Constructive Criticism of Cuba's policies

[Urban Rubble]

I started this so people could offer criticism on the way Cuba is governed, not to point out flaws, just to discuss. Make no mistake, I think they are doing great, I just want to talk about their problems. Small problems or large problems.

For example : A small problem would be that it is nearly impossible to get paint for your house, yet the goverment gives the "Union de Jovenes Comunistas" all the paint it needs to paint colorful "Socialismo O Muerte" murals all over the country.

A large problem would be Why Fidel restricts travel for his citizens. I've heard it's very hard for the average Cuban to take vacations. Fidel has publicly stated he wishes all oppsers of his system would leave, why not let them ?

Anyway, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm bashing Cuba, I think it's great, the citizens are happy and educated.

[FatFreeMilk]

There is so many flaws with Cuba and I don't even thinhk they are doing that "great"

[Nobody]

Cuba always seems like its a rollercoster. For a couple of years dissadents were tolerated, but all of a sudden they are all thrown in jail. Counter-revolutionaries, ok, throw them in jail, but poets! Cuba seems to lack consistence in how they punish people, if they do it at all. (But the shooting of hijackers is ok, you must show everyone that doing shit like that will be punished quickily and harshly.)

[redstar2000]

A small problem would be that it is nearly impossible to get paint for your house, yet the goverment gives the "Union de Jovenes Comunistas" all the paint it needs to paint colorful "Socialismo O Muerte" murals all over the country.

Well, I'm guessing that all-weather paint has to be imported for hard currency and the government cannot afford to import sufficient paint so that everyone who needs a paint job on their house can have one.

So, what to do? The paint that is used to paint all those murals could be given to a small number of people to paint their houses.

Which people? Communist party functionaries? Exemplary workers? Cubans who have access to hard currency and can afford to pay for the paint?

Perhaps painting the murals is a way of avoiding what would otherwise be some very tricky choices.

A large problem would be Why Fidel restricts travel for his citizens. I've heard it's very hard for the average Cuban to take vacations. Fidel has publicly stated he wishes all oppsers of his system would leave, why not let them ?

I don't understand this one at all. From what I've read, Cubans freely travel throughout the island and take vacations like everyone else.

Travel abroad is expensive, whether you are Cuban or live in any country. But if you have the hard currency, you can purchase a plane ticket to Mexico, Canada, or Spain...and from those places fly anywhere you want.

As to people who want to leave permanently, as far as I know, they are free to do so. The problem is that they want to come to the United States (because they know of the "sweet" welfare deals available for Cuban "refugees" in the U.S.)...and the U.S. won't issue the visas to allow them to enter legally from Mexico or Canada. This is for two reasons: the U.S. wants the "dissidents" to be forced to remain and hopefully form the core of a counter-revolutionary insurgency; and it makes Cuba "look bad" when people build rafts and try to sail the Florida Straits to get to the U.S.

I have never heard of Cuba punishing "poets" simply for writing "anti-communist poetry". But keep in mind that poets, like anyone else, may be doing other things that are a little more serious.

---------------------------------------

My criticism of Cuba at this point is that they are much too easy on religion.

The Cuban Government actually paid to restore a convent...and Fidel himself showed up at the re-dedication ceremony.

Inviting that Vatican turd to make a special visit to Cuba was just disgusting.

And Castro himself (a few years ago) made a speech attacking abortion which should have been widely criticized in the media there...and was not!

This is the sort of thing which one day will lead to an "Archbishop of Havana" blessing the arrival of the United States Marines!

:cool:

[Comrade Raz]

I'm never sure what to think about Cuba, I like to support them but recently i read an article in a newspaper over hear about Castro sanctioning killings of many journalists opposed to the regime.
Now normally i'd expect the article just to be western propaganda but it was in 'The Independant' which is about as left wing as the mainstream press gets over hear in Britain. And probably the only mainstream paper i have any respect for whatsoever.
If this article is correct this is surely a problem with Cuba today.
If not then please don't give me a grilling on how its all just properganda as i know this may be the case.
I'm just intruiged to learn if these killings really did take place or if it was have just been a few counter-revolutionarys killed and was blown hugely out of proportian by the press.

[Som]

I posted this on the castro thread in OI not too long ago, its fitting here too.

About Cuba's dependence on the USSR, it was more than just aid, Kruschev and Castro helped turn Cuba into nearly the same sort of colony as it was under us imperialism, just with a much nicer face. What happened was that Castro agreed to gear the entire economy towards sugar production, with what kruschev called 'socialist division of labor among nations' or some poor rhetorical crap like that. So instead of industrializing Cuba, or say growing... food, Cuba was again growing cash crops.
While this happened, western leaders that had previously bought cuban sugar, shifted it to other places, and Cuba become entirely dependent on trade with the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba lost something like 80% of its trade, and its main source of income became something that couldn't compete with a world market, forcing them to resort to tourism, and even legalization of the dollar.

Cuba definetly could and should improve in workplace democracy. This will only strengthen socialism on the island. Getting rid of centralized planners and coordinators in favor of decentralized local grassroots consumer councils, and federated worker organization.
As well as getting rid of the state managers and replacing them with workers councils, and syndicalist management. With this, I think it would be a much more accurate idea to move to the socialist cooperation like che advocated, instead of the more rightward swing of soviet socialism where there was often competition between industry.
Theres some vague sense of worker democracy though as it is though, theres often workers meetings to suggest ways to improve things, make things more effecient and so on, but its all nothing more than suggestions.

The dollar and minor privatizations also need to be dealt with, though i'm really not sure if theres a good way to do it. I know Cubas trade union advocates making it illegal again. The dollarization has made it so there are wealth inequalities as bad as america.

I do think Castro needs to weaken the grasp of the communist parties power, and at the very least, allow multi-party elections between mulitple socialist parties. The laws that allow arrest of dissidents essentially at the governments whims need to be discarded. Having 'disrespect' illegal is just completely ridiculous, as well as disgracing a national symbol and another incredibly vague law against 'counter-revolutionary propaganda' or some garbage like that. Cage up James Carson in the U.S. interests section and be done with him as well.
A multi-party democracy is needed to keep the power of government weakened, unfortunately it might be necesary to ban capitalist parties, and of course foreign funds must be banned.

The whole system could be a lot more open and democratic without losing its tenous grasp on holding the monetary interests back.

[Urban Rubble]

Hey RedStar, I don't have any sources or anything, so feel free to call me a dumbass but I've heard that it's really hard for an average Cuban to take trips abroad, even if they have the money. I don't know, maybe it's propaganda.

I think if they cracked down on religion then Castro and the commies in general would lose ALOT of support. I don't really see what harm the churches are doing right now, alot of them support Castro, especially the Santeria followers. I agree that letting the pope set foot on the Island was a mistake, same with Jimmy Carter.

[Pete]

No one who goes to church is allowed to be part of the Party in Cuba, which caused church attendance to plummet from almost all to 1% or so.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Comrade Raz on 6:38 pm on June 10, 2003
I'm never sure what to think about Cuba, I like to support them but recently i read an article in a newspaper over hear about Castro sanctioning killings of many journalists opposed to the regime.
Now normally i'd expect the article just to be western propaganda but it was in 'The Independant' which is about as left wing as the mainstream press gets over hear in Britain. And probably the only mainstream paper i have any respect for whatsoever.
If this article is correct this is surely a problem with Cuba today.
If not then please don't give me a grilling on how its all just properganda as i know this may be the case.
I'm just intruiged to learn if these killings really did take place or if it was have just been a few counter-revolutionarys killed and was blown hugely out of proportian by the press.


The Mirror and The Guardian is as left wing as the mainstream press gets here. The 'Independant' is slightly right. The are not independant at all though, they support the Liberal Democrats and it is blatant. I wouldn't trust any bourgeois papers, but I would believe that particular story, I hope very much that they do execute right-wing imperialist journalists in Cuba.

[Skate in Sandals]

I just read an article about Castro....Saying that he is having issues with some other guy called Payá...Didn't read any further, cause I was busy, but who is this guy? The article continued, some, saying that Castro had just thrown some of his aides and dozens of opposers into jail for extremely long periods of time (like, life...20 years....50 years...)

Now, I'm sorry, Cuba has a lot of things down right, like education and health care, and it's certainly done a fantastic job of surviving and even kinda thriving with the U.S. being all *****y, but a system seems flawed to me where you can do that. I dunno what kind of trials these people got or what, or how any of that nonsense works in Cuba, but to get thrown in jail for 20+ years simply because you oppose the government and have acted on your beliefs (barring killing people)....that seems mighty fucked up.

Don't kill me, I'm just asking.

[redstar2000]

Don't kill me, I'm just asking.

Ok, we'll let you off this time with a stern frown. But watch it! :biggrin:

Seriously, the longest sentence was 28 years.

And they were not simply "opposing the government", they were actively engaging in efforts to overthrow it while being on the payroll of the U.S. Government.

That's the "official story" anyway, and I have no reason to doubt it because the United States has done this kind of thing all over the world in the last 50 years.

There are many books on this subject; perhaps some background research on your part is indicated.

But easier than that is a simple approach: if the capitalist media says it, your first assumption is that they are lying.

You can save yourself (and others) a lot of grief that way.

:cool:

[Urban Rubble]

SkateInSandals, you made it !!

Everyone welcome him, he's my buddy from skateboarding.com.

[ComradeJunichi]

I support Fidel and Cuba with all my heart! :biggrin:

I agree with RedStar on the issue of religion. Inviting the pope himself(or Vattican Turd, lol) to Havana, is something I disagreed with.

My criticisms of Cuba? Frankly, I don't have any. I wish for Cuba after Fidel to continue to take the steps they are taking.

Those "poor-innocent-political-dissidents" who have been "caged and tortured", I have no problem with. Anyone who plots against the government, or cause terrorism, should definitely be thrown straight into prison.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Comrade Raz on 6:38 pm on June 10, 2003
I'm never sure what to think about Cuba, I like to support them but recently i read an article in a newspaper over hear about Castro sanctioning killings of many journalists opposed to the regime.


Others have responded to this and covered most of the ground but I really do want to pick up on a specific point.

You say that you read a report (in the Indie) which says that Castro has just sanctioned the killing of many journalists. Now did you ? really ? If so I cant trace it, and I'm kinda surprised it's being downplayed.

This is EXACTLY how BS gets started and it's EXACTLY how come so many of us here, and even more so in the states, manage to convince ourselves so thoroughly that Castro is evil. A true'ish story gets published about Cuba (almost certainly with a pronounced anti Cuba slant); then it gets distorted by the reader; then repeated; and suddenly it's 'common knowlege that he is evil. People become convinced that even if a particular current story is clearly not quite what its being spun into, that they have heard of true stories before which were, etc. etc. etc.

I'm assuming that what you are actually referring to is the execution of 3 terrorists at the same time (but with little other connection) that 75 supposed journalists (anyone can call themselves a journalist) who were undeniably in the pay of the USA (not even the US has denied this) were tried and sentenced to prison (not death) for subversive activities. In other words for spying and conspiracy to commit acts of sabotage. All countries would do this, let alone one as precariously positioned as Cuba. The US not so long ago sentenced 5 Cubans for something not so dissimilar.

OK actually it was quite dissimilar. The 5 Cubans were not even accused of trying to harm the USA. They were sentenced FOR WARNING CUBA, that CANF planned to commit terrorist acts against CUBA.
YES! thats right!!; the American government sentenced people for opposing terrorism - because the terrorism in question was directed at CUBA.

I'm not having a pop at you. But, as someone else said, your first assumption when reading anything about Cuba in western media shoul be that lies and distortion are present both in the article itself and in your mind when you read it.

The other common fallacy that people commit is to demand that CUBA (a fairly poor and definitely endangered nation) adopts a standard of liberalness and tolerance which only came to exist in our countries long after thay became both rich and secure. You simply cannot demand or expect this. Cuba ( and many other places in Africa, Asia, the middle east, and Latin America) are not in the same economic and cultural timeframe that the uSA and the UK are. You cant judge their actions according to 'America in 2003' standards because thats not where they are. The wonder with Cuba is actually that it is as liberal as it is.

(Edited by sc4r at 3:34 pm on June 11, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 3:40 pm on June 11, 2003)

[Kez]

Here the situation analysed from a class perspeective i found in my socialist appeal journal

http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/cuba_executions.html

comrade kamo

[Comrade Raz]

I'm sorry if i caused any confusion.
I was in no way agreeing with the article i read in the independant. I was just curious as to the truth behind the article.
After readng the info on the link Kamo provided i can now see that these were killings of worthless capitalists but the independant did not make it apparent that these people were evil tyrants it just suggested that they had moved slightly off the ideal Castro wishes to promote in Cuba.
Having seen the evidence i can now say that i do support Cuba even though it is not an ideal. i just wanted it cleared up.

The reason u may not have been able to find the article may have been that it was in the indepedant magazine that comes with the paper not in the paper itself.
I also never meant to say that the indepedant was left wing merely that it was more left wing than the majority of right wing trash we get over hear.

Once again sorry for any confusion comrades.

[Sandanista]

well i mean, use any arguements u have a against capitalism on cuba, it still fits really, remember fidel was backed up by the CIA until he called himself a marxist leninist which he may be, but he doesnt run his country that way!

[Som]

well i mean, use any arguements u have a against capitalism on cuba, it still fits really, remember fidel was backed up by the CIA until he called himself a marxist leninist which he may be, but he doesnt run his country that way!

Thats not very constructive.

[Sandanista]

neithers that

[Urban Rubble]

Sandanista, do you have any concept of grammar, puncuation or English in general ? Your post reads like something my 5 year old nephew would turn in to his Kindergarden class.

What point are you even trying to make ?

BTW, anyone who thinks I'm being mean to sandanista, the only reason I am is because he called me a joke in a thread that I hadn't even posted in for no reason.

[Kez]

im tottaly ignoriong the last 3 posts coz theyre petty arguments full of shit

What we must do in cuba is to give it constructive critisism, say it has best literacy, best health but not be blind by the blatant bollocks thats being goin on in cuba

the factories are old and inefficient
fidel is making an apartheid with tourists and own citizens, this is not a socilaist republic, but one in which it can easily be changed to be so.

What to do in my opinion is build a tendency within the cuban CP and argue the real points of marxism in it, for sure it has problems not being able to spread socialism, and being isolated, but with venuzueual maybe new openings will appear

FOR A REAL SOCIALIST CUBA!

[Urban Rubble]

Thank you Tavareesh !!

I forgot about tourism aparthied, what are the benefits in that ? Maybe that it will encourage tourism because the tourists don't have to interact with the "peasants" ? I don't get it.

[Sandanista]

yeah bcoz iam a 5year old who cannit shpel for peanuts, i celled u a jeke bucox u think ur a socuo;ist but ur an pettymashonahist.

Nah seriously we need to empower the cuban working class, and the worlds working class to have a true revolution, in terms of mainstream politics cuba have done fantastically well in terms of health and education,but in terms of economics and democracy they get a BIG thumbs down.

ONE SOLUTION REVOLUTION!

[Urban Rubble]

Well Sandinista, at least you tried using puncutation this time, too bad you used it totally wrong.

[Kez]

grow up both of u, no fuckin point, just discuss points in mature manner.
end the egotistical bull.

i think this threaad is ended really anyway, with the conclusion being that cuba is not socialist but is better than capitalism, and has a better chance of getting to socialism using the strucutres in place.

comrade kamo

[Sandanista]

Agreed kamo

[Urban Rubble]

Ya, but this thread wasn't about whether Cuba is Socialist or Capitalist. I was wondering what people think about this Tourism Apartheid shit.

[Kez]

well its bollocks innit

[Urban Rubble]

Yes, naturally, I just wonder what the government's "official" justification is.

[anti machine]

"I agree that letting the pope set foot on the Island was a mistake"rubble

The pope, interestingly enough, spoke of the evils of capitalism while in Cuba.

Didn't Castro shut down the churches for a time, then reinstate them? I know that Christmas was just recently declared a national holiday after 40 or so years.

I actually dated a Cuban girl who told me that the bellhops make the most money because they're tipped by tourists in American dollars. Castro has compromised in the category of currency, among other things. But he ultimately had little choice. Cuba has been isolated by the United States, and Fidel has bravely secured Cuba in the face of attempted economic strangling. Props to him, although Cuba is far from an ideal socialist state that some of you seem to boast it to be.

[Urban Rubble]

I fully agree that it is FAR from the perfect Socialist state. I never said it was.

I think Castro deserves praise, there aren't many people that could stand up to the U.S as succesfully as him.

[anti machine]

"I never said it was."

...then I wasn't referring to you...

[Emmanual Goldstein]

Agreed that Fidel is doing his best. I have read about a crackdown in Cuba, and I attribute it mainly to Bush's belligerent stance toward Cuba.

As for the dollarization of the Cuban economy, Fidel would do well to remember the old adage, "when you dance with the devil, the devil don't change: the devil changes you"

[Severian]

Quote: from Comrade Raz on 6:38 pm on June 10, 2003
I'm never sure what to think about Cuba, I like to support them but recently i read an article in a newspaper over hear about Castro sanctioning killings of many journalists opposed to the regime.
Now normally i'd expect the article just to be western propaganda but it was in 'The Independant' which is about as left wing as the mainstream press gets over hear in Britain. And probably the only mainstream paper i have any respect for whatsoever.
If this article is correct this is surely a problem with Cuba today.
If not then please don't give me a grilling on how its all just properganda as i know this may be the case.
I'm just intruiged to learn if these killings really did take place or if it was have just been a few counter-revolutionarys killed and was blown hugely out of proportian by the press.


This article is incorrect, if you're citing it accurately. (Got a link?) Check Amnesty International, Committee to Protect Journalists, anyone: Cuba does not kill journalists, and has never had "disappearances" or extrajudicial executions.

[Severian]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 10:24 pm on June 10, 2003
No one who goes to church is allowed to be part of the Party in Cuba, which caused church attendance to plummet from almost all to 1% or so.


The first part is no longer true. The second is no longer true...if it ever was.

If anyone wants to offer "constructive criticism" of Cuba, they oughta at least make those criticisms based on a knowledge of the facts.

But IMO the main thing to do is join the fight to defend the Cuban revolution, not criticize that fight from the sidelines. The main problem in the Cuban revolution is its objective situation - above all, the fact that it is alone, that there are not more socialist revolutions.

[redstar2000]

The pope's visit to Cuba...

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/22/pope/

As vile and disgusting as anything I've seen on the internet; not for the weak of stomach or faint of heart.

:cool:

[Severian]

Reflects the strength of the Cuban revolution. They're not afraid to let the pope come and express his views, even give him a platform for them, knowing that it will not shake Cubans' support for the revolution. But it did weaken Washington's international campaign to isolate Cuba.

At the conclusion of the pope's visit, Castro publicly offered the same opportunity to Clinton: come to Cuba, we'll put you on TV, you can try to tell Cubans how wonderful "neoliberalism" is. Clinton didn't take him up on it, of course.

Carter did, more recently. Again, a victory for Cuba over Washington's attempts to isolate it.

Have you read Castro's speech welcoming the pope to Cuba? (http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/pope.htm) Starts off by saying the pope won't be able to meet the descendants of Cuba's native population because the Spanish killed 'em all, goes on to his Catholic-school experience and the racism and religious intolerance practiced and preached by the teachers...

'Course, Castro does say "Holy Father, we feel the same way you do about many important issues of today's world and we are pleased it is so; in other matters our views are different but we are most respectful of your strong convictions about the ideas you defend. " And I understand that the idea of respect for people you disagree with is anathema to you.

And Cuban revolutionaries were polite to their visitor. Again, I understand that politeness probably seems like some kind of betrayal of Marxism to you.

Maybe it'll make you feel better to know that there were limits to this politeness: many Cubans walked out when one of the bishops said that the 1950s - that is, the Batista period - were the "golden age of the Church in Cuba."

(Edited by Severian at 6:38 pm on June 15, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Reflects the strength of the Cuban revolution. They're not afraid to let the pope come and express his views, even give him a platform for them...

This must be an example of the "dialectic" I never "grasped". To a simple guy like me, inviting the enemy to enter within your gates and recruit from the ranks of your own supporters is foolhardy...to put the best slant on it I can. Perhaps the Castro bothers thought they were being "clever"...who knows?

Castro does say "Holy Father..."

So did Gorbachev. Remember him?

And I understand that the idea of respect for people you disagree with is anathema to you.

It depends on what the disagreement is. Naturally, the idea of "respect" for a vicious reactionary bastard like the pope is, indeed, anathema. (Cute word-play there; anathema originally meant being formally cursed by a body of high clergymen.)

And Cuban revolutionaries were polite to their visitor. Again, I understand that politeness probably seems like some kind of betrayal of Marxism to you.

"Betrayal of Marxism"? No, that's too strong. Politeness to the enemy, however, really seems uncalled for. Outside of James Bond fantasy novels, the only really proper relationship with the enemy is unrelenting hostility. You can be as "polite" as you wish while you are accepting his offer of unconditional surrender.

...many Cubans walked out when one of the bishops said that the 1950s - that is, the Batista period - were the "golden age of the Church in Cuba."

I trust the Cuban internal security forces carefully noted the identities of those who remained.

And perhaps the implications of what the bishop said deserve your attention...like what they have in mind for Cuba's future "after Fidel".

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:43 pm on June 15, 2003)

[Severian]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:37 am on June 16, 2003foolhardy...to put the best slant on it I can. Perhaps the Castro bothers thought they were being "clever"...who knows?


A Stalinist concept. You think you can build a Berlin Wall around Cuba, and keep capitalist ideas out? As long as capitalism dominates the world, reactionary ideas will reach into post-capitalist countries...in fact the self-appointed guardians of the Wall are often the main transmission mechanism for capitalist influence.

Not only is it impossible, but the attempt reflects a lack of confidence in one's ideas, and their ability to prevail in open debate. Castro didn't "think he was being clever", he had confidence in communists' ability to win the "battle of ideas" in Cuba.

And they are winning it.. Contrast the effects of the pope's visit to Cuba with his visit to Poland a couple decades back. He did not pull together or greatly strengthen any counterrevolutionary political force in Cuba.

The visit did weaken Washington's ideological blockade against Cuba. All major class forces in the world recognized this. They recognized that this was a victory for the Cuban revolution, and a defeat for Washington. Some thought this was good, some thought it was bad, but everyone recognized this reality.

Similarly with Carter's visit. Among other things, it helped deflate the Bush administration's accusation that Cuba was developing bioweapons, floated shortly before.

Ideas grow from material circumstances. If you force them underground, you just make it harder to openly debate and respond to them.

And politeness is part of that. Civil discussion is part of workers' democracy. It's a political question.

[Urban Rubble]

I agree Severian, locking your borders to all capitalists shows that you are unsure of your own strength as a country and a political movement. It's one of the main reasons everyone is so scared of communism, they think that anyone with differing views will be thrown into the gulag or sent to the Isle of Pines.

I have a different question, what was the U.S's official reasoning to put Cuba on the "Axis of Evil" ? I'll assume it was bio weapons or nukes. Now, did they show any proof of anything ? Did they just put them on there and hope no one would say anything ? Are they still just pissed over the Bay of Pigs and the Missile crisis =) ?

[Sandanista]

I dunno, anyone who is different from america is seen to be a threat and i cant really expand on it coz ive got the flu

[redstar2000]

Ideas grow from material circumstances. If you force them underground, you just make it harder to openly debate and respond to them.

And politeness is part of that. Civil discussion is part of workers' democracy. It's a political question.

Yes, no serious person would question that ideas do indeed grow from material conditions. What are those conditions in Cuba?

You know as well as I that Cuba is an anomaly; an objective material analysis of Cuba would demonstrate that it "ought" to be a capitalist country.

Now if you find yourself in this rather unusual situation, what is your best course of action? The material conditions of your society will be constantly generating capitalist ideology. Foreign support of those ideas, whether from the United States or the Vatican, will only strengthen them further.

Is "politeness" and "civil discussion" the appropriate choice in these circumstances? Especially in light of the fact that, in material terms, you are very weak and the class enemy is very strong.

To adopt your hyperbolic terminology for the sake of argument, it seems to me that the "Stalinist" approach to pro-capitalist ideologies (including religion) is the only appropriate response for a seriously threatened revolution...and perhaps even for all revolutions that are serious about ending class society for once and for all.

Driving those ideas "underground" (that is, out of public discourse) will not "defeat" them, of course. But it will slow their progress...which is what Cuba needs at the present time.

Inviting scumbags like the pope or Jimmy Carter may have been "useful" at the "diplomatic level" (whatever that is worth) but had the real effect in Cuba itself of encouraging the pro-capitalist enemies of the revolution...as I think has been demonstrated by recent events there.

I also think your picture of workers' democracy is...well, different from mine. It's been many years since I last attended a union meeting (Communications Workers of America), but "polite discussion" is not the descriptive phrase that springs to mind.

Union Boss: "Now, people, I know that some of you want to hang me."

Shouts from the floor: "GET A ROPE!"

:cool:

[WUOrevolt]

I have two problems with the way that Cuba is governed.
1. The fact that dissenters to Fidel are arrested.
Why does the government do this? People should be allowed to dissent to any government they want.
2. The fact that the members of government are treated much better than the normal citizens.
Changes needed to be made to the Cuban government. I hope that when Raul takes power changes will be made.

[Danton]

Yes - Raul will make changes, he is far more hardline and radical than his brother...

Though at last weeks march to the Spanish & Italian embassies Fidel looked in rude health! So don't hold your breath el Caballo is here to stay......

The so called dissidents are organized by that worm Cason of the U.S interests section and the Miami mafia.
They have broken the law and been punished. Simple...

"Creemos en Fidal y en la revolucion"

[Kez]

Cuba: 40 years on, defend the gains of the revolution!
Forty years ago, on January 1st 1959 a general strike paralysed Cuba and forced dictator Batista to flee the country. In a few days the July 26 Movement guerrillas, led by Fidel Castro and Ernesto Che Guevara entered the capital Havana and were received as heroes by the masses. The Cuban revolution had succeeded. What was the programme of that movement? What was the social basis of that revolution? In order to understand these and other questions we must look back a few years.

In 1898, Spain lost Cuba, one of the few remnants of her former colonial power. But that did not mean independence for Cuba. The island was just transferred from one colonial master to another: the United States of America. For three years after 1898, Cuba was militarily occupied and ruled by the US and the Cuban Republic was only declared on 1902, after Washington passed the Platt amendment declaring the right of the US to militarily intervene in the island at any time. Cuban politics for the next 60 years were to be determined by the US who did actually send troops to the island on several occasions (1906, 1912, 1917, 1920 and 1933).

The Cuban economy was also largely dominated by the US. The island's main source of income was sugar cane which was sold at preferential prices to the powerful northern neighbour. Most of the country's sugar mills were in the hands of American companies and so were most of the other key sectors of the economy (oil, electricity, telephone etc). The crushing domination of the US relied on a system of land property which remained basically the same as under Spanish domination: a few landowners had most of the land, while the majority of peasants were landless labourers. Fewer than 0.1% of the farms represented 20% of the land while at the other end of the scale 39% of the farms represented only 3.3% of the land.

The only other group to benefit from this situation was the small and very weak Cuban bourgeoisie, confined to manufacturing the very few things not made by US subsidiaries.

Meanwhile the living conditions of the Cuban masses were appalling. In good years 25% of the workforce was unemployed and the percentage went up to 50% in bad years. Illiteracy was very high and the average per capita income was only US$312 (compared to US$2,279 in Delaware).

For years the Cuban workers played a key role in the struggle against imperialism and to advance their own interests. A high point was the huge wave of strikes and demonstrations, including armed uprisings and the establishment of revolutionary councils in the sugar mills, in the 1930s. This led to the overthrow of General Machado's US puppet government, which was soon replaced by an army coup led by Fulgencio Batista.

Stalinist theory

Unfortunately, the Cuban Communist Party, instead of relying on the revolutionary might of the Cuban workers adopted the Stalinist theory of the "two-stages". According to this, they were supposed to look for an alliance with the so-called "progressive national bourgeoisie" in order to complete the "anti-imperialist and democratic revolution" and only after that would the struggle for socialism be on the agenda. This theory was utterly divorced from Cuban conditions, and indeed from the real class relationships in any of the colonial countries. The Cuban landowners and the tiny bourgeoisie were completely linked to and dominated by the US. They had no intention whatsoever of carrying through the tasks of the bourgeois revolution (distribution of the land, fight for national independence) because that would have meant dealing a mortal blow to themselves.

The Cuban Communist Party in its search for a non-existent 'progressive national bourgeoisie' discovered Batista to be the representative of this class and decided to support him. In exchange, the CP was legalised during the Batista dictatorship and even got two cabinet ministers in 1942.

Batista was replaced by the corrupt civilian government of Grau San Martín which in its turn was overthrown by Batista in a second military coup in 1952. The succession of corrupt governments and military coups with the real power in the island remaining firmly in the hand of the US and their local crooks created widespread discontent amongst the population, including the petty-bourgeois layers. Thousands of small businessmen made bankrupt by the big monopolies, students who resented the domination of their country by a foreign power, and small landowners paralysed by the US-backed big landlords entered into opposition. In 1953, a group of students and intellectuals decided to do something to put an end to this state of affairs and with a handful of followers launched an assault on the Montcada barracks on July 26th. Amongst them were Fidel Castro and his brother Raul. They were defeated and jailed but as soon as they were released they went to Mexico where they set themselves the task of organising a guerrilla group, the July 26th Movement, which landed in Cuba in 1956.

The programme of this movement was that of the revolutionary petty-bourgeoisie: distribution of land plots of more than 1,100 acres with compensation for the owners, a profit-sharing scheme for the workers aimed at expanding the domestic market, and the end of the quota system under which the US controlled sugar cane production. The 1956 Programme Manifesto of the 26-J Movement defined itself as "guided by the ideals of democracy, nationalism and social justice ... of Jeffersonian democracy". The same document also stated the aim to reach a "state of solidarity and harmony between capital and workers in order to raise the country's productivity".

They launched a heroic 3 year long guerrilla struggle which won the overwhelming support of the Cuban people, with only the exception of the tiny handful of people directly linked to the landlords and US imperialism. The main base of the movement during the fighting itself were the landless peasants and small producers in the countryside, for whom the only way of solving their problems was the expropriation of the landlords. Batista's army, made up itself mainly of peasants rapidly began to disintegrate during the fighting.

On January 1959 a general strike was declared which forced Batista to flee the country. Fidel Castro's guerrillas entered Santiago de Cuba and in a few days Havana and proclaimed a new government. Just after seizing power Castro went to the US in a goodwill tour declaring in New York "I have clearly and definitely stated that we are not Communists... The gates are open for private investment that contributes to the development of Cuba".

The problem was that even this limited programme of progressive reforms clashed head on with the interests of the big landlords and the US multinationals. In other words, to carry through the programme of the democratic bourgeois revolution in a backward country in the epoch of imperialism meant to challenge capitalism and imperialism itself. This had already been proved by the practical experience of the Russian Revolution in 1917. The Bolsheviks had argued that the national democratic revolution could only be led in a backward country like Russia by the working class (which represented no more than 10% of the population at that time).

Socialist revolution

The workers, having taken power at the head of the other oppressed classes, especially the peasantry, would then proceed to carry through the tasks of the socialist revolution as the only way to ensure the survival of the revolution. But, as the national democratic revolution also challenged the interests of imperialism, in order to survive, the revolution had to spread internationally seeking the help of the mighty working class in the advanced capitalist countries.

Trotsky was the first one to give a full theoretical explanation of this theory which is known as the permanent revolution. The revolution in a backward country therefore, has to be 'permanent' in two regards: because it starts with the national democratic tasks and continues with the socialist ones, and because it starts in one country but has to spread internationally in order to succeed.

The events which followed Castro's seizure of power in Cuba are a remarkable confirmation of this theory, which is even more striking because of the fact that Castro was forced to act in the opposite way to what he intended.

As soon as the new government started to seize the land owned by the big landlords (some of them US companies) they tried to organise resistance against these measures and were backed by the US. The masses, aroused by the revolutionary takeover were also putting enormous pressure on the government with a wave of land seizures and factory occupations and strikes.

The conflict came to a head in 1960 when the three oil companies in the island (all of them US-owned) refused to refine a delivery of Russian oil to Cuba. The Cuban government then "intervened" placing them under government supervision. The US retaliated by cutting the quota for Cuban sugar, but Russia offered to buy it. Then the Cuban government decided to nationalise the electricity company, the telephone company, the oil refinery and the sugar mills. Afterwards all Cuban subsidiaries of US companies were also nationalised and finally the biggest Cuban companies were taken into public ownership. The US government retaliated by putting in place a trade embargo (which is still in place) and preparing military intervention to overthrow the regime. In 1961 all diplomatic relations between the two countries were broken.

As we have seen Castro and his comrades had no intention whatsoever of eliminating capitalism and landlordism in the island. They were pushed to do so by a combination of the mistakes and blunders of the US and the pressure of the Cuban masses. But the key factor was that no fundamental change could ever be implemented in Cuba under capitalism. In the epoch of imperialism there is no room for a small colonial country to achieve real independence and advance unless it breaks fundamentally with capitalism. And this, Castro and his comrades of the 26-J Movement found out by their own experience.

Overthrow

The Cuban Communist Party played almost no role in the overthrow of Batista because its political activity was firmly rooted in the anti-Bolshevik theory of the two stages. They even denounced Castro as a "gangster"!

Undoubtedly, the support for the new regime was overwhelming. Two hundred thousand workers and soldiers were organised in a popular militia and Committees for the Defence of the Revolution organised in every neighbourhood and every village. Thus when the CIA sponsored an invasion of the island in April 1961, the Cuban emigre invasion force was rapidly crushed. For the first time in their lives, workers and peasants had something to defend, something to fight and even die for.

The revolution enjoyed mass support since its advantages were there for everyone to see: an enormous advance of the living standards, the eradication of illiteracy, one of the best health systems in the world, etc. But without workers control and management of the state and the economy there can be no socialism and the development of bureaucracy and mismanagement is inevitable. This is on of the most important lessons to be drawn from the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The way the new regime had come to power was to shape the organisation of the new state. The working class is the only class that, because of its working conditions and the role it plays in production, is able to adopt a collectivist viewpoint. During the process of the Russian revolution hundreds of thousands of workers, peasants and soldiers went through the school of the soviets, revolutionary committees where all decisions were taken democratically, and gained confidence in their own ability to run their own lives.

But the Cuban revolution was led by a handful of intellectuals and in the process of the fighting itself no more than a few hundred participated. The masses played mainly a secondary role. And this situation was to remain afterwards. There was a workers and peasants' militia and revolutionary committees, but their role was not to rule but only to approve decisions taken elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands gathered to listen to the speeches of the leaders, but they were not allowed to take decisions.

When the new regime broke with capitalism the model it based itself on was not that of Russian soviet democracy of 1917, but that of Russia 1961 when all vestiges of workers control had been eradicated long ago. An example of this can be seen in the fact that the Communist Party was created in 1965, its first congress did not take place until 1975, ten years later!

Scarcity

The lack of democracy and the scarcity of basic products (largely due to the criminal embargo decreed by US imperialism) has meant an increase in scepticism amongst the younger generation. The older generation remains largely loyal to the regime because they know how life was under the domination of the landlords and imperialism and if they look around to the neighbouring states they see a cruel reminder of what life would be like if capitalism were restored.

Socialists all over the world have the duty to defend the Cuban revolution against the attempts of US imperialism to destroy it, but also against the attempts of European capitalism to restore the rule of capital bit by bit. At the same time we have to explain that genuine socialism cannot be established unless there is real workers democracy and above all that socialism cannot be built in a single island. The best contribution we can make to defend the gains of the Cuban revolution is to fight for socialism in our own countries.

by Jorge Martin
January 1999

(Note: the author would be very interested in receiving your views comments and criticisms on this article. Send them to [email protected])

[Moskitto]

Tourism "Apartheid" is common in any third world country, and to a lesser extent first world countries. When I was in Egypt we had armed gaurds who basically didn't care what we did, our own swimming pool, one of my friends fell ill and they gave him breakfast in bed. Similarly an tourist to England would spend their time in an expensive west end hotel, they wouldn't go to the east end or to poorer towns such as Luton.

[Eastside Revolt]

Personally, I think that the fact the Fidel doesn't just go and run a general election, shows that he has no faith in his own revolution. And to me it speaks the downfall of Cuba, period. It doesn't matter what Raul does.

[Urban Rubble]

I think Fidel would win in an election, who knows why he doesn't have one ? It would be a HUGE step in getting the embargo dropped.

[Eastside Revolt]

Actually I phased that wrong.
What I meant was that he should hold a general election, and then step-down.

[kiwisocialist]

There would be a huge cost involved in having an election in Cuba. Even then the US wouldn't recognise it unless it was involved. As a wordsmith once said of Cuba's neighbours elections - "a spectacle monopolized" - that is what an election in Cuba would be seen as by the west, regardless of the outcome.

Do you guys think voting once every 3-4 years is a democracy?

[WUOrevolt]

Cuba should just stop arresting dissidents:
1. It is a stupid idea. People should just be able to have their own opinion.
2. It is a waste of the governments time. They should just stop putting efforts into arresing dissidents and put their effort into providing for the perople's welfare.

[Danton]

These dissidents/agitators are engaged in illegal activities and have connections with known terrorists aswell as U.S intelligence.The protests were held in tandem with the recent hi-jackings, not to mention numerous bomb threats, ongoing assassination attempts and crop sabotage seldom reported in western media. Your misguided vision of these people as peaceful human-rights/freedom of speach protesters, poets and artists beggars belief. They are the loud minority who knew only too well the reaction they would provoke - looks like they acheived some level of success considering the reaction of liberals... However tighter sanctions merely strengthens Fidel's position.

Perhaps you should concern yourself with the real abuses happening on Cuban soil, namely Guantanamo bay........



"CREEMOS EN FIDEL Y EN LA REVOLUCION"

[sc4r]

Jesus are you people really posting on Che-lives and dont know that Cuba does hold elections, and arrests not dissidents but spies, terrorists, and paid agents of the US government !!

Please do a little research before posting uniformed opinions which belong on a liberal board.

[Red Comrade]

Decentralize Cuba and open up to consumerism!? HOW IN THE WORLD WILL THAT STRENGTHEN SOCIALISM!?

[Som]

Decentralize Cuba and open up to consumerism!? HOW IN THE WORLD WILL THAT STRENGTHEN SOCIALISM!?

By making it socialist maybe?

No one said anything about consumerism, just democracy.

[Collective]

All this talk of Cuba needing to hold "general elections" and establish "democracy" is complete nonsense.

Cuba is a working socialist democracy and one could quite easily say perhaps the most democratic state on the planet. The system of People's Power is extremely democratic and the right of recall and elections free from the influence of capital are something Cubans enjoy. The way that candidates are nominated at open public meetings and elected by secret ballot ensures that opposition is allowed to flourish. The reason it doesn't is that so called "dissidents" enjoy no support in Cuba.

Cuba's democracy is not a copy of a western model and it shouldn't be. Cuban democracy is built along Cuban lines to meet the needs of the Cuban people and nobody has a right to dictated otherwise. You have to remember that in the aftermath of the Revolution when Fidel mentioned elections in a speech he was almost booed of stage because they were associated with the corrupt colony that Cuba was before, subservient to US imperialism. While the Revolution was secured Cuba was ruled by direct democracy, large assemblies actually consisting of the people - up to a million at a time. In the 1970's the Revolution was institutionalised and this system was adapted. The new constitution was debated and voted upon by the entire population through workers assemblies. That meant that the system Cuba operates today is one developed by the Cuban people along their own lines.

Cuban democracy can be seen all the time. In 1994 when the economy was at its worst 80,000 workers parliaments were formed to solve the issue. That example demonstrates the sort of democracy they have in Cuba, where ordinary working people are involved in the every day running of the nation.

The Cuban people and the state are not at odds with each other. They are one and the same. The leadership and masses work together in their thought and action, something unheard of in capitalist society. As a result of this the actions of Cuba are the actions of the people and what might seem to be a lack of opposition is in fact just a product of the people being in control. Within the Revolution there is opposition. Opposition to the Revolution itself is not something that has significant support in Cuba, as it is after all a Revolution of the immense majority.

Cuban democracy is one free from money and consists of public nominations, comradely competitions and a state apparatus representing the whole of society. Far from being something to condemn, Cuban democracy is something to praise. Anybody who claims to be a communist or, as this site is named after Che, support Che should find themselves agreeing with the Cuban system and defending it.