Castro's Political Corruption

[CubaSocialista]

From an Anti-Castro blogger...

"Dear G:

I was undecided about placing your letter under my Castro Jokes section, but finally I'm reproducing it here.

About the similarities between Castro and Hitler I plan to put on-line a whole issue of CastroMania, but, let me tell you, I am not alone. Probably one of the first to discover it was Hugh Thomas, in his monumental Cuba: The Pursuit of Freedom. Georgie Anne Geyer also saw it, and is recorded in her Guerrilla Prince.

On the other hand, I agree that with you that Fidel Castro is doing more for the Cuban people than Batista. The problem is that, unlike Batista (who was short, of humble origins, and BLACK--are you a RACIST by chance?), Fidel Castro is only doing more for a single Cuban citizen called Fidel Castro! He is, without a doubt, the Cuban citizen who has benefited the most with the Castroite (counter) revolution.

The Russians, not me, revealed some time ago that he has more than thirty mansions, a lot of [female] lovers, a buch of bastard sons and daughters, and a safe full of Havana cigars he smokes when foreigners are not present. He has also several fat numbered accounts in Zürich. So, at least we agree on the fact that his fascist movement has been good--for him!

Now, about Castro "TRYING TO HELP," and that the "Cuban people [I'm not talking here about Castro himself], have food, shelter, schools and medical aid for everyone," Where do you reside in Cuba? Is Konstanz a suburb of Havana, or a new town close to Guanabacoa? I never heard about Konstanz when I was living in Cuba.

GIMME A BREAK!

Servando.

(By the way, you forgot one of the strongest points of the pro-Castro arguments: THERE IS NO PROSTITUTION IN CUBA! [HA, HA, HA!])"


What say you, people of RevLeft? Can we counter such arguments?

[enigma2517]

I dunno. Should we even bother?

I'm very optimistic about Cuba. They have the highest living standard of any third world country in the Americas. It is no coincidence.

This, in my opinion, is the result of "socialism" in the third world. At its best, this kind of idealogy (vanguard, anti-imperialism, statism) appeals to many of the oppressed in the third world and creates a benevolent dictatorship that is definetely preferable to the alternatives. More importantly, it "preps" countries such as these to enter the global market as a competing capitalist power.

All these are good, progressive things, given the situation now.

However, should communists defend Castro? Good question, I guess it all depends on what you give him credit for. Is he "building communism"? Maybe in the long (way long) run, but otherwise no. Is he and the party making important advancements that may one day manifest themselves as communism. Sure.

Ultimately, just look at the way people live. There are just less social ills in Cuba then there are in countries such as...Columbia for instance. Do some research and stick it in his face.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

False.

As has been pointed out here many times before by Castro's own enemies (do a search) he doesn't live much better than the average Cuban, and certainly much worse than other world leaders.


Added exile author Norberto Fuentes: ``The most avaricious cabinet minister lives no better than the average Cuban in Miami. He has one car, not two. An air conditioner in the car? No air conditioner.''


``They [Fidel's kids -CDL] have privileged positions but they don't seem to have many luxuries ... certainly not like the `juniors' in Mexico,'' said Latell, referring to the Mexican slang for rich kids.


Fidel Castro and wife Dalia live in a two-house complex in western Havana. The living room of the main house is described by visitors as furnished with simple wood and leather sofas and chairs and Cuban handicrafts.

The only luxury visible to visitors, said Fuentes, is a big-screen television that Castro uses to satisfy his interest in foreign news reports and videos secretly recorded by Cuba's intelligence services.


The houses of Fidel and Raúl are large but simply ppointed

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/fidel/castro-family.htm

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Also, about 'Fidel being the only one to benefit'.. can you ask him to explain the fact that Cubans have the lowest rate of poverty, inflation, unemployment and infant mortality rates in Latin America; and the highest rates of education, healthcare, doctors and hospitals per person, women in government, and life expectancy? [source: United Nations stats compiled by The Cuba Truth Project (http://www.cubatruth.info)]

Can you ask him how Fidel benefited from the complete and total eradication of illiteracy and homelessness (while the giant to north has lots of both)?

[CubaSocialista]

it's just whenever i find a good point made by my opponents i bring it here, because you guys are infinitely resourceful. thanks!

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:43 PM
it's just whenever i find a good point made by my opponents i bring it here, because you guys are infinitely resourceful. thanks!
What's more disturbing is that you considered that guy's blatant bullshitting "a good point".

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by Matthijs+Mar 4 2006, 09:03 PM--> (Matthijs @ Mar 4 2006, 09:03 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 08:43 PM
it's just whenever i find a good point made by my opponents i bring it here, because you guys are infinitely resourceful. thanks!
What's more disturbing is that you considered that guy's blatant bullshitting "a good point". [/b]
i did not consider it a good point. i did not mean to legitimize his words. however, his argument was constructed in such a close-minded sense that any argument to the contrary would be ignored/downtrodden/forgotten altogether due to the arrogant arrangement of his argument.

basically, he made an argument which he worded in prose to make it sound irrefutable. a "good argument" from an outside view. bullshit to the trained eye.

I, in no way, considered what this bastard said to bear any weight factually.

[Revolution 9]

Did this person even show any evidence, documents, etc., as proof?

If he did, that's one thing, if he didn't, you know he is obviously bullshitting and spouting out cappie propaganda.

As for my views on Castro, I believe that Castro is a good man and that he is trying to help the Cuban people. For some reason (perhaps beauracracy?) it isn't working too great, but Cuban socialism is working better than any kind of capitalism could.

[Abakua]

"I was undecided about placing your letter under my Castro Jokes section, but finally I'm reproducing it here"

Should have put it in the jokes section, a bitter rant from a homesick exile. Transparent hot air and unworthy of serious consideration. Castro quit the "puro's" ten years ago, he lives humbly and had always rejected even his inherited wealth - his fathers estate in Holguin.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

His father's estate was one of the first things they appropriated.

[bolshevik butcher]

Is Castro as in individual corrupt?

On that I cant say I know.

Is the Cuban Bueraucracy corrupt?

I'd say yes. I would also say that Cuba was not an example of the dictatorship of the protaletariat, and that the Cubans are a tad frightened by Chavez' emphasis on workers control.

[Fidelbrand]

I still hold the view that if a leader busts his ass, and in fact does actual good for his people, besides mere recognition, he should be entitled to some (not a large amount of) privileges.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:51 PM
I still hold the view that if a leader busts his ass, and in fact does actual good for his people, besides mere recognition, he should be entitled to some (not a large amount of) privileges.
some priviliges as in a car+driver ?
and a big house to recieve heads of state ?

well i think a car with a driver is reasonable so that the head of state can read documents etc.
a house in close proximity to the important branches of government is also reasonable.
but heads of state should only be recieved in government buildings not private residences so a big fancy mansion is not something a head of state should have.
anything that can be called a luxery that does not make him more effective in his position of head of state (say a well stocked private bar) should be denied.

but in the case of castro i think its rediculous to deny him his cuban cigars its the main thing i identify him with.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

He gave up smoking cigars years ago.

[The Return Of Socialist Dave]

What it is it with people blindingly following Castro? Like it or not, Cuba are far from being Socialist, because despite having a planned economy, industrys are not under democratic working class control. Castro is just another corrupt leader of a supposedly socialist society. He's no better than the USSR, he is not proletarian. He is almost a monarch.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, I've noticed that despite all the ultraleftists and anarchists here Castro has a huge following. Cuba isnt socialist, I would say that it is 'progressive' but it isnt run under a basis of workers control. It is a bueacraucratic state in many ways.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist
Yeh, I've noticed that despite all the ultraleftists and anarchists here Castro has a huge following.

Probably many reasons for that.

Some of us have been there...even recently. How many people here actually saw Stalin's Russia or Mao's China "with their own eyes"?

That "makes a difference".

Another difference might be that Castro is more "charming" than a "glowering" Stalin or an "inscrutable" Mao. Castro is "more like us" than those older figures reduced to "exotic" names in a history book.

Another factor might be that corruption in the higher levels of the party and the state apparatus is relatively restrained...it's not publicly flaunted in the way that it is in the bourgeois "democracies". We have our noses rubbed in our rulers' corruption with such regularity that the Castro regime looks "saintly" by comparison.

Then there's the "romantic appeal"...a small group of brave men take on a brutal and corrupt despotism and actually succeed in overthrowing it.

When it's "David" vs. "Goliath", who doesn't root for "David"? :D

Then there's the fact that Cuba has successfully (thus far) resisted all efforts by U.S. imperialism to reconquer the "lost province". That counts as a "big plus" for a lot of people here...who want to see U.S. imperialism defeated!

As far as I can tell, only a few fragments of remaining Trotskyism actually think Cuba is "building socialism"...and even that may be more of an emotional identification than the consequence of a political analysis. Trotskyism had no "winners" in the last century (unlike the Stalinists and the Maoists)...so it's understandable that they should "snatch" at Cuba as a "model" -- even if, in fact, it never really resembled anything that Trotsky himself advocated.

So there are "lots of reasons" why people on this board "like Castro"...or at least are quick to defend him against his reactionary critics.

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

[YKTMX]

Probably many reasons for that.


Yeah, and blatant hypocrisy would be right up there.

Yes, Kronstadt makes us blush, but 50 years of torture and labour camps, that's just fine!


How many people here actually saw Stalin's Russia or Mao's China "with their own eyes"?


Lots of people.

And they 'saw the future', and guess what? It works!


Then there's the "romantic appeal"...a small group of brave men take on a brutal and corrupt despotism and actually succeed in overthrowing it.



Fine, but why is it then that one of the main criticisms of the October revolution is that it was executed by a 'small group of brave men'?

Ultraleft intellectual bankruptcy?


Then there's the fact that Cuba has successfully (thus far) resisted all efforts by U.S. imperialism to reconquer the "lost province".


Fantasy.

North Korea has had much, much greater military and political pressure placed on it than Cuba.

The U.S. waged a full scale war to 'wipe DPRK from the face of the Earth'. It maintains thousands of heavily armed troops, primed on the Korean border. Yet, despite this, the DPRK has 'resisted'.

Does this mean we have a 'sympathy' for the Dear Leader, also?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't have time right now to reply to this all, but


As far as I can tell, only a few fragments of remaining Trotskyism actually think Cuba is "building socialism"

That's incorrect.

I can think of lots of parties and groups that consider Cuba socialist that aren't Trotskyist.

In the US you have the WWP, who are as Trotskyist as they are Maoist; the PSL, which is a split from the WWP; the SWP, which has Trotskyist origins, but as far as I know hasn't considered itself Trotskyist since Barnes' 1980 essay; the CPUSA which isn't Trotskyist (or even communist at this point :P).

In the Dominican Republic you have Fuerza de la Revolucion, which claims to be Maoist, but upholds the example of Che and Cuba as a socialist country.

On an international level you have the Free People's Movement which isn't Trotskyist.

There are alot of others, but I just wanted to make a point.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 5 2006, 08:06 PM
He gave up smoking cigars years ago.
yep. once again a good leader tries to actually lead by example in the interest of better public health.

you never see that kind of behavior in the ruling cliques of the US, where superficial dogma blankets corruption, hypocrisy, and corporatism...

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 6 2006, 12:25 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 6 2006, 12:25 AM)
Clenched Fist
Yeh, I've noticed that despite all the ultraleftists and anarchists here Castro has a huge following.

Probably many reasons for that.

Some of us have been there...even recently. How many people here actually saw Stalin's Russia or Mao's China "with their own eyes"?

That "makes a difference".

Another difference might be that Castro is more "charming" than a "glowering" Stalin or an "inscrutable" Mao. Castro is "more like us" than those older figures reduced to "exotic" names in a history book.

Another factor might be that corruption in the higher levels of the party and the state apparatus is relatively restrained...it's not publicly flaunted in the way that it is in the bourgeois "democracies". We have our noses rubbed in our rulers' corruption with such regularity that the Castro regime looks "saintly" by comparison.

Then there's the "romantic appeal"...a small group of brave men take on a brutal and corrupt despotism and actually succeed in overthrowing it.

When it's "David" vs. "Goliath", who doesn't root for "David"? :D

Then there's the fact that Cuba has successfully (thus far) resisted all efforts by U.S. imperialism to reconquer the "lost province". That counts as a "big plus" for a lot of people here...who want to see U.S. imperialism defeated!

As far as I can tell, only a few fragments of remaining Trotskyism actually think Cuba is "building socialism"...and even that may be more of an emotional identification than the consequence of a political analysis. Trotskyism had no "winners" in the last century (unlike the Stalinists and the Maoists)...so it's understandable that they should "snatch" at Cuba as a "model" -- even if, in fact, it never really resembled anything that Trotsky himself advocated.

So there are "lots of reasons" why people on this board "like Castro"...or at least are quick to defend him against his reactionary critics.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Castro, for one, was clever in avoiding the petty disputes over marxist interpretations that weakened the socialist camp with the sino-soviet split. This maneuver makes him more universally popular for us reds than soviet or chinese figures.

as well as the fact that he thumbs his nose at a nation run by crooks with alot of weapons only 90 miles north...

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist+--> (Clenched Fist)Yeh, I've noticed that despite all the ultraleftists and anarchists here Castro has a huge following.[/b]

He has a "following" within the British Labour Party as well. :huh:


Originally posted by [email protected]
....but 50 years of torture and labour camps, that's just fine!

I am tempted to shout "bullshit"....but instead, why don't you provide some documentary evidence of the "50 years of torture and labour camps" in "Castro's Cuba"?

Indeed, it is the lack of these, which is one of Severian's conditions for Cuba not being a "Stalinist bureaucracy" or "Russia with Palm Trees" or "Hell on Earth" and so on.


CubaSocialista
yep. once again a good leader tries to actually lead by example in the interest of better public health.

Perhaps he just went off cigars???

Anyway, quitting smoking is not "leading by example" unless your destination is the Alabama Baptist Convention.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Perhaps he just went off cigars???

Anyway, quitting smoking is not "leading by example" unless your destination is the Alabama Baptist Convention.

Well apparently he didn't just give it up, the World Health Organization asked him for a pledge to stop smoking:


Shanken: It's a noble sacrifice.

Castro: I did it for reasons of health, even though my health was OK. It was a moral duty to contribute to the campaign against smoking. The World Health Organization had a campaign against smoking, and we were the first ones to support it. One day, in the same place that we are sitting now, a representative of the WHO came here to present me with two medals--one for not smoking and the other one for the government programs after the Revolution, which have turned Cuba into one of the countries with the best health ratings of Third World countries in the world.

So, you see, I can't smoke anymore. My commitment is very strong. It is final. It is a kind of commitment that I can't change. Anyway, I may not smoke. I agree with you that there are many things that endanger men's lives such as traffic accidents or diseases. And many things can be done for health that are unrelated to cigars.

Shanken: If you and President Clinton ever get together, would you smoke a cigar with him, symbolic of peace at last between our two countries?

Castro: Now that would be an interesting thing. As I told you, when I was in the Sierra Maestras [mountains of Eastern Cuba] during the Revolution, and I had good moments, I would smoke my last cigars. Perhaps something like that would bring back my old habit from the days of the Sierra Maestras, but I would have to ask for permission from the World Health Organization. I wouldn't want to lose my medal.

You can read the whole interview here: Cigar Aficionado - Fidel Castro interview (http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,4,00.html)

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 6 2006, 01:35 AM
I can think of lots of parties and groups that consider Cuba socialist that aren't Trotskyist.

Yes, you can add to that the IRSP, who are also not Trotskyist:

"Irish Republican Socialists Show Solidarity with Cuban Revolution"

http://lark.phoblacht.net/WG2802068g.html

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by piet11111+Mar 6 2006, 01:35 AM--> (piet11111 @ Mar 6 2006, 01:35 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 04:51 PM
I still hold the view that if a leader busts his ass, and in fact does actual good for his people, besides mere recognition, he should be entitled to some (not a large amount of) privileges.
some priviliges as in a car+driver ?
and a big house to recieve heads of state ?

..............
anything that can be called a luxery that does not make him more effective in his position of head of state (say a well stocked private bar) should be denied. [/b]
An iconic leader, given his seamless efforts and wholeheartedness in addressing his/her people's needs and does them democratically, should not be denied from having a bigger house for his relaxation and well-being.

People can be altruistic ; but there aren't many altruists.

I always leave room for being led by someone more capable than myself. Throughout history, we can see a salient fact that people having leadership skills/charisma makes a difference. I respect the innate difference of mankind. And I leave room for recognition of it.

Saying " No, no no ! You are suppose to serve us and just do it well. Otherwise we'll pull you off office." It's sad democractic mania.

In socialism/communism, people are merited for their contribution for the societal good.

The left's jealousy for reasonable elitism, and sometimes - ANY form of leadership, I percieve, is a problem.

[piet11111]

i am opposed to any form of "leader" myself because i think we can run things ourselves.

but i do recognise the need of having 1 person to handle contact with foreign nations.
but this person should hold no authority whatsoever over internal politics in our communist nation.

[YKTMX]

I am tempted to shout "bullshit"....but instead, why don't you provide some documentary evidence of the "50 years of torture and labour camps" in "Castro's Cuba"?

Indeed, it is the lack of these, which is one of Severian's conditions for Cuba not being a "Stalinist bureaucracy" or "Russia with Palm Trees" or "Hell on Earth" and so on.

Severian's position on Cuba is exactly the matter we're discussing.

Otherwise discerning Marxists, indeed Trostkyists, who capitulate in the face of Stalinist tyranny.

As to evidence, HRW and Amnesty have lots of the stuff. And I know, I know, human rights organisations are tools of the Imperialists: except, of course, when they're not e.g Israel, Guantanamo, extradition etc.

HRW 1999: Cuba's Repressive Machinery (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-04.htm)

And I know they're agents of the bourgeoisie: except, of course, when they're defending the rights of American workers to organise

click (http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa_labor)



Now, my comment was slightly pithy. There's a couple of reasons why Cuban Stalinism wasn't as brutal, and didn't have the kind of vast network of slave labor camps, like we saw in the USSR.

1) Stalinist terror in Russia was conducted as part as a campaign of counterrevolution. The tyranny was aimed largely at the enemies of the leadership - those who 'remembered' too much about what the October revolution stood for. This was not the case in Cuba.

2) Castro was brought to power under some kind of popular support.

[bolshevik butcher]

I think the other thing about Cuban Stalinism is that much of it was enforced by the USSR. Although undoubtedly it isnt easy being a trotskyist in Cuba, I think it's much easier today than it was in the day when the Kremlin was on the phone telling Fidel to shoot trotskyists on sight.

An example of this is when Socialsit Appeal sent a deligate to an event in Cuba he constantly had a secret service man on his back but he was allowed to talk and enter Cuba.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Severian's position on Cuba is exactly the matter we're discussing.

In which case I will bow out gracefully and eagerly await Severian's response! :lol:

I am quite sure he has an arsenal of links on this very subject and will no doubt post them in the near future.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Mar 6 2006, 03:48 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Mar 6 2006, 03:48 AM)
Originally posted by Clenched Fist+--> (Clenched Fist)Yeh, I've noticed that despite all the ultraleftists and anarchists here Castro has a huge following.[/b]

He has a "following" within the British Labour Party as well. :huh:


[email protected]
....but 50 years of torture and labour camps, that's just fine!

I am tempted to shout "bullshit"....but instead, why don't you provide some documentary evidence of the "50 years of torture and labour camps" in "Castro's Cuba"?

Indeed, it is the lack of these, which is one of Severian's conditions for Cuba not being a "Stalinist bureaucracy" or "Russia with Palm Trees" or "Hell on Earth" and so on.


CubaSocialista
yep. once again a good leader tries to actually lead by example in the interest of better public health.

Perhaps he just went off cigars???

Anyway, quitting smoking is not "leading by example" unless your destination is the Alabama Baptist Convention.

:lol: :lol: :lol: [/b]
No, he did speak to his people warning of the health hazards of cigars, in the 80's. I can't find the statement though.

[CubaSocialista]

I remember that Fidel said in a 2002 or 2003 speech that if anyone could find "one case of the use of torture, force, tear gas", or abuse of human rights activists, that he would never speak in public again.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Originally posted by FULL METAL [email protected] 6 2006, 12:00 AM

Perhaps he just went off cigars???

Anyway, quitting smoking is not "leading by example" unless your destination is the Alabama Baptist Convention.

Well apparently he didn't just give it up, the World Health Organization asked him for a pledge to stop smoking:


Shanken: It's a noble sacrifice.

Castro: I did it for reasons of health, even though my health was OK. It was a moral duty to contribute to the campaign against smoking. The World Health Organization had a campaign against smoking, and we were the first ones to support it. One day, in the same place that we are sitting now, a representative of the WHO came here to present me with two medals--one for not smoking and the other one for the government programs after the Revolution, which have turned Cuba into one of the countries with the best health ratings of Third World countries in the world.

So, you see, I can't smoke anymore. My commitment is very strong. It is final. It is a kind of commitment that I can't change. Anyway, I may not smoke. I agree with you that there are many things that endanger men's lives such as traffic accidents or diseases. And many things can be done for health that are unrelated to cigars.

Shanken: If you and President Clinton ever get together, would you smoke a cigar with him, symbolic of peace at last between our two countries?

Castro: Now that would be an interesting thing. As I told you, when I was in the Sierra Maestras [mountains of Eastern Cuba] during the Revolution, and I had good moments, I would smoke my last cigars. Perhaps something like that would bring back my old habit from the days of the Sierra Maestras, but I would have to ask for permission from the World Health Organization. I wouldn't want to lose my medal.

You can read the whole interview here: Cigar Aficionado - Fidel Castro interview (http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,4,00.html)
^ read that

[Abakua]

To critique Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution objectively we must consider the effective war and seige of fifty years it was still-born into. The blockade was designed to choke the Cuban people into surrender, under these conditions some ideals are sacrificed but the underlying potential remains.

Fidel has been walking a tight rope since the very beginning, he has dodged bulllits and exploding cigars, he is the hardest working man in showbusiness.

[bolshevik butcher]

See it's all fidel this and that. That's the problem with CUba, I am not suggesting it's a dictatorship in the coventional sense, but where is the workers control and soviets in Cuba?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

and a safe full of Havana cigars he smokes when foreigners are not present.

I thought he quit smoking many years ago.



So, at least we agree on the fact that his fascist movement has been good--for him!

Fascist movement?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Regarding Guantanamo Bay. Is it true that the Cuban government ("Fidel Castro"), in 1959 accepted the check by the U.S.?

[Andy Bowden]

HRW supported the Venezuelan coup'detat govt, calling for them to "maintain order" when they achieved power and stop abuse. They didn't recognise that it's very takeover was a massive abuse of the Venezuelan peoples democracy.

Put simply, they have some very dodgy positions - and Cuba is no different, they defend the "human right" of CIA agents getting paychecks <_<

And YKTMX, do you seriously think HRW wouldn&#39;t attack the regime of Lenin and Trotsky for the Cheka?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

HRW?


and Cuba is no different, they defend the "human right" of CIA agents getting paychecks

What?

[YKTMX]

Andy, initially, I was commenting on people on the ultra-left who dislike Leninism but support Cuba. Or people who call themselves Trotskyists, but support Stalinist Cuba. I was pointing out their hypocrisy in criticizing things like the suppression of the White Rebellion at Kronstast, yet supporting a regime who have committed similarly &#39;repressive&#39; acts.

The Labour camps and repression in Cuba may well an understandable reaction to Imperialist pressure. That probably is the case.

What I can&#39;t understand is how the Cheka is unreasonable in face of open counterrevolution and imperialist INVASION, yet Cuba&#39;s repressive measures are, in their eyes, very reasonable indeed.

It&#39;s intellectually dishonest, as I pointed out.

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:48 PM
I was pointing out their hypocrisy in criticizing things like the suppression of the White Rebellion at Kronstast, yet supporting a regime who have committed similarly &#39;repressive&#39; acts.


and yet you haven&#39;t show any proof of a popular resistance or rebellion being repressed in Cuba. The only sources you bring are from human rights groups that considers the execution of 3 paid mercenaries to be flagrant violation of human rights. The report shows some truly cases of abuse of authority, but if you make a comparisson to other latinoamerican countries where forced abduction by state security forces, tortures, massacres, famine and extreme inequities are common, Cuba would be in the best place regarding human rights despise a brutal economical blockade and sustained terrorism from just 90 miles away. Ignoring material objective conditions when analizing social and political conditions in a society it&#39;s not proper from a someone who seems to know a lot about marxism, at least in theory.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I have only heard Fidel saying something very suspicous one time. Oliver Stone asked him how many prostitutes there are in Cuba. Fidel answered: "Look, it&#39;s very few" (in Spanish, of course).

Isn&#39;t that a blatant lie?

[Fidelbrand]

Adn heis ficuking frunk... man. Barcadi rules.

edit: Sorry , it was a drunk post. :blush:

[Karl Marx's Camel]

?

[McLeft]

I think Fidel is no more than a normal citizen, he speaks with utter humility and to the point, he doesn&#39;t rant about the good things and achievements of his government, he simply does things and lets it up to people to judge. The way I see Cuba is very different from many people. In the developed world we have been taught that Cuba is a dictatorship, CNN and the BBC picture a notorious regime, they always show the poorest areas with semi-naked children standing in the middle of the road with a nearly-collapsing building in the background and a well-dressed &#39;apparently&#39; neutral reporter in the foreground, these are the weapons of corporate media, don&#39;t believe what it says, it never tells the truth, it never tells of the achievements of the Cuban people who have so brutally oppressed by the all the American governments simply because they are Socialists. I think of Cuba as the climax of Communism, it has reached perfection but not yet to the extent of it acually being governed without a government, but with such a notorious giant located a few miles north of it&#39;s shores, can the Cuban people afford to be self-governed? No. Cuba isn&#39;t a dictatorship, it is a Revolutionary Democracy and Fidel is simply the caretaker.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

he doesn&#39;t rant about the good things and achievements of his government

Have you read/heard his speeches?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I think of Cuba as the climax of Communism, it has reached perfection


Prostitution is rife, the people do not have clean water, there are huge shortages in spare parts to cars and medicine. Blackouts are frequent (getting fixed as we speak, though). Schools lack pens, and I believe also paper. People lack (or at least, there are huge shortages) in the most simpliest of things, like T-shirts, chewing gum etc.

And believe it or not, huge economic gaps between Cubans themselves.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

execution of 3 paid mercenaries

Proof that they were paid?

[McLeft]

Prostitution is rife, the people do not have clean water, there are huge shortages in spare parts to cars and medicine. Blackouts are frequent (getting fixed as we speak, though). Schools lack pens, and I believe also paper. People lack (or at least, there are huge shortages) in the most simpliest of things, like T-shirts, chewing gum etc.

And believe it or not, huge economic gaps between Cubans themselves.

But who is to blame for this do you think? Castro? I don&#39;t think so, look up north and you will find the answer.

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 02:57 PM

execution of 3 paid mercenaries

Proof that they were paid?
The Responsibility of the Intellectuals: Cuba, the U.S. and Human Rights
By James Petras
"The left critics, based on U.S. State Department labeling, denounce the Cuban government’s repression of individuals, dissidents, including journalists, owners of private libraries and members of political parties engaged in non-violent political activity trying to exercise their democratic rights. What the “progressives” fail to recognize or are unwilling to acknowledge is that those arrested were paid functionaries of the U.S. government. According to the Agency of International Development (AID), the principal U.S. federal agency implementing U.S. grants and loans in pursuit of U.S. foreign policy, under USAID’s Cuba Program ( resulting from the Helms-Burton Act of 1996) AID has channeled over &#036;8.5 million dollars to Cuban opponents of the Castro regime since 1997 to publish, meet, propagandize in favor of the overthrow of the Cuban government in co-ordination with a variety of U.S. NGO’s, universities, foundations and other front groups. (Profile of the USAID Cuba Program – on the AID web site ). The U.S.AID program, unlike its usual practice, does not channel payments to the Cuban government but directly to its Cuban “dissident” clients. The criteria for funding are clearly stated – the recipients of payments and grants must have demonstrated a clear commitment to U.S. directed “regime change” toward “free markets” and “democracy” – no doubt similar to the U.S. colonial dictatorship in Iraq. The Helms-Burton legislation, the U.S.AID Cuba Program and their paid Cuban functionaries, like the U.S. progressive manifesto, “ condemn Cuba’s lack of freedom, jailing of innocent dissidents, and call for a democratic change of regime in Cuba”. Strange coincidences that require some analyses. Cuban journalists who have received &#036;280,000 from a Cuba Free Press -AID front- are not dissidents they are paid functionaries. Cuban “Human Rights” groups who receive &#036;775,000 from CIA front “Freedom House” are not dissidents – particularly when their mission is to promote a “transition” (overthrow) of the Cuban regime. The list of grants and funding to Cuban “dissidents” (functionaries) by the U.S. government in pursuit of the U.S. policy is long and detailed and accessible to all the progressive moral critics. The point is that the jailed opponents of the Cuban government were paid functionaries of the U.S. government, paid to implement the goals of the Helms-Burton Act in accordance with the criteria of the U.S.AID and under the guidance and direction of the head of the U.S. Interest Section in Havana. Between September 2, 2002 and March 2003 James Cason, head of the US Interest Section, held dozens of meetings with his Cuban “dissidents” at his home and office, providing them with instructions and guidelines on what to write, how to recruit, while publicly haranging against the Cuban government in the most undiplomatic manner. Washington’s Cuban functionaries were supplied with electronic and other communication equipment by USAID, books and other propaganda and money to fund pro-U.S. “trade unions” via the U.S. front, the “American Center for International Labor Solidarity”. These are not well-meaning “dissidents” unaware of their paymaster and their role as U.S. agents, since the USAID report states ( under the section entitled “The US Institutional Context”), “The Cuba Program is funded through Economic Support Fund, which is designed to support the economic and political foreign policy interests of the US by providing financial assistance to allies (sic) and countries in transition to democracy”. No country in the world tolerates or labels domestic citizens paid by and working for a foreign power to act for its imperial interests as “dissidents”. This is especially true of the U.S. where under Title 18 ,Section 951 of the U.S. Code , “anyone who agrees to operate within the United States subject to the direction or control of a foreign government or official would be subjected to criminal prosecution and a 10 year prison sentence”. Unless , of course, they register as a paid foreign agent or are working for the Israeli government. The U.S. “progressive” intellectuals abdicate their responsibilities as analysts and critics and accept at face value the State Department characterization of the U.S. paid functionaries as dissidents striving for “freedom”. Some defenders of the U.S. agent-dissidents claim that the functionaries received “scandalously long sentences”. Once again empirical myopia compounds mendacious moralizing. Cuba is on a war footing. The Bush government has declared that Cuba is on the list of military targets subject to mass destruction and war. And in case our moralistic intellectuals don’t know it : What Bush, Rumsfeld and the war-mongering Zionists in the Administration say -- they do. The total lack of seriousness in Chomsky, Zinn, Sontag, Wallerstein’s moral dictates is that they fail to acknowledge the imminent and massive threat of a U.S. war with weapons of mass destruction, announced in advance. This is particularly onerous given the fact that many of Cuba’s detractors live in the U.S., read the U.S. press and are aware of how quickly militaristic pronouncements are followed by genocidal actions. But our moralists are not bothered by context, by U.S. threats to Cuba immediate or proximate, they are eager to ignore it all to demonstrate to the State Department that they not only oppose U.S. foreign policy but also condemn every independent country, system and leader who opposes the U.S. In other words, Mr. Ashcroft, when you crack down on the “apologists” for Cuban “terror”, remember that we are different, we too condemned Cuba, we too called for a change of regime. The critics of Cuba ignore the fact that the U.S. has a two-pronged military-political strategy to take over Cuba that is already operative. Washington provides asylum for terrorist air pirates, encouraging efforts to destabilize Cuba’s tourist-based economy; it works closely with the terrorist Cuban American Foundation engaging in attempts to assassinate Cuban leaders. New U.S. military bases have been established in the Dominican Republic, Colombia, El Salvador and there is an expanding concentration camp in Guantanomo – all to facilitate an invasion. The U.S. embargo is in the process of being tightened with the support of the right-wing Berlusconi and Aznar regimes in Italy and Spain. The aggressive and openly political activity of James Cason of the Interest Section in line with his Cuban followers among the paid functionaries/ “dissidents” is part of the inside strategy designed to undermine Cuban loyalties to the regime and the revolution. The inter-connection between the two tactics and their strategic convergence is ignored by our prestigious intellectual critics who prefer the luxury of issuing moral imperatives about freedom everywhere for everyone, even when a psychotic Washington puts the knife to Cuba’s throat. No thanks, Chomsky, Sontag, Wallerstein – Cuba is justified in giving its attackers a kick in the balls and sending them to cut sugar cane to earn an honest living. The death penalty for three ferry boat terrorists is harsh treatment – but so was the threat to the lives of forty Cuban passengers who faced death at the hands of the hijackers. Again our moralists forgot to discuss the rash acts of air piracy and the plots of others uncovered in time. The moralists failed to understand why these terrorists desperadoes are seeking illegal means to leave Cuba. Bush’s Administration has practically eliminated the visa program for Cuban emigrants wishing to leave. Visa grants have declined from 9000 for the first four months of 2002 to 700 in 2003. This is a clever tactic to encourage terrorist acts in Cuba and then denounce the harsh sentences, evoking the chorus of ‘yea’ sayers in the ‘Amen’ corner of the progressive U.S. and European intellectual establishment. Is it simply ignorance which informs these moral pronouncements against Cuba or is it something else besides – moral blackmail? , to force their Cuban counterparts to turn against their regime, their people or face the opprobrium of the prestigious intellectuals – to become further isolated and stigmatized as “apologists of Castro”. Explicit threats by Saramago to abandon his Cuban friends and embrace the cause of U.S. paid functionaries. Implicit threats of no longer visiting Cuba and to boycott conferences. Is it moral cowardice to pick up the cudgels for the empire and pick on Cuba when it faces the threat of mass destruction over the freedom of paid agents, subject to prosecution by any country in the world? What is eminently dishonest is to totally ignore the vast accomplishments of the revolution in employment, education, health, equality, and Cuba’s heroic and principled opposition to imperial wars – the only country to so declare – and its capacity to resist almost 50 years of invasions. That counts for nothing for the U.S. intellectuals – that is scandalous&#33;&#33; That is a disgrace, a retreat in search of respectability after “daring” to oppose the U.S. war along with 30 million other people in the world. It is not time to “balance” things out – by condemning Cuba, by calling for a regime change, by supporting the cause of the “market oriented” Cuban functionary-dissidents. Let us remember the same progressive intellectuals supported “dissidents” in Eastern Europe and Soviet Union who were bankrolled by Soros and the U.S. State Department. The “dissidents” turned the country over to the Russian mafia, life expectancy declined five years ( over 10 million Russians died prematurely with the sacking of the national health system), while in Eastern Europe “dissidents” closed the shipyards of Gdansk , enrolled in NATO and provided mercenaries for the U.S. conquest of Iraq. And never among these current supporters of Cuban “dissidents” is there any critical reflection on the catastrophic outcomes resulting from their anti-communist diatribes and their manifestos in favor of the ‘dissidents’ who have become the soldiers of the U.S. Middle Eastern and Central European empire. Our U.S. moralists never, I repeat, never, ever reflected critically on their moral failures, past or present because, you see, they are for “freedom everywhere”, even when the “wrong” people get into power and the “other” empire takes over, and the millions die from curable diseases and white slavery rings expand. The reply is always the same: “That’s not what we wanted – we were for an independent, free and just society – it just happened that in calling for regime change, support for dissidents, we never suspected that the Empire would ‘take it all’, would become the only superpower, and engage in colonizing the world.” The moral intellectuals must accept political responsibility for the consequences and not hide behind abstract moral platitudes, neither for their past complicity with empire building nor their present scandalous pronouncements against Cuba. They cannot claim they don’t know the repercussions of what they are saying and doing. They cannot pretend innocence after all they we have seen and read and heard about U.S. war plans against Cuba. The principal author and promoter of the anti-Cuban declaration in the United States (signed by Chomsky, Zinn and Wallerstein) was Joanne Landy, a self-declared “democratic socialist”, and lifelong advocate of the violent overthrow of the Cuban government – for the past 40 years. She is now a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), one of the major institutions advising the U.S. government on imperial policies for over a half century. Landy supported the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and the Albanian terrorist group, the KLA – calling publicly for overt military support – responsible for the murder of 2000 Serbs and the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Serbs and others in Kosova. It is no surprise that the statement authored by this chameleon right-wing extremist contained no mention of Cuba’s social accomplishments and opposition to imperialism. For the record, it should be noted, that Landy was a visceral opponent of the Chinese, Vietnamese and other social revolutions in her climb to positions of influence in the CFR. For all their vaunted critical intellect, the “progressive” intellectuals overlooked the unsavory politics of the author who promoted the anti-Cuba diatribe."
Full article including footnotes here (http://www.rebelion.org/petras/english/petrasmay12003.htm)