical notes
http://www.marxist.com/History/who_is_celia_hart.html

The Celia Hart Controversy
Stalinism or Leninism? By Alan Woods
Part One: http://www.marxist.com/Theory/celia_hart_controversy.html

"Socialism in one country" and the Cuban Revolution, by Celia Hart
http://www.dsp.org.au/links/back/issue26/hart.htm

Celia Hart: Selected Writings
http://www.walterlippmann.com/celiahart.html

So in her amazing opposition to the current communist government (where daddy was a member of?) this 'anarchist' sympathize with Trotskyst theories? (who cares about Kronstad anyway). You are sure we are talking about an anarchist right? :rolleyes:

Severian
25th May 2005, 08:42
Neither an anarchist nor an opponent of the Cuban government - rather, a member of the Cuban Communist Party. Please read the first post in the thread.

As to the anarchist response - it's not the response of people interested in a discussion, and certainly not the response of supporters of the revolution, trying to figure out the best course for it. Unless there are other anarchists capable of giving a different kind of response, Celia Hart sent that invitation to the wrong address.

MiniOswald
25th May 2005, 12:36
Interesting to see the left going somewhere in cuba and to find people exploring left alternatives.

The Feral Underclass
25th May 2005, 12:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:42 AM
As to the anarchist response - it's not the response of people interested in a discussion
"the Cuban Libertarian Movement makes public its proposals for the debate."

There response was a scathing criticism, but I don't think it was in anyway an attempt to ignore the endevour of creating a debate among the Cuban left.


certainly not the response of supporters of the revolution, trying to figure out the best course for it.

There advocation for more workers autonomy and control is, surely, the best course for the Cuban revolution. That is what they were advocating after all, and that was the purpose of the revolution in the first place.


Unless there are other anarchists capable of giving a different kind of response, Celia Hart sent that invitation to the wrong address.

What would that different kind of response be? A willingness to accept the role of the State and Castro's position as "Commander-in-Chief"?

There criticism of Hart's term "chasm" was completely valid and I don't think any other anarchist group would have responded differently. How could they?

Monty Cantsin
25th May 2005, 13:45
what has been the response of the communists party?

The Feral Underclass
25th May 2005, 14:17
Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 25 2005, 01:45 PM
what has been the response of the communists party?
I am waiting to see if there is one.

ÑóẊîöʼn
25th May 2005, 14:31
TAT, I noted that you also posted this on ComradeChe - I must say I was disappointed but not surprised at the reaction.

redstar2000
25th May 2005, 15:47
If movement to the left in Cuba is going to happen, it won't be because of Celia Hart or any who might associate themselves with her.

Why not?

Because I think her approach to politics is essentially mystical -- even though, surprisingly, she has a scientific education (a ph.d. in physics).

Reading her material, I found it rich in "magical realism" and lyrical prose, but poor in rigorous Marxist analysis.

The one material factor that she mentions -- the "two-tier" Cuban economy -- is simply deplored and then she moves on.

For the most part, her approach to revolutionary politics has the strong smell of theology about it.

The grim-faced devils of U.S. imperialism and domestic Stalinism on one side vs. Marti, Fidel, Che, Chavez, Lenin, Trotsky, the Virgin Mary, and old JC himself on the other...a spiritual "fight to the finish".

The anarchist response to her cuts through all that crap and says bluntly what needs to be done to resume the revolutionary process in Cuba: all power to the working class!

I'm sure Celia Hart means well.

Lots of people mean well.

That's not the same thing as being right.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

MiniOswald
25th May 2005, 17:49
at the very least i guess the world needs an 'anarchist experiment' as it were

Nothing Human Is Alien
26th May 2005, 02:18
All those crying for 'all power to the workers', I would like, in this thread or a new thread, a detailed criticism of the People's Power system in Cuba. Explain how the Cuban Proletariat doesn't have power now. I would REALLY be interested in hearing a criticism of this sort coming from a Leninist.

redstar2000
26th May 2005, 03:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:18 PM
All those crying for 'all power to the workers', I would like, in this thread or a new thread, a detailed criticism of the People's Power system in Cuba. Explain how the Cuban Proletariat doesn't have power now. I would REALLY be interested in hearing a criticism of this sort coming from a Leninist.
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you...Leninists usually consider the rule of a vanguard party to "be" people's power. :lol:

As to a "detailed criticism", what would be the point? If there were genuine working class power in Cuba now, then it would show.

The Cuban media would be full of controversy over the future course of particular projects as well as the general future of the revolution itself. Many of the articles would be highly polemical in tone. The Cuban National Assembly would meet year around and rancorous debates would be commonplace.

Cuba would be fully connected to the internet and there would be Cubans on this board.

Probably dozens of them!

The fact that we see none of this suggests a political atmosphere that's "dead"...no one bothers to talk because, at present, talk has no meaning or purpose.

Exception: the people who do talk in Cuba are the ones discussing the best way to restore capitalism. :o

And, I guess, Celia Hart...who sort of writes prose-poems -- "to the left of Fidel is the abyss".

What other details do you need?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian
26th May 2005, 11:01
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 25 2005, 05:56 AM
There response was a scathing criticism, but I don't think it was in anyway an attempt to ignore the endevour of creating a debate among the Cuban left.
Not scathing - snotty.


There advocation for more workers autonomy and control is, surely, the best course for the Cuban revolution.

You left out "demilitarization". Bush could act for nothing better.

This is not the kind of criticism that could come from within the revolution or its supporters. Not the kind that recognizes that there is a living revolutionary process in Cuba, which should be supported, and criticizes in order to find ways to strengthen it.

More reminiscent of those hailed by this anarchist article about the history of Cuban anarchism, (http://www.ainfos.ca/04/feb/ainfos00387.html) who joined the CIA-supported contra groups in the Escambray. Rather than those Cuban anarchists it condemns, who recognized "the
most progressive, democratic, and humanist Revolution of our continent."

**

Anyway: here's Celia Hart's comments that these anarchists are supposedly responding to - it's a measure of their disinterest in real discussion that they didn't even include a link.

In Spanish (http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=13808)
In English (http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2005-April/023883.html)

The interview she's correcting - In Spanish only sorry (http://boards1.melodysoft.com/app?ID=fororadioklara&msg=4915)

She makes an inaccurate statement in the last "Aunque los tres últimos autores se conocen marginalmente en Cuba, Trotsky aún es un desconocido. Durante una semana, en una reciente feria editorial, dos de sus obras se exhibieron por primera vez aquí."

In fact, this was far from the first time that Trotsky's books have been exhibited at the Havana Bookfair. They are also available in public libraries in Cuba. Unfortunately they have not been published there so far.

eyedrop
26th May 2005, 12:14
You left out "demilitarization". Bush could act for nothing better.

Here they give out the reasons they see to why a demiltitarization wouldn't endanger the revolution. It may have been necessary before but it is not as necessary now.

This is because the Cuban armed forces are constituted as a response to a hypothesis of conflict – in theory, a U.S. invasion – that is wrongly proposed or that will not happen. In the first place, the Cuban armed forces would have no power – and I agree with you that this is a disgrace for all humanity – against the aerial bombardment and ruination that the USA uses as its main method in the initial phases of the war. As has been demonstrated in Iraq, guerrilla resistance is much more effective than a regular army that simply cannot be up to the task. Second, there are plenty of elements to assume that such conflict does not nor will it conform tomorrow to that model: Cuba does not warrant the same reasons given for Afghanistan and Iraq – nor those given later for Iran and North Korea – nor does it constitute a relevant strategic threat nor has it deserved a real military consideration. Do the math Celia and you will see: the financing given by the USA to the “dirty work” in Cuba in the last five years is less than the cost of one single night of bombardment over Baghdad, even if the Commander in Chief’s megalomania is hurt a little with such calculations. In consequence, the demilitarization is feasible now and has nothing to do with the “chasm”.


Although I kinda disagree in that Cuba would may be a more likely target if the country started to loook more like a real communist country. But I don't think a regular armed force would have been able to do much then anyway.

The Feral Underclass
26th May 2005, 12:19
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:01 AM
You left out "demilitarization". Bush could act for nothing better.
Demilitarisation does not equate to no defence. As eyedrop points out.


This is not the kind of criticism that could come from within the revolution or its supporters. Not the kind that recognizes that there is a living revolutionary process in Cuba, which should be supported, and criticizes in order to find ways to strengthen it.

No, it's the kind of criticism that comes from people who have seen and understood the effects of the authoritarian and hierarchal subjugation of those prepared to fight for the Cuban revolution. It is their revolution after all.

The Feral Underclass
26th May 2005, 12:22
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:31 PM
TAT, I noted that you also posted this on ComradeChe - I must say I was disappointed but not surprised at the reaction.
They rarely ever want to debate. They just enjoy being emotive and biased at every given opportunity. They think it's progress.

Severian
26th May 2005, 12:25
Response to eyedrop:
Yeah, that paragraph just goes to show how little these people are in touch with the reality of U.S. Cuba policy, or U.S. imperialism's role in combatting revolutions worldwide for that matter. And how prone they are to assuming that Washington's stated reasons are its only reasons, and that it acts only defensively against "threats". Even you disagree with them on that point.

Also, how little they know about Cuban military policy, which is precisely geared towards a Vietnamese-style "war of all the people". Cuba hasn't been buying expensive high-tech weapons systems, or even a lot of jet fuel to keep up training of its air force. It's been digging tunnels, making rifles, grenades, and land mines, and training soldiers.

Probably reflects a mystical, unrealistic, and well, anarchistic concept of how guerilla warfare is organized, too. In reality, it's not counterposed to a regular army; in their example it's been practiced by elements of the Republican Guard and Saddam Fedayeen, and in the better example of Vietnam...by the NVA.

Guerilla warfare is, however, counterposed to "demilitarization". An effective guerilla army is, well, an army, and with a command structure as top-down as any other. Also needs weapons and trained fighters, see above.

In short, that paragraph shows how completely unserious and non-revolutionary the whole thing is.

U.S. imperialism is better informed about Cuba's defenses, which is precisely why they haven't been tested in a while....both Kennedy and Clinton requested Pentagon estimates of the consequences of attacks on Cuba, and didn't care for the answer. (Kennedy was planning a larger-scale of attack of course.)

Severian
26th May 2005, 12:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:59 PM
Cuba would be fully connected to the internet and there would be Cubans on this board.
It's a third-world country. Look up the stats on how many people in different parts of the world have internet service. This kind of statement reflects real imperialist-country blindness.

There is in fact debate and discussion in Cuba, in the party first of all. But of course if Redstar assumes something doesn't exist, then it doesn't. No need to actually observe or learn anything.

The Feral Underclass
26th May 2005, 12:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 12:25 PM
Yeah, that paragraph just goes to show how little these people are in touch with the reality of U.S. Cuba policy, or U.S. imperialism's role in combatting revolutions worldwide for that matter. And how prone they are to assuming that Washington's stated reasons are its only reasons, and that it acts only defensively against "threats".
I don't see how it shows that? They don't go into detail about it, but so what?


And how prone they are to assuming that Washington's stated reasons are its only reasons, and that it acts only defensively against "threats".

Where do they assume that?


Probably reflects a mystical, unrealistic, and well, anarchistic concept of how guerilla warfare is organized, too.

And what would that concept be exactly?


In short, it shows how little they have to do with either a real discussion or with support for the revolution.

It is also possible that their response came out of the belief it will be wholly inconsequential anyway. Any "real" discussion would have to include the idea that Castro relinquishes all power and that the regime is disbanded in return for worker self-management.

How likely do you think that is? Especially considering the the opportunities to the regime after Castro's death. Why on earth would they support that?

Severian
26th May 2005, 12:58
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 26 2005, 05:35 AM

I don't see how it shows that? They don't go into detail about it, but so what?
Then you didn't read it.

Gee, the reasons Uncle Sam gave for invading Iraq and Afghanistan don't apply to Cuba, and Cuba's not a strategic threat, so nice Uncle Sam would never attack Cuba...actually, the reason Washington gave for invading Afghanistan does apply to Cuba: apparently these snot-noses have never heard that Cuba is on the State Department's list of sponsors of terrorism, either...


Probably reflects a mystical, unrealistic, and well, anarchistic concept of how guerilla warfare is organized, too.

That it's counterposed to a regular army. Already explained this point. Again, please read.

The Feral Underclass
26th May 2005, 13:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 12:25 PM
Guerilla warfare is, however, counterposed to "demilitarization". An effective guerilla army is, well, an army, and with a command structure as top-down as any other. Also needs weapons and trained fighters, see above.
So you are claiming that the democratic managment of a workers army is mystic and unrealistic?

The myopicness of leninists is sometimes harrowing. A guerilla army is an army that uses guerilla tactics to fight. This hierarchical structure is not an invariable necessity to organising one. Believe it or not, human beings have the ability to organise weapons and trainings without being ordered to do so.

And in future, please make it known that you have edited your posts instead of accusing me of not reading them properly.

Severian
26th May 2005, 13:39
Name one war won with "democratic managment of a workers army."

redstar2000
26th May 2005, 15:16
Originally posted by Severian
It's a third-world country. Look up the stats on how many people in different parts of the world have internet service. This kind of statement reflects real imperialist-country blindness.

Imperialist country blindness?

Come on, guy, you're not even trying to be serious here. The internet is not a big capital-intensive project...it's something that could easily be done in every school in Cuba that has telephone service. In fact, it would not surprise me if it were feasible for Cuba to import the parts from generic manufacturers in the Far East and make its own computers in whatever numbers required. Perhaps they'd be "obsolete" by North American standards...but they would be perfectly functional for the great majority of users.

In addition to which, your response is evasive. I wasn't speaking of the sheer numbers of available computers and internet connections; I was speaking of the fact that Cuban workers and students cannot even access this board.

They can't tell us what's really going on.

Probably nothing very interesting.


There is in fact debate and discussion in Cuba, in the party first of all. But of course if Redstar assumes something doesn't exist, then it doesn't. No need to actually observe or learn anything.

The old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" routine, eh?

Well, if you wish to believe that something is taking place in the absence of any evidence to support that belief, who am I to "question your faith"?

You know that even under "Stalin the Terrible" (in the 1920s), there was a lot of heated controversy in the Soviet media. The "big shots" at least argued publicly with each other over the future course of the revolution.

Nothing like that appears in the Cuban media today...if it did, it would likely make world headlines! The Cuban leadership does not want ordinary Cubans to concern themselves with "big policy questions"...those things are for the leaders to decide amongst themselves -- safe from public criticism and possible loss of office and privilege.

Discussing the rotation list for who cleans the workplace bathroom is not sufficient to merit the designation "proletarian democracy".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

coda
26th May 2005, 15:43
Does anyone know how big the present anarchist movement is in Cuba?

I don't know... Something is brewing in Cuba and it's pro-Amerikan.
I read this a few days ago.


South America News
Democratic assembly meets in Havana
May 20, 2005, 19:00 GMT

HAVANA, Cuba (UPI) -- More than 100 Cuban dissidents gathered in Havana Friday for the Assembly to Promote Civil Society and publicly chanted \"Down With Fidel.\"

The delegates met in the yard of dissident Felix Bonne because the regime of President Fidel Castro would not allow them to use a hotel or a theater, CNN reported.

\"We think this is the first democratic assembly that has ever been held in Cuba,\" said Marta Beatriz Roque, an organizer of the event and a former political prisoner.

Some opposition groups said they would not attend the meeting because they said it was organized by Miami Cuban-Americans who support violence.

A videotaped message from President Bush was shown. He congratulated those in attendance for their efforts and for their courage. He also met in Washington with anti-Castro Cuban-Americans.

Cuban authorities blocked at least eight foreign visitors from attending. Two Polish European Union deputies who tried to enter the country Tuesday were turned back.

Four Polish journalists who planned to attend were detained, the Polish Embassy said.

A Czech senator and a German parliament member who planned to attend were told to leave the country.

bunk
26th May 2005, 15:47
They expected 500 dissidents and hardly any turned up :ph34r:

Bugalu Shrimp
26th May 2005, 17:32
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 02:59 AM
Cuba would be fully connected to the internet and there would be Cubans on this board.


Why would Cubans want to access this board?

Besides the obvious language and cultural barriers. Everything serious written or discussed here they have already learned by the time they are ten.

slim
26th May 2005, 17:46
We dont need cuban citizens but they are steriotypical of the communist cause so they would be like a trademark. Personally i think the forum is fine as it is. If there were cubans then many members could automatically side with them in an argument assuming they know a lot about communism.

Black Dagger
26th May 2005, 18:06
Why are you assuming that all cubans know 'a lot' about 'communism'? Not enough to demand real power in their 'communist' society evidently.

bunk
26th May 2005, 18:07
Originally posted by Bugalu [email protected] 26 2005, 04:32 PM



Besides the obvious language and cultural barriers. Everything serious written or discussed here they have already learned by the time they are ten.
How so? :lol:

slim
26th May 2005, 18:09
Mr. Dagger,

I dont think you read my post properly. I was saying that the people on the forum automatically assume that cubans know a lot about communism. In a way your'e just repeating what i said.

Lets just forget it and resume the debate with good will.

coda
26th May 2005, 18:21
If my memory serves me, somebody did post a few posts on the very first board who was from cuba. and if i remember correctly, he said that the connecting server to the internet was bad thus sporadic. That was 5 years ago. They suffer from a lot of electrical black outs still.

bolshevik butcher
26th May 2005, 18:26
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 12:39 PM
Name one war won with "democratic managment of a workers army."
Russian Cicil war?

Bugalu Shrimp
26th May 2005, 18:45
Originally posted by Josh of Heavens+May 26 2005, 05:07 PM--> (Josh of Heavens @ May 26 2005, 05:07 PM)
Bugalu [email protected]ay 26 2005, 04:32 PM



Besides the obvious language and cultural barriers. Everything serious written or discussed here they have already learned by the time they are ten.
How so? :lol: [/b]
The compulsory Cuban education is primarily focused on producing model socialist citizens. Schools incorporate education into community life by stressing group play, requiring students to care for the school grounds and farms, teaching vocational skills, and focusing on the development of a politically and morally "correct" background on the part of each student.

redstar2000
26th May 2005, 19:08
Originally posted by Bugalu Shrimp+May 26 2005, 11:32 AM--> (Bugalu Shrimp @ May 26 2005, 11:32 AM)
Originally posted by redstar2000+May 26 2005, 02:59 AM--> (redstar2000 @ May 26 2005, 02:59 AM) Cuba would be fully connected to the internet and there would be Cubans on this board.

[/b]
Why would Cubans want to access this board?

Besides the obvious language and cultural barriers. Everything serious written or discussed here they have already learned by the time they are ten. [/b]
Well, gee, that's a really tough question. :lol:

How about this: Cubans know that communism is an international phenomenon and might be curious about how communists in other countries look at things.

Duh!


[email protected]
If there were Cubans, then many members could automatically side with them in an argument assuming they know a lot about communism.

That doesn't say very much about us, does it?

You really think we'd all turn into mewling groupies if a real honest-to-god ***CUBAN*** showed up?

Besides, would it not be interesting to know what Cubans argued about with each other concerning the future of the revolution?

Severian hypothesizes that Cubans "do" have discussions with each other...what about?


Indigo
They suffer from a lot of electrical black outs still.

My understanding is that enough Venezuelan oil is now arriving to "keep the power on"...at least in the urban areas.


HAVANA, Cuba (UPI) -- More than 100 Cuban dissidents gathered in Havana Friday for the Assembly to Promote Civil Society and publicly chanted \"Down With Fidel.\"

A videotaped message from President Bush was shown. He congratulated those in attendance for their efforts and for their courage.

So the vermin are allowed to gather, listen directly to their master's voice, and receive world-wide publicity.

Where are the voices of ordinary Cuban workers and students?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Black Dagger
26th May 2005, 19:27
Where are the voices of ordinary Cuban workers and students?

In the words/speeches of their beloved revolutionary leader!

Bugalu Shrimp
26th May 2005, 19:29
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:08 PM
How about this: Cubans know that communism is an international phenomenon and might be curious about how communists in other countries look at things.

Duh!


I can understand your point without the juvenille faces and "Duh's" thanks.
Cuban schoolchildren already have exchange programs and communications with other like-minded nations.

Tell me what theoretical "communists" who are born and reside in non-communist even non-socialist and sometimes fascist nations have to teach those who are experiancing an evolving revolution?

Black Dagger
26th May 2005, 20:05
Tell me what theoretical "communists" who are born and reside in non-communist even non-socialist and sometimes fascist nations have to teach those who are experiancing an evolving revolution?

Cuba is a 'socialist', even 'communist' country now? Since when?

Bugalu Shrimp
26th May 2005, 20:45
For about the last 40 odd years, and if it isn't your ideal notion of Communism - it's the closest thing to it in this lifetime.

It's the presumptous, and might I say arrogant people of your nature, heads filled with rhetoric - that Cubans would do well to avoid.

Eastside Revolt
26th May 2005, 21:27
Originally posted by Bugalu [email protected] 26 2005, 07:45 PM
For about the last 40 odd years, and if it isn't your ideal notion of Communism - it's the closest thing to it in this lifetime.

It's the presumptous, and might I say arrogant people of your nature, heads filled with rhetoric - that Cubans would do well to avoid.
It's amazing the lengths people will go to, just to stop rational debate about the Cuban revolution.

Yeah Cuban's have done real well to avoid our input and look where it's got them. A two-tier economy, and young men being locked up for refusing to work.

redstar2000
27th May 2005, 03:36
Originally posted by redcanada+--> (redcanada)It's amazing the lengths people will go to, just to stop rational debate about the Cuban revolution.[/b]

It is indeed! I haven't seen such a parade of lame "arguments" since my last visit to the Religion sub-forum.


Bugalu Shrimp
Cuban schoolchildren already have exchange programs and communications with other like-minded nations.

Oh? What "like-minded nations" might these be?

Venezuela?

I can't think of any other...unless you're suggesting that they're learning from China and Vietnam how to restore capitalism.


Tell me what theoretical "communists" who are born and reside in non-communist even non-socialist and sometimes fascist nations have to teach those who are experiencing an evolving revolution?

I was thinking of asking them why it's not evolving, myself.

And, perhaps, why Castro keeps kissing the ass of the Catholic Church?


It's the presumptuous, and might I say arrogant people of your nature, heads filled with rhetoric - that Cubans would do well to avoid.

Might I say that the Cubans would do better to avoid the empty-headed groupies whose main contribution to this thread thus far has been "whatever Fidel says is ok with me".

Flatterers may be more pleasant company than critics...but you learn a lot less from them.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian
27th May 2005, 09:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:16 AM
Come on, guy, you're not even trying to be serious here. The internet is not a big capital-intensive project...it's something that could easily be done in every school in Cuba that has telephone service.


Oh for crying out loud. Yes, in fact Cuban schools do have computers and except in the most remote areas they have internet access. But that's a long way from the widespread and easy internet access that lets us in the imperialist countries loaf around posting on message boards. Which is basically a form of recreation, let's be honest and not get swelled heads about our own importance.

A few facts on internet and phone service worldwide:

Internet access is very far from being a benefit to the great majorities: 90% of the world's population has no access to the Internet. Over 70% of those connected to it live in developed countries. In Africa, less than 1% of the population has access to the Internet. More than half of those with connection are from South Africa. The shortage of telephone lines is compounded by the lack of electricity. In Ghana, only 20% of homes has electric power; in Namibia, 5%; in Senegal, 2.3%; in
Mozambique, 0.4%, according to figures of the ITU. In Central America, Internet access is a luxury. In Guatemala, 0.6% of the population has access; in El Salvador, the rate is 0.7%; in Nicaragua, 0.04% and in Honduras, 0.03%. Even in large and populated nations of the Third World, there are very few citizens with Internet access: in Mexico, 4.6% of the population; in India, 1.6%; in Indonesia, 1.8%. In Russia, a former power, only 4.2% of citizens have access to the Internet.

Spreading access to information worldwide is a tremendous economic development challenge. Billions don't even have literacy and electricity, never mind telephones, forget about internet access. Equalizing that gap - cultural, not just economic - is a tremendous part of the challenge of building socialism...or as Lenin once put it, "Soviet power plus electrification equals socialism."

For Redstar to cavalierly dismiss these difficulties as "not a big capital-intensive project" is at best willful blindness about the condition in most of the world; the less charitable interpretation is a complete indifference to the great majority of humanity.

Now Cuba: electricity is almost universally available - the most thorough rural electrification in the world. That's a great information technology advance, BTW: radio, TV, and most of all being able to read after dark! Not to mention knowing how to read, and the availability of books.

Telephones not so great:
All across the country, we have 6.37 telephone sets per every 100 inhabitants, with an uneven distribution....This situation is further compounded by the fact that even the most developed telephone networks are very outdated, even those in the capital. These are copper lines whose old technical status cannot be modified as quickly as a telephone exchange center is installed....

Which of course makes Net development harder. In contrast to the U.S., which has a huge surplus of installed but unused fiber-optic cable, thanks to the dot-com bubble. Besides which:
The blockade makes everything extraordinarily difficult. The US owns the highest technology and produces very efficient, modern equipment. It also owns the software industry to some extent and its transnational corporations are even the proprietors in many other countries..... The equipment is more expensive and on many occasions it must be brought in from far-flung places. Luckily, we have important cooperation schemes with countries whose technological development is significant, like China (supplier of the digital exchange centers in Guantanamo, Sancti Spi*ritus and Isla de la Juventud).
....
The access by the Cubans to US sites on the Internet was blocked (by the U.S. - S) (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_8/williamson/) until May 1994....Each time Cuba tries to add a new channel to the Internet, the US counterpart must procure the appropriate license from the US Treasury Department.
Likewise, if an American company wants to open a new channel for Cuba or decides
to upgrade the connection speed, a license must be issued. Cuba's current connection to the so-called Infobahn does not offer the appropriate bandwidth to meet the country's requirements. The blockade compels Cuba to use an expensive and slow satellite-related bandwidth and connection. The problem could be solved with the connection of a fiber-optic cable between Cuba and the Florida Straits, but the US has not allowed so.

Despite which:
In our summary meeting of the results of 2003 and the discussion of
the main tasks for 2004, we explained that the country now has an estimated 270
000 PCs, 65% of which are networked; that there are 1 100 .cu domains; more
than 750 Internet sites and more than 480 000 e-mail accounts.

Which sounds like a larger percentage with internet access than a lot of countries.

We have privileged the use of the Net in the social field, in public health, education, science and technology, the national and local TV networks, culture, the banking system, the most important branches of the economy and, much more recently, in the services for the population.
source (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/message/22994)

Clearly anti-democratic; Havana should have realized that these economic, educational, and medical purposes are far less important than getting Cubans to this board so Redstar has the opportunity to lecture them. Well, it's not surprising Redstar thinks so anyway.


I was speaking of the fact that Cuban workers and students cannot even access this board.

Source for this "fact"? Somebody else has posted that someone from Cuba did in fact access this board at one time.

And the sources I've found say Cuba is not real big on "filtering" out undesirable sites:
CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/04/11/cuba.online.idg/)
"But once it's [internet access - S] granted, the government does not censor, filter or -- it appears -- survey traffic."

some Carnegie endowment paper (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_8/kalathil/#k2)
"Although the government itself appears to block few (if any) Web sites at the central level, institutions often limit Internet access to sites they consider relevant to the task at hand." Which sounds like a good idea if you want people to get any work done.

Both these sources are of course strongly hostile to the revolutionary government.

As for your comments on the Cuban media: do you read it? It's true that the revolution's central leaders are not in the habit of debating each other in it - they seem to think that would be a mistake, 90 miles from Miami - but there are political differences between the newspapers...Juventud Rebelde and Trabajadores are more revolutionary than Granma; the international edition of Granma is most hidebound of all.

You dismissal of worker involvement in factory management is superficial. As this NLG delegation of labor lawyers and trade unionists says, (http://www.nlg.org/programs/l_ec/cuba_report_2002.pdf):"In contrast to the U.S. system, which delineates permissive subjects of bargaining at the “core of entrepreneurial control” over which enterprise managements may not be required to negotiate with their workers’ representatives, the CTC maintains that there is no aspect of enterprise or political decision making in Cuba in which the unions do not participate. The observations of our delegation do not contradict this assertion."

Incidentally, those visitors also observed:"plant managers may make a basic salary of 400 pesos per month, about $20, with low end workers making 300 pesos per month, about $15.16". Remarkably little bureaucratic privilege.

But in fact worker assemblies do discuss national policy issues. For example, in 1994 the National Assembly (parliament) considered a proposal for an income tax, to include workers wages. At workplace assemblies held nationwide, the reaction of workers to this was strongly negative. The National Assembly passed the tax - without including wages. Only the self-employed, farmers, and foreign capitalists in joint ventures.

The 1996 CTC Congress considered a proposal on expanded maternity/paternity leave, which was modified by delegates, adopted...and IIRC later became law.

Because it's the working class which rules in Cuba.

Severian
27th May 2005, 09:41
Originally posted by Clenched Fist+May 26 2005, 11:26 AM--> (Clenched Fist @ May 26 2005, 11:26 AM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 12:39 PM
Name one war won with "democratic managment of a workers army."
Russian Cicil war? [/b]
I doubt that's what Anarchist Tension means by "democratic". It would appear that nobody can name such a war.

So I'll just point out, also, that the "Cuban Libertarian Movement" - which BTW is apparently an exile organization - don't call for democratizing the military; they call for demilitarization.

Somebody who called for democratizing the military, in order to strengthen the defense of the revolution against imperialism, would probably be subjectively revolutionary - though misguided and unrealistic.

But instead, the article says that Washington is too powerful to be resisted, and anyway is too nice to mess with Cuba. That's not the attitude of revolutionaries - it's the attitude of people who intend to do nothing unacceptable to Washington.

It's true what Celia Hart says - there's nothing to the left of Fidel. That's because he's not only the head of state and party - and Bonapartist mediator between all their factions - he's also the leader of the more revolutionary, proletarian element of the Cuban Communist Party. There are those revolutionaries who disagree with him on various points, of course.

But there is simply no social basis for a left opposition to the course of action symbolized by Fidel. That's the reason for the reality bemoaned by Redstar and others, that they can find no left opposition in Cuba, only a right opposition, whose social basis is first of all in Miami and Washington.

Bugalu Shrimp
27th May 2005, 10:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 02:36 AM
Might I say that the Cubans would do better to avoid the empty-headed groupies whose main contribution to this thread thus far has been "whatever Fidel says is ok with me".


I recognize the flaws and imperfections of the Cuban revolution and understand the conditions that make it difficult to become an overnight communist utopia.

Whatever Fidel says comes from a vast experiance in practical terms, of rebellion and struggle, and if not everything he says or does is "o.k" - It's a lot more relevant in real terms than the spouting and pontificating of American schoolkids.

It's just as ignorant to dissmiss offhand his policies as it is to unconditionally support them. Cuba and Cubans are more advanced in revolutionary theory and have more understanding of socialist programs in effect. They are living it not dreaming of it.

The Feral Underclass
27th May 2005, 10:34
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 01:39 PM
Name one war won with "democratic managment of a workers army."
I don't want to be dragged into this debate again, but as you know, I uphold the Spanish civil war as a success in terms of aspects of organisation. Of coruse there is always room for improvment, but the militias were successful in fighting fascism until the Popular Front, whom had better weapon support, disbanded them by force.

In answer to your question, there have been no examples of a war won in this way. However, that doesn't mean there can't be.

redstar2000
27th May 2005, 18:13
Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)It's true what Celia Hart says - there's nothing to the left of Fidel. That's because he's not only the head of state and party - and Bonapartist mediator between all their factions - he's also the leader of the more revolutionary, proletarian element of the Cuban Communist Party. There are those revolutionaries who disagree with him on various points, of course.

But there is simply no social basis for a left opposition to the course of action symbolized by Fidel. That's the reason for the reality bemoaned by Redstar and others, that they can find no left opposition in Cuba, only a right opposition, whose social basis is first of all in Miami and Washington.[/b]

That's a succinct summary of our differences, no question about it.

Unlike any other class society in recorded history, there's no class struggle in Cuba anymore -- except against a handful of stubborn reactionaries.


Because it's the working class which rules in Cuba.

Signed, sealed, and delivered!

But wait! There are "revolutionaries who disagree with [Castro] on various points".

How is that possible? What would you do if you were a revolutionary who "disagreed with Castro" on some point? How would you make your views known to the working class?

And what points? Be specific!

Is it your contention that revolutionaries who "disagree with Castro on some point" do so only from the right? Because, by your analysis, there's "no social basis to the left of Fidel"?

Now let's look at another curious phrase that you used: Bonapartist mediator.

It was one of Marx's hypotheses that in certain particular situations, there would arise occasions in which no class was prepared to rule in its own name or directly in its own interest...giving rise to a Bonapartist despotism that would mostly serve the interests of the most powerful existing class but would also make certain concessions to other classes in order to "preserve order" until such time as that most powerful class was ready to directly assume power.

Thus Napoleon III ruled France primarily in the interests of the rising capitalist class but was also willing to make concessions to the peasantry and even the working class. After 1870, the French capitalist class was ready to directly take power in its own name and on its own behalf and no longer "needed" a Bonapartist despotism.

So I take it that your position is that Fidel Castro is such a surrogate despot who, you would presumably maintain, rules primarily on behalf of the Cuban working class but also makes concessions to the peasantry and even the urban small bourgeoisie in order to "preserve order" until such time as the working class is ready to directly assume power on its own behalf.

There is nothing wildly implausible in such a proposition; you could very well be right.

It all turns on the question, really, of whether or not the working class (in Cuba or anywhere else) needs "its own despot" to prepare itself for the exercise of power.

Prior to the example of Cuba, historical experience reveals that while despots have enjoyed periods of usefulness to various rising capitalist classes, they have yet to accomplish anything useful for the working class in terms of transferring power.

That doesn't mean that "it won't happen" or, indeed, that it hasn't happened (to some unknown extent) in Cuba. It could happen that way in Venezuela.

But I remain skeptical. Working class power seems to me to be fundamentally different from the power of an ascendant capitalist class. It ought to "look" and "feel" different.

You (and the links you posted) seem to think that the "measure" of Cuban socialism is wide-spread "harmony", social cooperation, and unity.

If we look at Russia between the spring of 1917 and the spring of 1918 (before the beginning of the civil war), we see something very different: great controversies about the shape of the future society involving the direct participation of the masses in public life.

By comparison, Cuba appears to be as mired in bovine placidity as a 1950s small American town...and not much more interesting.

This seems to me to be the typical "atmosphere" of benevolent despotism. Changes take place "at a snail's pace"...and only on the initiative of the despot and his associates. Mostly, people just "go through the motions".

I do not see how this "prepares" the working class to assume power after the end of "proletarian Bonapartism"...on the contrary, it seems to me to teach proletarian passivity and disinterest in public life altogether.

Since you enjoy taking a few personal shots at me in your posts, I anticipate a response from you along the lines of "you just like the exciting parts of revolution; the daily drudgery of building socialism bores you".

Perhaps that's true.

But a revolution that simply recreates drudgery in a slightly different form is unlikely to ever appeal to a modern working class in an advanced capitalist country. We have been "spoiled", you might say.

If capitalist fantasies are interesting and entertaining, we expect proletarian reality to be even more so.


Bugalu Shrimp
I recognize the flaws and imperfections of the Cuban revolution and understand the conditions that make it difficult to become an overnight communist utopia.

Whatever Fidel says comes from a vast experience in practical terms, of rebellion and struggle, and if not everything he says or does is "ok" - it's a lot more relevant in real terms than the spouting and pontificating of American schoolkids.

It's just as ignorant to dismiss offhand his policies as it is to unconditionally support them. Cuba and Cubans are more advanced in revolutionary theory and have more understanding of socialist programs in effect. They are living it [and] not dreaming of it.

Folks used to say the same things about Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Tito, etc. It's the "aura" of the "winner" effect: you're "not allowed" to criticize a winner unless you are also a winner.

After they lose, then it's ok to give them a hard time...losers also lose immunity from criticism.

I'm sorry but I don't find that acceptable from a Marxist perspective. Our task is always to critically examine every aspect of social reality "without fear or favor" of any country, ethnic/cultural group, political tendency, etc. We are not in the business of manufacturing "useful illusions" or "progressive myths".

We try to understand the truth as best we can...and then tell it!

About everything.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

VukBZ2005
28th May 2005, 01:05
1
Speaking of a Cuban Anarchist movement - there was one - before the revolution
of 1959. Cuban Anarchism existed from the mid 1800's - Anarchism came to Cuba
thanks to spanish syndicalists who were immigrating there. In fact the Cuban Anar
-chists were involved in the war for Cuban independence, fought against the Mach
-ado and Batista dictatorships as well.

2
Here is a online book that describes the Cuban Anarchist movement in better
detail; http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...n/chapter5.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/dolgoff/cubanrevolution/chapter5.html)
I think it is a very interesting thing to read about a movement that has largely
been ingored when looking at Cuban history so far. What do you think about this?

redstar2000
29th May 2005, 02:28
I think...


File Not Found

The file you have requested does not exist on this server.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

VukBZ2005
29th May 2005, 03:02
I fixed the link - I hope this does not mess up on ya this time!

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...n/chapter5.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/dolgoff/cubanrevolution/chapter5.html)

Severian
30th May 2005, 01:31
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:13 AM

That's a succinct summary of our differences, no question about it.

Unlike any other class society in recorded history, there's no class struggle in Cuba anymore -- except against a handful of stubborn reactionaries.
Oh, there's a class struggle...against the bureaucracy, most of all. Not only does the bureaucracy seek to extend its own (now relatively limited) class privileges, it's a transmission belt for the pressures of the capitalist world...

And there's some social base for the right opposition in Cuba...a large minority of the population outright opposes the revolutionary government. Especially black marketeers, unofficial currency-changers, all those people who make their living hanging out on the street in Havana. Plus a section of the bureaucracy.

But those elements of Cuban society cannot be mobilized...their opposition is based on fear and greed, after all. When they do join opposition groups, they do so mostly to get visas to emigrate, which takes 'em out of Cuban politics - as this internal U.S. memo complains. (http://www.nowaroncuba.org/Documentation/Hypocrisy_memo_on_Human_Rights_in_Cuba.htm) So the social base of the right opposition is first of all in the U.S.

You seem to think Castro et al represent the bureaucracy...and go looking for signs of a left opposition, and can't find any. And don't seem to have any kind of explanation why not. Maybe that theory should be reevaluated if it leads you to make wrong predictions?

While I think Castro and other central leaders of the revolution represent the working class...and not only is there plenty of evidence of workers' support for 'em, I have evidence of clashes with bureaucratic elements of the CCP.

The Escalante affair (search within page), (http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/policy/docs/frusX/316_330.html) and the second Escalante affair (http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/DLCuba/DLCuba.htm#7) and the Ochoa affair (http://www.walterlippmann.com/Cuba-after-ochoa.html)


How is that possible? What would you do if you were a revolutionary who "disagreed with Castro" on some point? How would you make your views known to the working class?

In meetings of the party, in the unions and other mass organizations. Possibly in the press - Celia Hart apparently writes for Juventud Rebelde sometimes. Write a book, like Carlos Tablada's book on Che's economic ideas (http://www.xs4all.nl/~peace/pubeng/inter/sorev.html), which opposes the current economic planning system as too reliant on market mechanisms and material incentives. That last should be an example of what views might be advocated, as well as how.


Is it your contention that revolutionaries who "disagree with Castro on some point" do so only from the right? Because, by your analysis, there's "no social basis to the left of Fidel"?

No, I said there was no social basis for a left opposition. To disagree on some point is not the same as going into opposition, unless you're a perfectionist.


Now let's look at another curious phrase that you used: Bonapartist mediator.
....
So I take it that your position is that Fidel Castro is such a surrogate despot who, you would presumably maintain, rules primarily on behalf of the Cuban working class but also makes concessions to the peasantry and even the urban small bourgeoisie in order to "preserve order" until such time as the working class is ready to directly assume power on its own behalf.

It's just a sometimes-useful analogy; one angle to look at things from. And you left out the bureaucracy; primarily the role of Fidel-the-Bonapartist-figure is to mediate between the workers and the bureaucracy and prevent that conflict from breaking out too openly in a way that, many Cubans fear, imperialism might take advantage of. The bureaucrats get slapped down when they get too greedy, but otherwise, they have their relatively secure place. Probably they fear "what happens when Fidel dies" more than anyone.

And a Bonapartist figure is not wholly (just partly) incompatible with democracy; on the bourgeois side there are examples like deGaulle or Hugo Chavez who are more or less Bonapartist while basically presiding over bourgeois-democratic republics. Maybe Peron?

As many people have demonstrated, there's a considerable degree of worker's democracy exists in Cuba.


But I remain skeptical. Working class power seems to me to be fundamentally different from the power of an ascendant capitalist class. It ought to "look" and "feel" different.

Sounds a priori. And I don't argue the situation is ideal. Nor should an ideal situation be expected under the conditions. Eh, that's unclear. I don't mean it's ideal for these conditions, either.


By comparison, Cuba appears to be as mired in bovine placidity as a 1950s small American town...and not much more interesting.

"Appears" to me you don't hear the evidence to the contrary because you're not listening. But then, you don't listen to working people in the U.S. or anywhere else, why should Cuba be an exception?

Also, you think a country can remain in turmoil and high excitement for 45 years? Most people wouldn't care for that. Most people would get...war-weary.

Nothing Human Is Alien
2nd June 2005, 23:36
On Internet Usage in Cuba: As I've brought up before on other threads, I speak to a few comrades from Cuba on messanger almost daily, so there is internet access available. As Sevarian brought up, many 'Internet Access Points' are limited to accessing information which is relevant to their purpose (oh the inhumanity!) -- other than that, the Cuban Government doesn't censor many, if in fact any, sites from the access of the Cuban People. (When I asked a Cuban friend she said she knows of no sites that she can't visit, no 'access denied' message has ever appeared on any computer she's used in Cuba.)

redstar2000
3rd June 2005, 02:01
Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad
As I've brought up before on other threads, I speak to a few comrades from Cuba on messenger almost daily, so there is internet access available.

Excellent!

So what are the controversies in Cuba now?

What do these folks that you speak with think about Castro's necrophiliac tribute to the dead pope? About Celia Hart? About the proposition that there is "nothing to the left of Fidel except the abyss"? About the "two-tier" economy?

What do they want to see happen after Castro and the others of his generation retire? What do they intend to actually do next?

I think it would be terrific if we could engage them in real discussion. (Severian's bromides have wearied me.)

Perhaps this would require a lot of translating work for you...but don't you think it would be worth it?

I'm assuming, of course, that they don't just repeat the banalities in Granma but actually have minds of their own and the willingness to speak plainly.

Otherwise, why would you bother speaking with them at all?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Nothing Human Is Alien
6th June 2005, 01:31
To be honest, a few comrades do just that, more or less. There is one however, a young lady that I speak to very frequently, who is very willing to be free and direct in discussion.

I have brought up some of the points before, and some that you have mentioned which I have not, I will bring up the next time we speak -- then I will make an attempt at presenting the results in English.

redstar2000
6th June 2005, 04:09
I await your account with great interest. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Nothing Human Is Alien
4th July 2005, 04:29
Update:
I have been in contact and should have the replies translated within a few days when I have the proper amount of time.

redstar2000
4th July 2005, 16:38
Terrific! :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian
5th July 2005, 04:45
I'd be interested in the Spanish as well, or you could possibly post that version in the Spanish section of the forum.

Nothing Human Is Alien
6th July 2005, 02:15
No problem.. im just waiting for an email reply to the final question.. my comrade isnt able to get online everyday so as soon as it comes i will post it, in english and in spanish, on their own threads..

metalero
7th July 2005, 09:38
Hi, i feel a deep admiration for the cuban revolution, and as soon as i saw this topic and the article attached, i felt a little disappointed, no from the cuban revolutionary process, but rather from the attitude that assume some people who called themselves revolutionaries. Leaving aside the historical differences between anarchism and marxism related to the organization of society under socialism, I think this kind of critics to the Cuban process come rather from anarchists lacking a class-consciousness who let see their ignorance about the enormous difficulties that the revolutionary process has been going through to build the socialist society, and they think the "castro regime" should clear the way to the popular power...i have a question, is there actually any anarchist movement in Cuba that has a better capability of mobilizing the population and spread class-consciousness to the mass that the actual Cuban leadership? or, is this kind of critic typical of "revolutionaries" enyoing all the privileges of the first world without a commitment to revolutionary praxis? are they too submerged in bakunin's and kroptokin´s theories rather than understand geographical and historical conditions to build socialism? the impossibility for cuba to develop at maximun its productive forces, due to tke economical blockade, lead to an impossibility of enjoying of maximun individual liberties.There is a binding relation between the development of the productive forces, the social relations and the level of freedom- understood as the ability of man to choose the means to satisfy his human needs-. Maybe thay think Cuba can enjoy of all the resources and means of production that USA does, or not going too far, Mexico does. After the called "special period" following the fall of the soviet government -Cuba´s main economical ally-, the cuban people show their great ability of resistance, based in the highest values of solidarity and sovereignty, and of course led by high levels of education and conscious of the mass. As related to your concept of State-Society relationship in Cuba, it seems that your sources of information como from some exiled group, if not CIA fact-book. The liberties you talk about doesn´t exist for popular mass in, for example, Colombia, Brasil and even some sectors in USA. However, every cuban can develop his human abilities and satisfy his basic cultural and material needs.
The cuban regular army, who you say has "militarized" the society, is only a part of the great abilities of cuban defense, also organized in popular militias, and basic defense military training to the population. And if a military invasion to cuba is unlikely to happen after the threats, the terrorists attacks perpetrated by CIA backed groups, and the actual agressive imperialist policy, then we can take history as an absurd. Anyway, i really think there are many elements from anarchism that could contribute to building socialism in cuba, but the practical limitations from some "revolutionaries" are only good to attack the works of Celia Hart, and to reduct Fidel to a simple "autocratic figure of the totalitarian cuban state machine", so sad...

Fidelbrand
7th July 2005, 17:05
not a bad idea, better than a capitalist paradise propaganda~ :)

Nothing Human Is Alien
22nd July 2005, 04:18
Well here is what I have so far:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...=ST&f=4&t=38187 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=38187)