Fidel Castro

[Ander]

Since the new developments in Cuba, I've heard many opinions being thrown around the boards about Fidel and his regime. Hopefully this will give me a good idea of the overall support of Revlefters once and for all.

[Aurora]

I do not support him,he is a dictator.He has helped the cuban people and he is much better then Batista,he has improved many things,but is still un-democratic

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

"Other" because I didn't just want to vote "no": He should've stepped down and led the country into (ultimate) freedom a long time ago, but I doubt he means any harm to the Cuban people; I think he's sincere.

[Whitten]

He's the true successor to Che's great Legacy, and thats why he's still in power.

[Black Dagger]

I don't support him.

Can't wait for the next Cuban revolution, bye bye dictatorship over the proletariat!

[Fidelbrand]

He did well in the globally-capitalist-politcal-environment.

I respect him from the bottom of my worrying heart...

Get well, please, abuelo Fidel. :( Venceremos!

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/uploads/av-3614.jpg

[More Fire for the People]

I support him like all representatives of the Cuban working class.

[ZeroPain]

He did well in the globally-capitalist-politcal-environment.

I respect him from the bottom of my worrying heart...

Get well, please, abuelo Fidel. sad.gif Venceremos!


Thats you in the picture then?

[Aurora]

I respect him as a revolutionary.

[YKTMX]

Never met him.

I totally despise the Cuban political and economic system he's created and dominated for 50 years, if that's any help.

hattip: janus

[Janus]

I totally despise the Cuban political and economic system he's created and dominated for 5 years
You might wanna add a 0 behind that 5. :P

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Same as Anarion.

[chitown_brotha]

well i'm not a big fan,butt i respect the man and like others few stated i think he doesn't mean harm for the cuban people i think he wants whats best for the country but still he could have done things better maybe,so i voted neutral and hopefully he is gonna recover...still the man isen't gonna live for ever and i fear for the worst after he dies couse i believe us gouvernment can't waite to get peace of cuba after fidel...asi que recupere pronto....

[Commie Girl]

:) I support him! Viva Fidel! :castro: :cuba:

[Enragé]

do not support him

i support the cuban people, not some leader.

[Clarksist]

I both support him for making Cuba into a very good nation in terms of healthcare, education, and housing.

He also allows quite a bit more freedom then the US media would have you believe.

But then again, he shouldn't be allowing more freedom, but complete freedom. I.E. there should be no state, no bourgeois elections, only the worker's councils.

So, I guess nuetral.

[Entrails Konfetti]

If he is a dictator he's probably the nicest thats ever existed.
I like him alot more than any of the other heads of socialist-states, well Lenin I half love half hate, but aside from that Castro yeah.
But I don't know if Cuba needs him anymore, the populace is well educated against imperialism and knows how to defend itself, and what to expect.
But to say "I support Cuba against imperialism" would be wrong because they are trying to implement socialism.
When crowds of people chant "Fidel, Fidel" they aren't cheering for the individual but the Cuban Revolution.

[Ander]

Thanks to whoever moved this to Politics. This is where I originally wanted to post it but for some reason I couldn't figure out how to make polls in this forum.

I voted "I cannot decide" because on one hand I see him as very charismatic and apparently loved by many of his people yet on the other hand I am critical of the lack of democracy that his regime is accused of.

[Enragé]

If he is a dictator he's probably the nicest thats ever existed.

as far as dictators go, i like him


the populace is well educated against imperialism and knows how to defend itself, and what to expect.

I hope so.
I hope they have not become desillusioned by what is, for all intents and purposes, not socialism even though it has that name. I hope that when fidel die, they take power into their own hands.


When crowds of people chant "Fidel, Fidel" they aren't cheering for the individual but the Cuban Revolution.

Well then why dont they chear "Revolución Cubana" then?

[PRC-UTE]

I support him for he's a true revolutionary and hero. But I think he should step down and abolish the office of president alltogether.

[Tekun]

Support him as a revolutionary and president of the CoS

Don't really like his long and unchallenged tenure, but if it wasn't for him, Cuba would be another Dominican Republic, or even worse another Haiti

Im confident that when he steps down, fair elections and socialist reforms will improve Cuba

[R_P_A_S]

i support the cuban revolution and a cuba free of imperialism and capitalism. I admire Fidel for holding on all this years and for making helping Cuba be the best ranking nation amongst the latin american countries. BUT yes like some people say I wish he'd just ease up a bit and allowed more freedom. because is not really all wonderful like some people think. but is not horrible like american tells us

[chimx]

i think anybody that doesn't support castro should be restricted to opposing ideologies.

[chebol]

While in theory I agree with Chimx, in practice such a thing is ridiculous. This is not a Castro-supporters board, but one for debate and discussion on building the left around the world. Plenty of people are victims of the bourgeois propaganda about Cuba, and of bizarre theorems that ignore the reality of the democratic construction of socialism in Cuba. It is our responsibility to convince them, not restrict them.

Naturally I support Fidel - because the Cuban people do, because the revolution in Cuba is one of internationalist, revolutionary socialism, led by the most conscious revolutionaries of that island - marxist and otherwise.

To put a metaphorical spin on Chimx's statement, anyone who is glad that Fidel is suffering and ill, and may die, ought to be taken out and shot. ;)

Incidentally, I have had the honour of meeting the man, very briefly. He strikes me as sincere and friendly. However, what matters from a revolutionary point of view is that in Cuba, it is not Fidel that rules, but the people. Of course the socialist experiment has not been perfect there, as is impossible on a small island, or in one country, but they have acheived great things with their limitations, and the cuban people will continue to do so, looking to Fidel not as a "ruler", but as a leader, in the sense of one who shows the way, who leads.

There is, and long has been, as many people are no doubt unaware, ongoing debate in Cuba about everything from discrimination and the death penalty, through to the nature and future of cuban socialist democracy. This is in the streets, in the magazines, in the Assembly and on the television. Fidel contributes to this, the Communist party contributes to this, and the people contribute to this, individually and through the community organisations and the organs of popular power. This will continue without Fidel. But none of it would have been possible without the leadership he provided to the Cuban people 53 years ago, helping them to make their revolution.

Viva Fidel! Socialismo o muerte!

[Janus]

However, what matters from a revolutionary point of view is that in Cuba, it is not Fidel that rules, but the people.
Could you comment more on the extent of this or how direct their power is in the Cuban democracy thread?

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 12:35 PM
i think anybody that doesn't support castro should be restricted to opposing ideologies.
are you shitting us?

[Janus]

I think chimx is either joking there or using support very loosely.

[RevMARKSman]

I can't decide. Cuban socialism has done many positive things, but it's not communist.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:41 AM

He did well in the globally-capitalist-politcal-environment.

I respect him from the bottom of my worrying heart...

Get well, please, abuelo Fidel. sad.gif Venceremos!


Thats you in the picture then?
I wish... :mellow:

[More Fire for the People]

I think that people tend to forget that Cuba is operating under a permanent revolution, and to what a revolution without excess is to want revolution without revolution.


Originally posted by "Zizek"
Is this not the attitude of the hedonistic Last Man? Everything is permitted, you can enjoy everything, BUT deprived of its substance which makes it dangerous. (This is also Last Man's revolution — "revolution without revolution.") Is this not one of the two versions of Lacan's anti-Dostoyevski motto "If God doesn't exist, everything is prohibited"? (1) God is dead, we live in a permissive universe, you should strive for pleasures and happiness — but, in order to have a life full of happiness and pleasures, you should avoid dangerous excesses, so everything is prohibited if it is not deprived of its substance; (2) If God is dead, superego enjoins you to enjoy, but every determinate enjoyment is already a betrayal of the unconditional one, so it should be prohibited.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Slavoj Žižek?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:09 AM
Slavoj Žižek?
That would be him. He's the guy in my avatar.

[Tarik]

I'm admirative toward Fidel at the beginning of the Cuban Revolution.But unfortunately, Fidel had grow his idea during the Cold War, so like everyone know, when we are not agree with a "Block" (US), we are with the other "Block" (USSR) ,and so we are considered as an enemy.
So I think that the weakness in this story is the history context.If there were no Cold War, I think Fidel were not become a dictator.What a pity for the Cuban Revolution, and many other revolution at this time (Lybia, Iraq, Guatemala, Chile, Angola...)

[GoRiLLaZ]

y does cuban-american feel happy when fidel handed over his power to raul?
wad does cuban citizens think of when fidel handed over his power?
Does cuban american have a different idelogy?

[Socialistpenguin]

Call me a fence sitter if you must, but I'm not sure where I stand on Fidel. On the one hand, it was not long ago on this forum that there were many threads and articles in support of Cuba and Fidel, saying how they have a fully-functioning democracy. On the other hand, there are still some on the left that oppose him on numerous points, i.e. his 40+ years of control over the island.
I&#39;m baffled. I can&#39;t make out the political situation in Cuba for the life of me, but in the face of over 40 years of imperialism from America, I support him, even if it&#39;s just to be stick in the mud for American government using "regime change" (I am of course, referring to Bush&#39;s comments about wishing the people of Cuba for "democratic change" of the country, and I think we ALL know what that means <_< )

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:35 AM
i think anybody that doesn&#39;t support castro should be restricted to opposing ideologies.
Usually I think what you say is smart, but this is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

That would be him. He&#39;s the guy in my avatar.
Ah, I see. Of course it is :)

I checked some pictures of him a few minutes ago... So you like him? I&#39;ve heard he has received some attention lately, getting more known?


I can&#39;t make out the political situation in Cuba for the life of me, but in the face of over 40 years of imperialism from America, I support him, even if it&#39;s just to be stick in the mud for American government using "regime change"

I think we all do support the regime in that sense?

Most of those who "do not like him" often still respect Cuba&#39;s achievements under his rule and Fidel keeping US hands off of Cuba.

I think the real difference is if you support the regime with reservation, or you think Cuba is a disneyland or the freest place in the world where both Donald Duck, Daisy Duck, Mickey Mouse and Goofy have a say in things.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+Aug 4 2006, 04:12 PM--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ Aug 4 2006, 04:12 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 10:09 AM
Slavoj Žižek?
That would be him. He&#39;s the guy in my avatar. [/b]
:huh:

i thought he was a capitalist liberal?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Aug 4 2006, 10:44 AM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Aug 4 2006, 10:44 AM)
Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 4 2006, 04:12 PM

[email protected] 4 2006, 10:09 AM
Slavoj Žižek?
That would be him. He&#39;s the guy in my avatar.
:huh:

i thought he was a capitalist liberal? [/b]
:lol: Are you serious? Check him out at lacan.com. He&#39;s wrote articles like On Belief: Leninist Freedom, Repeating Lenin, etc.

[Janus]

y does cuban-american feel happy when fidel handed over his power to raul?
most of them are exiles so they were happy that Fidel was sick as they felt that it was a positive sign.


wad does cuban citizens think of when fidel handed over his power?
They still support him and the government.

Does cuban american have a different idelogy?
Most of them are anti-Castro since they are exiles.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

They still support him and the government.

Most likely a correct correction: Most support him and the government.


There are 11,3 million people in Cuba. I&#39;m sure some do not support him and the governmnet.

[Tarik]

Certainly

[Orange Juche]

I voted "other."

I don&#39;t support him, but I&#39;m not on the other side either. I&#39;m sympathetic, basically. The style of "socialism" or the attempt of it I am quite opposed to, but I get the impression that despite some things I find quite wrong that Castro does, he truly does believe that what he is doing is in the best interests of the working Cubans.

[Gojo]

to be honest I don&#39;t just support him, I live "for" him and his ideas. I wouldn&#39;t hesitate to go that far to say that he is the person most jesus like since the begining of the christian era.

All those who voted against him truly don&#39;t belong to this forum, at least to it&#39;s name and appearance.
But those that realy disgust me are those that are neutral. That&#39;s one of the main things communism as movement can never allow it self to have and tolerate-being neutral.

and I know what will happen next now....some of you "true die-hard communists" will start all over again with your theory communism....so please spare me

[Xiao Banfa]

I support him unconditionally. He is an internationalist hero who helped the emancipated workers and peasants of Cuba survive the imperialist shit-storm.

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

How can anyone not support Fidel Castro?

He is a hero to the impoverished around the World.

Fidel Castro has sent aid, both militarily and otherwise, to many oppressed Countries. He has brought Cuba a long way.

Example : Che went to the Congo with 28 guerrilla&#39;s.

By 1987, they had 30,000 Cuban&#39;s fighting the apartheid South African government. They also sent teachers and doctors to Vietnam to help their struggle against Imperialism.

When Nelson Mandela had his inaugiration as South African president, he was the only one to get cheered by the black Africans.

Fidel Castro is a hero to the poor around the World, and you can&#39;t deny it.

:angry:

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Gojo
I wouldn&#39;t hesitate to go that far to say that he is the person most jesus like since the begining of the christian era.

How is Fidel Casto like &#39;jesus&#39;? :huh:

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:35 AM
i think anybody that doesn&#39;t support castro should be restricted to opposing ideologies.
Restrict away.

[Viva Fidel&#33;&#33;]

Fidel Castro is the greatest man of our time. I respect him for the simple fact that he has kept Cuba under a socialist society for almost 50 years. Even with the embargo, all the hurricanes, and the assasination attempts against him, he is still the man standing behind the podium giving speaches that move the Cuban people. Being a Cuban who lives in Miami, I see and hear any type of negative propaganda you can imagine against Castro. But I still stand behind him for making Cuba a better place than it was during Batista&#39;s disgusting and oppressive dictatorship. Look at what he has done for his people in terms of education and healthcare. Not to mention that Cuba has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. After the Soviet Union fell Cuba went through what is called the "special period". Which were the harshest times Cuba ever faced economic wise. During that period Fidel STILL stood behind the Cuban people and struggled to get rid of the "depression" they were in. But even during those days, the Cuban people still supported Castro and stood behind him. Fidel has turned Cuba into a country where most of the population support the Cuban Revolution and will fight to the death for it.

I will finish this post with something comrade solitary mind showed me earlier this morning.

"Cubans interviewed on state-run media Friday said they would fight to the death against any invaders from the north, while the Communist Party daily Granma said, “We Cubans are prepared for the defense” of the island."


VIVA FIDEL Y VIVA LA REVOLUCION CUBANA&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I respect him for the simple fact that he has kept Cuba under a socialist society for almost 50 years

How can one man keep a nation under "socialism"? That doesn&#39;t sound like socialism at all.

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:27 PM

I respect him for the simple fact that he has kept Cuba under a socialist society for almost 50 years

How can one man keep a nation under "socialism"? That doesn&#39;t sound like socialism at all.
its called by being its leader, unless you assume that anarchy is somehow the key to socialism?

[Viva Fidel&#33;&#33;]

Originally posted by Solitary Mind+Aug 5 2006, 08:41 PM--> (Solitary Mind @ Aug 5 2006, 08:41 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 08:27 PM

I respect him for the simple fact that he has kept Cuba under a socialist society for almost 50 years

How can one man keep a nation under "socialism"? That doesn&#39;t sound like socialism at all.
its called by being its leader, unless you assume that anarchy is somehow the key to socialism? [/b]
He said it best.

[Jiub]

I support him, although I do think he would do a lot better with Che.

[Zikan]

I support him. he is way better than the alternative. For now. I would like som alternatives tough.

Whatever the outcome of his illness its time for hime to step down.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Yet He is very historically important too - he&#39;s the last surviving member from the Old Era&#39;s leadership&#33; Before he dies someone must interview him/ he must write a autobiography, for without him the last part of a intense section of history is lost.

Ironically enough he might have even met/talked with Stalin&#33;

[Zikan]

He is interviewed in Oliver Stones "Commandante".

[YKTMX]

He is a hero to the impoverished around the World.

So is Mother Teresa.


He has brought Cuba a long way.

False. Since overthrow of Batista, Cuban incomes and living standards have fell relative to other countries, like Spain and Italy, that they were previously similar to. He has managed to maintain a healthcare system that is badly underfunded.


By 1987, they had 30,000 Cuban&#39;s fighting the apartheid South African government. They also sent teachers and doctors to Vietnam to help their struggle against Imperialism.

Great - so did the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union also butchered the Hungarian revolution and crushed the Prague Spring (with the "anti-imperialist" Castro&#39;s support). Accepting that Cuba and the Soviet were involved in a principled "anti-imperialism" is like assuming that America is currently pursuing "democracy promotion" in the Middle East.


Fidel Castro is a hero to the poor around the World, and you can&#39;t deny it.

Did you know that there were 5 rainbows in the Sky when Kim-Jong Il was born?

Oh, and Kim-Jong Il invented the electric toothbrush and you can&#39;t deny that.

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 12:17 AM



He has brought Cuba a long way.

False. Since overthrow of Batista, Cuban incomes and living standards have fell relative to other countries, like Spain and Italy, that they were previously similar to. He has managed to maintain a healthcare system that is badly underfunded.
Embargo...nuff said...anything else that you would like to state? You try doing better than he is..oh wait, the pressure of the embargo would be too much for you...your argument really does suck, all of because of that one word..EMBARGO....imagine the living standards if the Embargo were lifted...so try something else please

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Solitary Mind+Aug 6 2006, 12:34 AM--> (Solitary Mind @ Aug 6 2006, 12:34 AM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 12:17 AM



He has brought Cuba a long way.

False. Since overthrow of Batista, Cuban incomes and living standards have fell relative to other countries, like Spain and Italy, that they were previously similar to. He has managed to maintain a healthcare system that is badly underfunded.
Embargo...nuff said...anything else that you would like to state? You try doing better than he is..oh wait, the pressure of the embargo would be too much for you...your argument really does suck, all of because of that one word..EMBARGO....imagine the living standards if the Embargo were lifted...so try something else please [/b]
Oh right, so Cuba hasn&#39;t been able to develop a proper socialist economy because it&#39;s not been properly implanted into the capitalist world economy?

Thanks for clearing that up there. And there I was thinking Tankie logic had gone missing.

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by YKTMX+Aug 6 2006, 01:19 AM--> (YKTMX @ Aug 6 2006, 01:19 AM)
Originally posted by Solitary [email protected] 6 2006, 12:34 AM

[email protected] 6 2006, 12:17 AM



He has brought Cuba a long way.

False. Since overthrow of Batista, Cuban incomes and living standards have fell relative to other countries, like Spain and Italy, that they were previously similar to. He has managed to maintain a healthcare system that is badly underfunded.
Embargo...nuff said...anything else that you would like to state? You try doing better than he is..oh wait, the pressure of the embargo would be too much for you...your argument really does suck, all of because of that one word..EMBARGO....imagine the living standards if the Embargo were lifted...so try something else please
Oh right, so Cuba hasn&#39;t been able to develop a proper socialist economy because it&#39;s not been properly implanted into the capitalist world economy?

Thanks for clearing that up there. And there I was thinking Tankie logic had gone missing. [/b]
well it&#39;s hard when you don&#39;t have much money don&#39;t ya think? you read your marx a little more...Socialism isn&#39;t easy in a third world country (One word agian....EMBARGO)

[Yazman]

I support him. I don&#39;t buy the "lol he&#39;s a dictator" stuff as there&#39;s not really much besides consensus to support that.

At any rate, much good has been done for the Cuban people. Socialismo o muerte&#33;

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Solitary Mind+Aug 6 2006, 12:05 PM--> (Solitary Mind @ Aug 6 2006, 12:05 PM)
Originally posted by YKTMX+Aug 6 2006, 01:19 AM--> (YKTMX &#064; Aug 6 2006, 01:19 AM)
Originally posted by Solitary [email protected] 6 2006, 12:34 AM

[email protected] 6 2006, 12:17 AM



He has brought Cuba a long way.

False. Since overthrow of Batista, Cuban incomes and living standards have fell relative to other countries, like Spain and Italy, that they were previously similar to. He has managed to maintain a healthcare system that is badly underfunded.
Embargo...nuff said...anything else that you would like to state? You try doing better than he is..oh wait, the pressure of the embargo would be too much for you...your argument really does suck, all of because of that one word..EMBARGO....imagine the living standards if the Embargo were lifted...so try something else please
Oh right, so Cuba hasn&#39;t been able to develop a proper socialist economy because it&#39;s not been properly implanted into the capitalist world economy?

Thanks for clearing that up there. And there I was thinking Tankie logic had gone missing. [/b]
well it&#39;s hard when you don&#39;t have much money don&#39;t ya think? you read your marx a little more...Socialism isn&#39;t easy in a third world country (One word agian....EMBARGO) [/b]
This is a fallacy.

The embargo only affects the United States, plenty of other countries can and do trade with Cuba (including Canada for fuck&#39;s sake).



Solitary Mind
its called by being its leader, unless you assume that anarchy is somehow the key to socialism?

Haha, &#39;anarchy&#39;.

Wait, so you can&#39;t have socialism without a leader? The workers, the people are not capable of organising themselves? Worker&#39;s self-management is utopian? What does Fidel actually do that the people cannot? I mean yeah he&#39;s good at giving speeches, really really long speeches, but the revolution does not need a professional orator (sorry, &#39;leader&#39;), it needs the organisation and full mobilisation of the people. Socialism, and i assume you think that Cuba is &#39;transistioning&#39; (painfully slow as this may be), towards communism? Socialism in the marxian sense is meant to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, Fidel is not the proletariat.

That you assume that a single authority, a special &#39;leader&#39; is natural and infact required for socialism, and that anything else is &#39;anarchy&#39; (i assume mean you chaos, ye?), shows just how little stock you place in the ability of the Cuban people to control their own lives, in their ability to build and maintain a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat, in which no &#39;revolutionary&#39; is placed above this process and lauded as the revolutions &#39;protector&#39;.

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:17 PM

He is a hero to the impoverished around the World.

So is Mother Teresa.


He has brought Cuba a long way.

False. Since overthrow of Batista, Cuban incomes and living standards have fell relative to other countries, like Spain and Italy, that they were previously similar to. He has managed to maintain a healthcare system that is badly underfunded.


By 1987, they had 30,000 Cuban&#39;s fighting the apartheid South African government. They also sent teachers and doctors to Vietnam to help their struggle against Imperialism.

Great - so did the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union also butchered the Hungarian revolution and crushed the Prague Spring (with the "anti-imperialist" Castro&#39;s support). Accepting that Cuba and the Soviet were involved in a principled "anti-imperialism" is like assuming that America is currently pursuing "democracy promotion" in the Middle East.


Fidel Castro is a hero to the poor around the World, and you can&#39;t deny it.

Did you know that there were 5 rainbows in the Sky when Kim-Jong Il was born?

Oh, and Kim-Jong Il invented the electric toothbrush and you can&#39;t deny that.
Moreover how do Binns and Gonzalez imagine that a nationalisation programme of this sort can be implemented if not through the massive intervention, either of the workers themselves or of some external agency. In Cuba the Rebel Army played an important role in carrying through the Agrarian Reform of 1959, but when it came to the nationalisation of hundreds of sugar mills, of thousands of miles of railways, of electricity generating plant, telephone exchanges, television stations. newspapers, oil refineries, textile works and food processing plants, the task was quite beyond it. In most cases the nationalisation decree was implemented by the workers of the enterprise themselves who nominated an administrator from their own ranks. Much of the process of nationalisation in Cuba in the years 1959-60) anticipates what was to be seen in Portugal in the years 1974-5; Cuba had its saneamento, though it was more thorough than in Portugal. Prior to nationalisation of the newspapers the Cuban printers took to running colatiulas, or “tails”, beneath editorials or news reports which attacked the revolution. There was, then, a vitally important intervention by the masses in the revolutionary process. At the same time it is evident that the revolution was successful without soviets or workers councils. The old order was sufficiently rotten to be swept away by a popular movement which had not developed the higher forms of proletarian organisation. Instead there were Committees for the Defence of the Revolution. and a massive popular militia, with initiative residing with the leadership around Fidel Castro. Thus from its inception the Cuban revolution was marked, and limited, by the absence of an institutionalised socialist democracy. But to say this is not to concur with the absurd claim by Binns and Gonzalez that “the Cuban masses did not make the Cuban revolution.” (p.33) [2]

[I]...The purely opportunist party members would certainly have dropped out after the campaigns of official harassment. As for the thoroughly Stalinist central leadership their control over their own membership was destroyed by the audacious revolutionary policy adopted by Fidel Castro. By pursuing a model “united front” tactic with the PSP Fidel Castro ensured that the weight of several thousand working class activists was thrown on the side of the revolution, and that much of what was valuable in Cuba’s strong Communist tradition, was recuperated..The April proclamation that Cuba was making a socialist revolution came in the midst of the US sponsored invasion of the island at the Bay of Pigs. It is inconceivable that, at a moment when the revolution was in mortal danger, Fidel Castro would have taken this stand unless he was secure in the knowledge that it corresponded to the wishes of those who were mobilising to defend the revolution, The Cuban workers and peasants had by this time seized all important means of production; teachers, doctors, writers and film makers were discovering a new social role; youth, blacks and women found new possibilities and responsibilities open to them. Long before Fidel’s April speech the mass of Cubans were speaking of socialism: in the years 1960 and 1961 the basic works of Marx and Lenin sold in editions of hundreds of thousands. This was not the official “socialism from above” found in the rhetoric of so many Third World governments; rather it was a recognition, coming from the masses themselves well in advance of official declarations, that only socialism made sense of the class struggles they had been through and of the future of a planned, collectively appropriated system of production..

Check the article (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53862) for a deep class analisys on Cuba revolutionary process absent from the "puritanism" you criticize so much when refering to support islamic resistance movements.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Consider all the acheivements in Cuba - one of the longest life expectencies in the third world; completely free education; one of the best medical services even recognized by the WHO..all done without access to American markets.

If that&#39;s not success, I don&#39;t know what is. And no other country can say the same.

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 6 2006, 11:20 AM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 6 2006, 11:20 AM)
Originally posted by Solitary Mind+Aug 6 2006, 12:05 PM--> (Solitary Mind &#064; Aug 6 2006, 12:05 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Solitary [email protected] 6 2006, 12:34 AM

[email protected] 6 2006, 12:17 AM



He has brought Cuba a long way.

False. Since overthrow of Batista, Cuban incomes and living standards have fell relative to other countries, like Spain and Italy, that they were previously similar to. He has managed to maintain a healthcare system that is badly underfunded.
Embargo...nuff said...anything else that you would like to state? You try doing better than he is..oh wait, the pressure of the embargo would be too much for you...your argument really does suck, all of because of that one word..EMBARGO....imagine the living standards if the Embargo were lifted...so try something else please
Oh right, so Cuba hasn&#39;t been able to develop a proper socialist economy because it&#39;s not been properly implanted into the capitalist world economy?

Thanks for clearing that up there. And there I was thinking Tankie logic had gone missing.
well it&#39;s hard when you don&#39;t have much money don&#39;t ya think? you read your marx a little more...Socialism isn&#39;t easy in a third world country (One word agian....EMBARGO) [/b]
This is a fallacy.

The embargo only affects the United States, plenty of other countries can and do trade with Cuba (including Canada for fuck&#39;s sake).



Solitary Mind
its called by being its leader, unless you assume that anarchy is somehow the key to socialism?

Haha, &#39;anarchy&#39;.

Wait, so you can&#39;t have socialism without a leader? The workers, the people are not capable of organising themselves? Worker&#39;s self-management is utopian? What does Fidel actually do that the people cannot? I mean yeah he&#39;s good at giving speeches, really really long speeches, but the revolution does not need a professional orator (sorry, &#39;leader&#39;), it needs the organisation and full mobilisation of the people. Socialism, and i assume you think that Cuba is &#39;transistioning&#39; (painfully slow as this may be), towards communism? Socialism in the marxian sense is meant to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, Fidel is not the proletariat.

That you assume that a single authority, a special &#39;leader&#39; is natural and infact required for socialism, and that anything else is &#39;anarchy&#39; (i assume mean you chaos, ye?), shows just how little stock you place in the ability of the Cuban people to control their own lives, in their ability to build and maintain a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat, in which no &#39;revolutionary&#39; is placed above this process and lauded as the revolutions &#39;protector&#39;. [/b]
You seem to forget that the United States is the number one trade port in the world, and some countries won&#39;t trade with Cuba becuase of the wrath of the big bad US. Well in saying theres no leader then your talking about Anarchy in which the people govern themselves, correct? So yes, you assume that Anarchy is the way, so your an Anarchist i suppose then. maybe you should visit Cuba to see what castro has done. He&#39;s improved Sanitation, Protien and Calorie intake, Literacy rate by almost 50%, Health Care, The Education System. But no, He&#39;s done NOTHING..you should try talking to a Cuban sometime, or at least reading, it works you know. Oh and read alot on the Embargo, that&#39;s where you have the least knowledge. You seem to think that no trade with the Number one trade port means nothing. This also affects them by the way, because other countries won&#39;t buy their supplies because the United States doesn&#39;t buy products from other countries that have Cuban parts in them...you should read a little.

[Quills]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 6 2006, 11:20 AM

The embargo only affects the United States, plenty of other countries can and do trade with Cuba (including Canada for fuck&#39;s sake).

Companies that work with/buy from Cuba, or ever have in the past, cannot ever sell their products in the U.S.
Ships and airplanes that go to Cuba can&#39;t travel to the U.S. for 9(?) months.
Anything with even one part made in Cuba (i.e. a car with one bolt made in Cuba) can never be sold in the U.S.
And so on.

Basically companies have to chose between trading with Cuba and trading with the US. The effects of this are crippling.

That being said my feelings on Castro are mixed. Although I do not believe him to be a dictator, Cuban &#39;State-Socialism&#39; is not my idea of a perfect society by a long shot. Centralised power, in my opinion, is always authoritarian, and &#39;transitional socialism&#39; never seem to progress to anything more. Aside from this Cuba has done remarkably well considering the pressure against it, and is however marginally better than the liberal democratic systems of the west.

[Global_Justice]

he is a dictator. but i respect him. i wish he would stand down as i dislike his leadership. however, i hope in 50 years time when cuba is still socialist and much richer because of socialist allies in south america, he will be remembered as the man that started it all

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

If it weren&#39;t for Fidel&#39;s leadership, the country would not be where it is at right now...I think many of you who are criticizing the man are overlooking where Cuba has gone as a result of him being in power for nearly 50 years. He knows what he&#39;s doing...and he&#39;s doing it very well.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Agreed - He is like the Julius Caesar of our modern times :)

Helping the Poor, Beating down on the Rich, and a tough nut also.

[Martin Blank]

I had to vote "Other".

On the one hand, I support the Cuban Revolution and what it has done for the people, and in that sense support Castro. The political and economic system he has helped to create generally take the form of an underdeveloped working people&#39;s republic and follow the principles of such a republic as outlined by Marx (and Lenin, to a certain extent).

On the other hand, Castro&#39;s role in this system has been to maintain a balance between the working class and petty bourgeoisie. The events inside the The Island since Castro stepped down temporarily -- most notably the divisions between the government and the Communist Party -- point to a phase of class struggle that is long overdue for resolution. In that sense, I cannot support Castro and his attempts at holding off the final sweeping of the petty bourgeoisie from its positions.

Miles

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The embargo only affects the United States, plenty of other countries can and do trade with Cuba (including Canada for fuck&#39;s sake).

WRONG&#33; Why would you comment on something you know nothing about?

The embargo limits trading with the entire world.

Any plane or boat that travels to Cuba is barred from entering the U.S. for a long time afterwards.

Any company that does anything with Cuba cannot operate in the U.S. or with a U.S. entity.

Anything with even a Cuban part in it cannot be sold in the U.S. (the world&#39;s largest market). For instance, if a car is made with a Cuban-made bolt in the engine, it can&#39;t be sold in the U.S..

Many of the U.S.&#39;s "allies" and "neo-colonies" honor the embargo.

See: How has the US trade and economic blockade affected the Cuban economy? (PDF) (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/faqdocs/USBlockade.pdf)

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:07 PM
He did well in the globally-capitalist-politcal-environment.

I respect him from the bottom of my worrying heart...

Get well, please, abuelo Fidel. :( Venceremos&#33;

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/uploads/av-3614.jpg
I agree he is a wonderful teacher and leader, although I do not agree with his executions of the military in the begining of his rein through his brother Raul. The bankrupting of low level pensions into the federal economy and the acceptance of Soviet ideals whole hog including the abuses to maintain the 8 million ton sugar harvests.

However, for a leader who has been in power 50 years he has done much more good than harm very different than the current leaders of certain nations.

He has made himself ill going out to oppressed nations to rally the poor and oppressed to stand behind their unions and has taught countless people the virtues of Communism first hand. I only wish Che were there beside him.

[working_class_warrior]

the idea that the living standard on cuba was higher before the revolution is a lie pure and simple.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, but you gotta give em credit.. the anti-communism of some here matches that of the "best" right-wing pundits.

[Janus]

Did you know that there were 5 rainbows in the Sky when Kim-Jong Il was born?

Oh, and Kim-Jong Il invented the electric toothbrush and you can&#39;t deny that.
What? You know perfectly well that Kim was born on a mountain top amid claps of thunder and lightning. :P


WRONG&#33; Why would you comment on something you know nothing about?

The embargo limits trading with the entire world.

Any plane or boat that travels to Cuba is barred from entering the U.S. for a long time afterwards.

Any company that does anything with Cuba cannot operate in the U.S. or with a U.S. entity.
That&#39;s definitely true. Cuba lacks a lot of the industrial resources needed for self-sustainment because the USSR never helped in this aspect.

[Plagueround]

I had to vote "Other".

On the one hand, I support the Cuban Revolution and what it has done for the people, and in that sense support Castro. The political and economic system he has helped to create generally take the form of an underdeveloped working people's republic and follow the principles of such a republic as outlined by Marx (and Lenin, to a certain extent).

On the other hand, Castro's role in this system has been to maintain a balance between the working class and petty bourgeoisie. The events inside the The Island since Castro stepped down temporarily -- most notably the divisions between the government and the Communist Party -- point to a phase of class struggle that is long overdue for resolution. In that sense, I cannot support Castro and his attempts at holding off the final sweeping of the petty bourgeoisie from its positions.

Miles

CL pretty much wrote what I was going to and I'm feeling lazy tonight, so I'm going to just agree with him. Although my name isn't Miles. :lol:

[spice756]

Well in my views Cuba is the only country that is socialism may be not the best but dam close 95% socialism .The USSR I would say second of being close to socialism but generate worker state.

China is your communism in disguise to fool the world .Only thing communism is the red flag.I'm surprise Cuba has not taken China path:confused: I guess they are determine to fight imperialism and capitalism.

You do know US would love for Cuba to allow private ownership and free-market to go in and exploit them and make Cuba part of the US colony.

It too bad there is not other socialism country to help Cuba .And I'm losing faith in Venezuela and Bolivia just other social democradic.And it does not look like other socialism country is going to happen in the next 5 or 10 years from now.

Nether do the maoist rebels fighting in Nepal or India look like they are going get control anytime soon.And Russia and Mexico looks like they have lost all interest in the left and are more conservative now.

It should be interesting what cuba does in the next 5 or 10 years from now.

[Yehuda Stern]

I oppose Fidel Castro and his entire Stalinist regime.

[Herman]

I support Fidel Castro and almost all of "his entire Stalinist regime".

[Yehuda Stern]

There's a shock.

[BraneMatter]

I support him. I don't know if the revolution would have survived, given the hostile forces and environment, with a weaker leader.

Not ideal to be sure, but the killer hyenas of global capitalism have been right outside the door for the last fifty plus years, just looking for an opening.

[Lenin's Law]

I support him. I don't know if the revolution would have survived, given the hostile forces and environment, with a weaker leader.

Not ideal to be sure, but the killer hyenas of global capitalism have been right outside the door for the last fifty plus years, just looking for an opening.

Agreed. For those talking about dictatorship and what not, without a strong centralized government Cuba would have bowed down to US imperialism a long time ago. There are certainly aspects of Cuba that need to be changed and amended but being realistic about a small country 90 miles away from the US, Castro's leadership has preserved some very important gains for the Cuban people (nationalized healthcare, free education, etc) and had there been a weaker leader we might have seen a Cuban Pinochet.

[Davie zepeda]

Nah i think Fidel will be remembered as a great man some republicans even admit this and democrats he done so much for his people that no leader was willing before he is a dying breed Viva Fidel Viva socialism hasta la victoria .

Oh yeah Mexico has begun talks to buy Cuban medicine and So did Guatemala No worries's the embargo is gonna fall in are life time and soon the real work will began .comrades To build the movement once again in these times. This is are last chance if can't do it now then never Toward The red star brothers Long live all the revolutionaries may we speak with are actions . Theory means nothing without practice .

[Comrade B]

I support what he stands for, and his leadership over that of what the US and rest of the world wants. I approve of the majority of his decisions, but I am always turned away from him when I remember what he did to the homosexuals of Cuba.

[Forward Union]

I would have to say I do not support him. Or Didn't support him - now hes stepped down.

But he's definetly been one of the better leaders of the 20th century.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I support Comrade Fidel with all my heart.
The strong rule of the Cuban president is necessary to withstand the imperialist invaders of the USA.

[Yehuda Stern]

Of course, the workers are too weak to protect themselves against imperialism. They need flawless saviors like the Castro brothers to save them from their own incompetence.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What!
Was Lenin saving Russians from their own incompetence?
Or is it us brown people who are just submissive?
hmm?

[Lenin's Law]

No one's calling the Castro brothers perfect but only a blind man could study the history of Latin America and not realize the need for leadership as long as an imperialist superpower regards the entire region as its "backyard" stemming from the Monroe Doctrine. The history of Latin America is of rebellions and hope being crushed by oligarchy, CIA-backed coups, outright invasion, and ultimately right wing dictatorship Pinochet-style.

I wish it were so easy for workers to just fight off an imperialist superpower (and its supporters in the oligarchy), but unfortunately the last 100 years of Latin American history has demonstrated that it is not. At least as long as the continent remains separated and divided along superficial lines and borders.

[OI OI OI]

The history of Latin America is of rebellions and hope being crushed by oligarchy, CIA-backed coups, outright invasion, and ultimately right wing dictatorship Pinochet-style.Don't forget the betrayals of the Stalinist leadership of the Communist Parties!

We should support the Castro brothers against imperialism but condemn the bureaucracy of Cuba, including the Castro brothers.

[Trystan]

I don't like Castro that much. He wasn't even a communist to begin with, and tried to get money from the US. It was only when he was denied that he looked to the Soviet Union. He also sent homosexuals to concentration camps. Fuck him. Cuba needs a workers' rising against the bureaucracy.

[Yehuda Stern]

What!
Was Lenin saving Russians from their own incompetence?
Or is it us brown people who are just submissive?
hmm?

Take a chill pill and realize that you include yourself as a "brown person" doesn't convince at all that you are one. Lenin led a revolutionary working class party - Castro leads a bureaucratic, Stalinist state. The rationale for many people's support of that regime, including yours, is that it is necessary to defend Cuba against imperialism. In this they reveal their contempt for the workers - "brown" or not.

[Lenin's Law]

I don't like Castro that much. He wasn't even a communist to begin with, .

Neither was Marx :rolleyes:

[spice756]

I don't like Castro that much. He wasn't even a communist to begin with, and tried to get money from the US. It was only when he was denied that he looked to the Soviet Union. He also sent homosexuals to concentration camps. Fuck him. Cuba needs a workers' rising against the bureaucracy.

chill out man most 99% world put homosexuals and people who smoke pot in jail.Do not blame Castro at that time it was not acceptable in the world.Even porn and prostitution is taboo in Cuba.This left liberal of thought is new so don't blame communist and socialists from the past when this was not acceptable in the world.



Oh yeah Mexico has begun talks to buy Cuban medicine and So did Guatemala No worries's the embargo is gonna fall in are life time and soon the real work will began


That oaky for Cuba to get into medicine just don't put profit in charge.



I oppose Fidel Castro and his entire Stalinist regime.


He is not killer or Stalin.




Well in my views Cuba is the only country that is socialism may be not the best but dam close 95% socialism .The USSR I would say second of being close to socialism but generate worker state.


spelling degenerated worker state.

[Trystan]

Neither was Marx :rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


Yes, but you know what I mean.

[Small Geezer]

I definitely support Fidel Castro, although he made some mistakes. Like basing agriculture almost on a single cash crop which left Cuba devastated in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Even so, Cuba never had a famine which attests to the strength of their system.

I think Castros behaviour has proven that he is tireless fighter for socialism and national sovereignty without ambition for personal enrichment and power.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Take a chill pill and realize that you include yourself as a "brown person" doesn't convince at all that you are one.

Why do you find it necessary to challenge this?


Lenin led a revolutionary working class party - Castro leads a bureaucratic, Stalinist state.

Nice dodge... if anyone was treated as a savior it was Lenin. Both movements were undertaken by the people. The problem here isn't the Cuban peoples' support for Castro's leadership, it's your double standard. Why? My guess is that you have a crypto racist contempt for underdeveloped Latin Americans who are fated to live under authoritarian regimes or some crap. This kind of thinking is disturbingly common. Looks like not even "leftists" are spared.


The rationale for many people's support of that regime, including yours, is that it is necessary to defend Cuba against imperialism. In this they reveal their contempt for the workers - "brown" or not.

The rationale is that it's a regime where the people have more power than anywhere else in the world today. But deep down you probably think it's less democratic and free than the Western liberal democracies because afterall, Cuba is just another uncivilized undeveloped tribe led by a power-hungry warlord.

[reddevil]

i have a great admiration for fidel and the cuban revolution. however, i am not uncritical. castro allied himself with the soviet bureaucracy and supported their repression of workers movements in czechoslovakia and poland. he also turned a blind eye to the massacre of mexican students in 1968, refused to support the zapatistas and aided the grisly ethiopian dictatorship over the liberation struggle in eritrea.
nevertheless, the acheivements of the revolution put the imperialist nations to shame, let alone cuba's neighbours. on women's issues, cuba is one of the most progressive countries in the world. visitors from all over the continent are routinely welcomed with open arms to take advantage of castro's phenomenal acheivements in health and education. he played a key role in the liberation of africa, and indeed liberation movements worldwide. while some sectarians may smear him as a "stalinist", he is a true internationalist.
what raul needs to do is resist the moves towards liberalisation and instead aim to establish a true workers democracy, taking power away from the bureaucracy and allowing more plurality in decision making.
it is also true that the revolution has resulted in huge restrictions in the lives of ordinary cubans. i don't defend this. the regime should allow nonviolent disent, a free press and strengthen civil society.

[Yehuda Stern]

Why do you find it necessary to challenge his?

Because many RevLefters like to act like they're more oppressed than another RevLefter when they have no real way to win in a debate, like "I'm a worker" or "I live in a third world country." Not that it matters that much - if you're wrong, you're wrong. But don't think that I'm so easily convinced by your description of yourself, or that it impresses me either way.


if anyone was treated as a savior it was Lenin. Both movements were undertaken by the people. The problem here isn't the Cuban peoples' support for Castro's leadership, it's your double standard. Why? My guess is that you have a crypto racist contempt for underdeveloped Latin Americans who are fated to live under authoritarian regimes or some crap.

My guess is that you know nothing of the Bolshevik revolution, and again use cheap (and ineffective) shots to disguise that fact. Lenin's party was based on working class struggle and consciousness - Castro's coming to power was based on the lack of those things. Lenin was a working class leader who created the first and only workers' state - Castro was a petty-bourgeois ex-guerillaist who created state capitalism with an authoritarian regime, to the joy of anti-worker lefts like yourself.


The rationale is that it's a regime where the people have more power than anywhere else in the world today. But deep down you probably think it's less democratic and free than the Western liberal democracies because afterall, Cuba is just another uncivilized undeveloped tribe led by a power-hungry warlord.

Nice try.


while some sectarians may smear him as a "stalinist", he is a true internationalist.

That's rich. Want to try and prove that?

[ashaman1324]

i fully support fidel castro.
hes not perfect, hes (still) a dictator and does give limited rights.
but hes a hell of a lot better than any other dictator i can think of and has done alot for the cuban people, especially given what he has to work with (the US embargo against cuba mainly)
i support reforms under him, not a revolution to disrupt all he has achieved in cuba.

[Lenin's Law]

Yes, but you know what I mean.

No I don't; if someone is moved progressively to socialism because of world events and understanding the nature of imperialism, what matter? That's the way most people are moved initially closer to socialism; by events, not theoretical debate. Oh but I suppose they must in order to be a TRUE Marxist, have a hammer and sickle tattooed on their rear ends when they're born and recite Das Kapital but the time they're 12.

[Yehuda Stern]

i support reforms under him, not a revolution to disrupt all he has achieved in cuba.

Wait - so you recognize that Castro is a dictator, but you oppose any attempts by the working class to overthrow his dictatorship?

[ashaman1324]

Wait - so you recognize that Castro is a dictator, but you oppose any attempts by the working class to overthrow his dictatorship?

i recognize that fidel castro is a dictator who resigned in february.
its a bit hard to overthrow somebody who isnt in power.:rolleyes:
therefore you cant revolt against him.
you can reform laws and policies he had though.

[Yehuda Stern]

Let's not play dumb (if we are indeed playing). The current ruler of Cuba is called Castro (I don't refer to the dictators by their first names, as if they are friends, like many leftists do). Do you recognize that this man is a dictator? Would you support workers who want to overthrow him? Or would you support their suppression?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Because many RevLefters like to act like they're more oppressed than another RevLefter when they have no real way to win in a debate, like "I'm a worker" or "I live in a third world country." Not that it matters that much - if you're wrong, you're wrong. But don't think that I'm so easily convinced by your description of yourself, or that it impresses me either way.

Looks like it's you who needs to "take a chill pill"... I wasn't even talking about myself. I was talking about a group of people that I happen to belong to. Funny that you chose to focus solely on the pronoun "us".


My guess is that you know nothing of the Bolshevik revolution, and again use cheap (and ineffective) shots to disguise that fact.

I didn't say anything about the Bolshevik revolution, aside from affirming that it was a working class movement, which you agree with. Settle the fuck down.


Lenin's party was based on working class struggle and consciousness - Castro's coming to power was based on the lack of those things. Lenin was a working class leader who created the first and only workers' state - Castro was a petty-bourgeois ex-guerillaist who created state capitalism with an authoritarian regime, to the joy of anti-worker lefts like yourself.

Yeah, overthrowing Washington's lackey fascist dictator was totally anti-worker.
lololol

[ashaman1324]

Let's not play dumb (if we are indeed playing).
im not so sure your playing.

The current ruler of Cuba is called Castro (I don't refer to the dictators by their first names, as if they are friends, like many leftists do).
i assumed you were talking about fidel castro since, you know, thats the title of the thread.:rolleyes:


Do you recognize that this man is a dictator? Would you support workers who want to overthrow him? Or would you support their suppression?
raul castro came into office a dictator yet, but theres alot of talks of reforms under him, some have already happened, and maybe more will come. well see if hes a dictator for much longer.
name me a group of workers who want to overthrow him. i might support them if theres any validity to their argument.

[Yehuda Stern]

Yeah, overthrowing Washington's lackey fascist dictator was totally anti-worker.No, but it was not pro-worker either. It was part of the policy of a radical guerilla group which was, and despite all rhetoric, remains completely pro-capitalist. As for your lols, consult this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1252671#post1252671).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yehuda Stern http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1255096#post1255096)
Let's not play dumb (if we are indeed playing).

im not so sure your playing.Smooth, quoting my joke and then making the same one.


name me a group of workers who want to overthrow him. i might support them if theres any validity to their argument.I wonder - if we were talking about a pro-American dictatorship, like in Colombia, would there be so much interrogation as to the validity of the arguments of the revolutionary workers? Or does that interest you only when we talk of 'red' dictators?

[PostAnarchy]

60% of people here support him but I do not- he killed millions of people last I checked and 1 party state so no i cannot support that. sorry guys. :(

[ashaman1324]

I wonder - if we were talking about a pro-American dictatorship, like in Colombia, would there be so much interrogation as to the validity of the arguments of the revolutionary workers? Or does that interest you only when we talk of 'red' dictators?
a dictator is a dictator. fidel castro was my favorite, the only one id support. and youre avoiding my question. if there were revolutionary workers in columbia i would support them. seeing as cuba is socialist, a revolutionary worker would be capitalist, something i can infer were both opposed to.

[reddevil]

That's rich. Want to try and prove that?[/quote]
i thought i already did by telling of castro's support for revolutionaries across the world and the key role he played in the liberation of africa

[Magdalen]

a dictator is a dictator. fidel castro was my favorite, the only one id support. and youre avoiding my question. if there were revolutionary workers in columbia i would support them. seeing as cuba is socialist, a revolutionary worker would be capitalist, something i can infer were both opposed to.

Can you provide any evidence for your assertion that Fidel is a dictator?

[Yehuda Stern]

seeing as cuba is socialist, a revolutionary worker would be capitalist, something i can infer were both opposed to.

Thank you, this is exactly what I was getting at. Like many other leftists, you support Castro's state capitalism against revolutionary workers. This is the same logic which led the Spartacists to support the Polish regime's suppression of the militant working class in 1981. It is the story of mainstream 'Marxism' after WWII: middle class leftists became disillusioned with the working class and preferred to support reformists and nationalists as a substitute, even when those same leaders oppressed the workers.


i thought i already did by telling of castro's support for revolutionaries across the world and the key role he played in the liberation of africa

That's not a proof, that's an assertion. Let's see now - what support did Castro give to revolutionaries around the world? Where and when did he play any role in liberating Africa?

[Magdalen]

That's not a proof, that's an assertion. Let's see now - what support did Castro give to revolutionaries around the world? Where and when did he play any role in liberating Africa?

Cuba has been the forefront of the fight against imperialism in Africa. Che Guevara fought in the Congo in 1965 against the pro-Western Congolese government and "Mad" Mike Hoare's Afrikaner mercenaries. In the 1970s and 1980s 300,000 Cuban volunteers answered the call and successfully defended the socialist government of Angola against the US-backed forces of apartheid South Africa. The contribution of Cuba had a direct impact on the collapse of the apartheid regime.

As Nelson Mandela said in Havana, on his first foreign visit following his release from prison:

"Long live the Cuban Revolution! Long live comrade Fidel Castro! Cuban internationalists have done so much for African independence, freedom, and justice. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of a vicious imperialist campaign designed to destroy the advances of the Cuban revolution. We too want to control our destiny! There can be no surrender. It is a case of freedom or death. The Cuban revolution has been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people!"

[reddevil]

That's not a proof, that's an assertion. Let's see now - what support did Castro give to revolutionaries around the world? Where and when did he play any role in liberating Africa?

castro supported liberation struggles in:
palestine
guatemala
colombia
uruguay
el salvador
nicaragua
ireland
yemen
western sahara
angola
south africa
mozambique
algeria
dominican republic
venezuela
united states
eritrea
chile
puerto rico
basque region
argentina
peru

[Chapter 24]

60% of people here support him but I do not- he killed millions of people last I checked and 1 party state so no i cannot support that. sorry guys. :(

He killed millions of people? When? :confused:

[ashaman1324]

Can you provide any evidence for your assertion that Fidel is a dictator?
fidel castro= dictator of the proletariat.
as progressive as he is, hes still a dictator.
cuba has a one- party congress and his approval rating was too high to be unbiased.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Ok, in our western "democratic" vocabulary Fidel is a dictator.
But than I say: I don't give a sh*t about him being a dictator or not.
Most important thing is that he liberated the People of Cuba from capitalism and imperialism and brought a magnificent Socialist nation in which education and healthcare is free, and health quality is excellent.

Western nations always tend to turn "democracy" into a dogma, a universal truth, which they strive to spread across the globe without considering the will of the People.

[ashaman1324]

Thank you, this is exactly what I was getting at. Like many other leftists, you support Castro's state capitalism against revolutionary workers.
fidel castro is a dictator of the proletariat. i fail to see who is being exploited/ oppressed by his regime.


It is the story of mainstream 'Marxism' after WWII: middle class leftists became disillusioned with the working class and preferred to support reformists and nationalists as a substitute, even when those same leaders oppressed the workers.
again, who is castro oppressing? please name me a cuban organization fighting castros "oppression"

[RedScare]

I think he's the option for Cuba at the moment, and tremendously progressive given the conditions they had to work in. Do you think the revolution could be maintained at this instant if Cuba dissolved the state and such? I wish that their system was more democratic, but the only alternative to that is another American-backed puppet. Yes, the workers are not in full control, as they should be, but in the current global situation, can anything better be achieved without massive risk of outside influences completing a counter-revolution?

[Yehuda Stern]

Che Guevara fought in the Congo in 1965 against the pro-Western Congolese government and "Mad" Mike Hoare's Afrikaner mercenaries.

I don't know much about that, but we're discussing Castro, not Guevara.


In the 1970s and 1980s 300,000 Cuban volunteers answered the call and successfully defended the socialist government of Angola against the US-backed forces of apartheid South Africa.

Castro defended a regime which was on the side of the USSR, i.e., on the same side of the imperialist conflict as him. When he did this, he still protected western oil companies from any attempt to attack or expropriate them, thus showing his loyalty to world imperialism.


The contribution of Cuba had a direct impact on the collapse of the apartheid regime.

As Nelson Mandela said in Havana, on his first foreign visit following his release from prison:


That's way too serious an argument to be proven by a slightly-connected comment by a man who by all counts betrayed the struggle of the black South African working class.


castro supported liberation struggles in:

So did the Soviets - for their own imperial interests. There's quite a difference between the way a revolutionary would support liberation struggles and the way a Stalinist would.

But I did hope someone would mention Eritrea. See, Castro did support the struggle of the Eritreans at first - until their oppressor, Mengitsu, suddenly "turned communist," i.e. became pro-Soviet, at which point the Eritreans were left to their own devices, proving once more the nature of the Castro regime as a pawn of Soviet imperialism.


fidel castro= dictator of the proletariat.

This is rich! It's such a classic Stalinist (And anti-communist) distortion of the concept of proletarian dictatorship. See, dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean that a 'socialist' dictator lords over the proletariat - it means the dictatorship of the whole class over the other classes. That was good, though.


again, who is castro oppressing?

I don't know if Castro oppressed the working class in general - he oppressed mainly homosexuals and Trotskyists. However, as the head of a capitalist state, he presides over the exploitation of the working class.


Do you think the revolution could be maintained at this instant if Cuba dissolved the state and such?

No, which is why when the workers take control of the state, they won't dissolve it but smash the capitalist state apparatus and build a workers' state.

[ashaman1324]

This is rich! It's such a classic Stalinist (And anti-communist) distortion of the concept of proletarian dictatorship. See, dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean that a 'socialist' dictator lords over the proletariat - it means the dictatorship of the whole class over the other classes. That was good, though.
lol, no country is controlled by the workers as it should be, but cuba is a hell of a lot closer than anyone else. the fact that cuba is a country shows it has a ruling class. name me any country thats done better than cuba at fixing this problem


I don't know if Castro oppressed the working class in general - he oppressed mainly homosexuals and Trotskyists. However, as the head of a capitalist state, he presides over the exploitation of the working class.
i admit, homophobia is a fault of castro's. but even in the u.s. theres no gay marriage, and laws discriminating against homosexuals in cuba have been lifted in recent years. im unfamiliar with any discrimination against trotskyists.

[ashaman1324]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reddevil
castro supported liberation struggles in:


So did the Soviets - for their own imperial interests. There's quite a difference between the way a revolutionary would support liberation struggles and the way a Stalinist would.

But I did hope someone would mention Eritrea. See, Castro did support the struggle of the Eritreans at first - until their oppressor, Mengitsu, suddenly "turned communist," i.e. became pro-Soviet, at which point the Eritreans were left to their own devices, proving once more the nature of the Castro regime as a pawn of Soviet imperialism.
how has cuba benefited from its "imperial interests" in liberating any country?

[Labor Shall Rule]

I 'support' him insofar that revolutionary socialists must support unconditional military defense to Cuba from threats of U.S. imperialism and counter-revolutionary Miami Gusano gangsters.

But otherwise, it's not surprising that he rallied behind Soviet expansionism in African markets. Castro was always a pro-Soviet puppet up to the Iron Curtain's collapse, and failed to break from the "Dutch disease" - or the exporting of a single cash-crop, mainly sugar in Cuba's case - during the course of his 'anti-imperialist' presidency.

[Yehuda Stern]

lol, no country is controlled by the workers as it should be, but cuba is a hell of a lot closer than anyone else. the fact that cuba is a country shows it has a ruling class. name me any country thats done better than cuba at fixing this problem


Since this passage makes no since whatsoever (to paraphrase Lenin, even the most democratic bourgeois republic is a dictatorship of the exploiters, and Cuba isn't even really that democratic), and the "lol" part irritates me very much, I will refer you to this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1252671#post1252671).


i admit, homophobia is a fault of castro's. but even in the u.s. theres no gay marriage, and laws discriminating against homosexuals in cuba have been lifted in recent years. im unfamiliar with any discrimination against trotskyists.This reminds me of a Soviet-era joke - American tourists come to Russia, where they are shown how everything is supposedly grand in the socialist republic. At one point, they await a bus. When it's already 15 minutes after the bus was due to arrive, one tourist asks his Soviet guide: "how do you explain that the bus is late?" The guide answers: "don't you Americans lynch blacks?"

A socialist's desire is hardly for a state that is just as bad as a rotten imperialist superpower. The "Americans are worse" defense really just shows how low the centrist left aims.

As for Trotskyists, many of them were thrown into jail after the revolution - some of them for not opposing, but actually being too enthusiastic about the revolution. I once saw one of those who were jailed after the revolution speak about his experiences in jail, a short time before he advocated political support of Castro. It was pretty sad.


how has cuba benefited from its "imperial interests" in liberating any country?It hasn't, since it isn't an imperialist country. It served those of the USSR. By the way, I am unfamiliar with any country liberated by Cuba.


I 'support' him insofar that revolutionary socialists must support unconditional military defense to Cuba from threats of U.S. imperialism and counter-revolutionary Miami Gusano gangsters.

Military support does not extend to the political leadership of a third world country (unless of course it is proletarian, which I understand we agree that it is not). Marxists should defend Cuba from imperialism in the sense that our class brothers in Cuba should join any military defense against imperialism, but that still does not mean giving any sort of political support to Castro.

[ashaman1324]

Since this passage makes no since whatsoever
what dont you understand?
the fact that every country has a ruling class?
lol is a poor way to express disbelief i agree, ive yet to find a better way though.


A socialist's desire is hardly for a state that is just as bad as a rotten imperialist superpower. The "Americans are worse" defense really just shows how low the centrist left aims.
i compared cuba to america because i live in america, and am most familiar with american laws. im sure such discrimination is still common throughout the rest of the world, but as i said earlier "homophobia is a fault of castro's".


As for Trotskyists, many of them were thrown into jail after the revolution - some of them for not opposing, but actually being too enthusiastic about the revolution. I once saw one of those who were jailed after the revolution speak about his experiences in jail, a short time before he advocated political support of Castro. It was pretty sad.
sounds suspiciously similar to the cultural revolution in china.


It hasn't, since it isn't an imperialist country. It served those of the USSR. By the way, I am unfamiliar with any country liberated by Cuba.
you contradict yourself by saying cuba isnt an imperialist country now when you earlier stated
Castro defended a regime which was on the side of the USSR... thus showing his loyalty to world imperialism.
and no country was liberated solely by cuba, but as previously listed, cuba did help liberated many countries.

[Yehuda Stern]

what dont you understand?
the fact that every country has a ruling class?

I know damn well that every state has a ruling class, but still it doesn't mean that a workers' state presupposes a one man dictatorship!


i compared cuba to america because i live in america, and am most familiar with american laws. im sure such discrimination is still common throughout the rest of the world, but as i said earlier "homophobia is a fault of castro's".

Let's compare with something more desirable, then - early Soviet Russia, under Lenin. Did you know that despite a long tradition of homophobia and anti-Semitic bigotry in Russia, the Bolshevik government removed all laws harming homosexuals and Jews? How does this compare with Castro's revolution?


sounds suspiciously similar to the cultural revolution in china.

Not by chance.


you contradict yourself by saying cuba isnt an imperialist country now when you earlier stated

Never said Cuba was imperialist - I said it was on the side of Russian imperialism, in much the same way that Columbia is a third world country on the side of American imperialism. I would still defend both countries from an attack by an imperialist state.


and no country was liberated solely by cuba, but as previously listed, cuba did help liberated many countries.

I fail to see what countries and how.

[ashaman1324]

I know damn well that every state has a ruling class, but still it doesn't mean that a workers' state presupposes a one man dictatorship!
how else do you expect to achieve a workers' state?



Let's compare with something more desirable, then - early Soviet Russia, under Lenin. Did you know that despite a long tradition of homophobia and anti-Semitic bigotry in Russia, the Bolshevik government removed all laws harming homosexuals and Jews? How does this compare with Castro's revolution?
again, i say that homophobia is a fault of castro's. i can repeat this all day long.



Never said Cuba was imperialist - I said it was on the side of Russian imperialism, in much the same way that Columbia is a third world country on the side of American imperialism.
a third world country has no side.


I fail to see what countries and how.
how do you not see what countries? did you ignore:

castro supported liberation struggles in:
palestine
guatemala
colombia
uruguay
el salvador
nicaragua
ireland
yemen
western sahara
angola
south africa
mozambique
algeria
dominican republic
venezuela
united states
eritrea
chile
puerto rico
basque region
argentina
peru

[Yehuda Stern]

how else do you expect to achieve a workers' state?

Was early Soviet Russia a one man dictatorship? Or was there soviet democracy in there?


again, i say that homophobia is a fault of castro's. i can repeat this all day long.

Yes, and you said in defense that even America has homophobia. I was just pointing out that it was ridiculous to use America as a standard for socialists.


a third world country has no side.

Wrong - Cuba was pro-Soviet, while Columbia today is pro-American. Some third world countries at some point clash with all imperialist powers, but this cannot be a lasting situation.


how do you not see what countries? did you ignore:

No, I did not ignore - I simply disproved the notion that Castro ever really gave any internationalist support to any country in my former posts in this thread.

[Magdalen]

i admit, homophobia is a fault of castro's. but even in the u.s. theres no gay marriage, and laws discriminating against homosexuals in cuba have been lifted in recent years.

Those who criticise Cuba's stance on homosexuality rely almost totally on statements made over 40 years ago, when homosexuality was illegal in the vast majority of countries, including Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union. The revolution was not cause of these homophobic attitudes, their roots lay far further back in Cuban history, in the "machismo" culture which has a strong presence in all Latin American nations.

Prejudice prevented homosexuals from participating in the revolutionary military. However, many still wanted to contribute to the revolution, so UMAPs (Military Units to Aid Production) were set up. UMAPs performed several kinds of work, particularly in the strategic sugar sector; they allowed those not eligible for military service to play a full role in defending the revolution.

However, flaws appeared in the system. After participating in a surprise visit to a UMAP in Camagüey, Fidel Castro asked for a review of programme, and it was eventually abolished.

In 1975, the Cuban Supreme Court overturned Resolution No. 3 of the Council of Culture, which had prohibited the employment of homosexuals in the arts and in the education system. In 1979, the new Cuban penal code removed many out-dated pre-revolutionary laws, and completely decriminalised homosexuality. Several books promoting the acceptance of homosexuality were published with the official backing of the Cuban government and the Communist Party.

However in 1984, the respected film director Tomás Gutiérrez noted in the Communist Party daily Granma that: "The publication of a single book, regardless of how official it is, will not automatically mean that a social phenomenon deeply rooted in centuries of our Catholic and Spanish past will disappear overnight. However, it is a valuable instrument of struggle that the revolutionary government makes available to all those who are discriminated against."

In the late 1980s, a raft of directives were implemented, further prohibiting discrimination against and harassment of homosexuals. The strong fight against discrimination continued into the 1990s, despite the great hardships inflicted by the special period.

Official funding was put towards the creation of Fresa y Chocolate, a film about homosexuality in Cuba. This film harshly criticised the attitudes of some within the Communist Party in the 70s and early 80s who had supported discrimination. The film was nominated for an Academy award and won a special prize at the Sundance Film Festival.

In Cuba, there is very little violence against homosexuals, no death squads roam the streets, unlike in Brazil and Colombia. Popular rap artists do not sing of violence and murder, gay rights groups from Cuba and abroad have pride of place on the May Day Parade.

Last year, Ricardo Alarcón, President of the National Assembly, stated that: "We are trying to see how to abolish all forms of discrimination, to the give them the right to marry or have same-sex unions. Socialism should not be a society that excludes anyone."

[chegitz guevara]

My guess is that you know nothing of the Bolshevik revolution, and again use cheap (and ineffective) shots to disguise that fact. Lenin's party was based on working class struggle and consciousness - Castro's coming to power was based on the lack of those things. Lenin was a working class leader who created the first and only workers' state - Castro was a petty-bourgeois ex-guerillaist who created state capitalism with an authoritarian regime, to the joy of anti-worker lefts like yourself.

While that is accurate, up to an extent, it's very misleading, as it ignores the dynamics of the Cuban revolution. Batista was not overthrown by the guerrilla armies, but by a general strike. After the fall of the regime, over a period of six months, mass demonstrations of workers put Castro in power and cleared away the remnants of the old government.

The workers revolution in Cuba may not have followed the Bolshevik model, as as Lenin wrote in State and Revolution there is no blueprint for the revolution. As Lenin later write in Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, we shouldn't be looking at the Russia revolution as the only legitimate model for revolutionaries to follow. Every revolution is going to be different. The workers will take power in their own way in each country.

Even today, the trade unions in Cuba wield huge power. They aren't some government union which supports the dictator no matter what, either. I saw them screaming at Castro in a movie with a scene from a trade union convention.

Cuba isn't so simple as you want to portray it. Cuba is far more democratic than most people, including most revolutionaries, understand. They may not have free party elections at all levels of the government, but at the lowest level, anyone can run, whether a member of the party or not, whether endorsed by the party or not. That level of government elects the level above it, and that level elects the layer above that, and so on, all the way up to Castro. Now, where have we heard of a system like that, . . . oh yes! Lenin proposes it in SaR.

[BraneMatter]

I certainly support him.

Was he tough? Sure, but look at the forces arrayed against Castro and the Cuban Revolution.

The U.S. government has done everything it can to strangle the Cuban economy for over 50 years, and to discredit and overthrow Castro. They failed.

[ashaman1324]

Was early Soviet Russia a one man dictatorship? Or was there soviet democracy in there?
soviet democracy and no transitional period, look how the soviet union turned out.


Yes, and you said in defense that even America has homophobia. I was just pointing out that it was ridiculous to use America as a standard for socialists.
i never stated that america should be a standard for socialists. i live in america and am better acquanted with america above other parts of the world.


Wrong - Cuba was pro-Soviet, while Columbia today is pro-American. Some third world countries at some point clash with all imperialist powers, but this cannot be a lasting situation.
a third world country is a non- alligned country to either the U.S. or soviet union. a pro soviet country would not be third world, it has alligned itself to the soviet union. the cold- war (original) definition seems to be different than todays use.



No, I did not ignore - I simply disproved the notion that Castro ever really gave any internationalist support to any country in my former posts in this thread.
how have you disproved, much less cast any doubt upon castro's aid, in any way shape or form?

[Yehuda Stern]

Batista was not overthrown by the guerrilla armies, but by a general strike. After the fall of the regime, over a period of six months, mass demonstrations of workers put Castro in power and cleared away the remnants of the old government.

I doubt that's true. Either way, even if the workers did play a key role, their actions were hijacked by Castro's movement, which used them to create not a workers' state but a statified capitalism.



Even today, the trade unions in Cuba wield huge power. They aren't some government union which supports the dictator no matter what, either. I saw them screaming at Castro in a movie with a scene from a trade union convention.

Again, that may or may not be true, but even if the trade unions do have power, it's clear that it's power wielded by a wing of the bureaucracy, not by the mass of workers.


Cuba isn't so simple as you want to portray it. Cuba is far more democratic than most people, including most revolutionaries, understand.

Nothing is very simple in our world, let alone states. But as Lenin said, even the most democratic bourgeois republic is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In that sense it doesn't matter how supposedly democratic Cuba is - what matters is that revolutionaries would still advocate the overthrow of the bourgeois regime.


Now, where have we heard of a system like that, . . . oh yes! Lenin proposes it in SaR.

That's rich. Are you saying then that Cuba is a healthy workers' state?


soviet democracy and no transitional period, look how the soviet union turned out.

And instead of that, we've had Cuba as the USSR 'turned out' from the get go. Great achievement.

And wait, are you saying that Cuba is actually... better than Lenin's USSR? That's new.


a third world country is a non- alligned country to either the U.S. or soviet union. a pro soviet country would not be third world, it has alligned itself to the soviet union. the cold- war (original) definition seems to be different than todays use.

I call third world to all countries that aren't imperialist. I think that use is fairly common among Marxists.


how have you disproved, much less cast any doubt upon castro's aid, in any way shape or form?

I've written all about that in this very thread, and since no one cared to reply, I understood that as agreement. If you want, of course, to challenge what I said, you are more than welcome to do so.

[ashaman1324]

And instead of that, we've had Cuba as the USSR 'turned out' from the get go. Great achievement.

And wait, are you saying that Cuba is actually... better than Lenin's USSR? That's new.
i would say cuba has turned out a good bit better than the ussr. take a look at modern cuban policy before you argue about it please.



I've written all about that in this very thread, and since no one cared to reply, I understood that as agreement. If you want, of course, to challenge what I said, you are more than welcome to do so.
written about how castro failed to help the revolutions in so many countries? did you not see reddevils original post or my quote? of course i challenge your statement, if i havent made it brutally obvious by now.

[Yehuda Stern]

i would say cuba has turned out a good bit better than the ussr. take a look at modern cuban policy before you argue about it please.

I have, and this is the first time I hear someone go so low as to actually claim that Cuba is actually better than the Russia of Lenin's time.


written about how castro failed to help the revolutions in so many countries? did you not see reddevils original post or my quote? of course i challenge your statement, if i havent made it brutally obvious by now.

I've pointed out that whatever role Cuba did play in those situations, it was in service of the USSR's imperialist interests; that Castro betrayed the struggle of the Eritreans and protected Western oil companies in Angola. Those were replies to both your posts, to which you have offered no reply of your own.

[ashaman1324]

I have, and this is the first time I hear someone go so low as to actually claim that Cuba is actually better than the Russia of Lenin's time.
i wouldnt say that cuba is better than ussr in lenins time. post lenin, cuba is definitely better.



I've pointed out that whatever role Cuba did play in those situations, it was in service of the USSR's imperialist interests; that Castro betrayed the struggle of the Eritreans and protected Western oil companies in Angola. Those were replies to both your posts, to which you have offered no reply of your own.
Castro's aid is what radicalized the soviets to commit more aid to africa, and eventually the overextension that would topple the soviet union. please tell me how toppling the soviet union is serving USSR imperialist interests?

[PRC-UTE]

No, which is why when the workers take control of the state, they won't dissolve it but smash the capitalist state apparatus and build a workers' state.

Wouldn't this most likely create an opportunity for an imperialist invasion and a disaster for Cuba of unprecedented scale?

[chegitz guevara]

I doubt that's true. Either way, even if the workers did play a key role, their actions were hijacked by Castro's movement, which used them to create not a workers' state but a statified capitalism.

I don't buy any of the state capitalist definitions that people attempt to apply to the Communist governments. It's a crap theory, but I didn't want to get into a discussion on it.

This is, again, an example of where people create definitions, than have problems because reality stubbornly refuses to conform. Rather then condemning Cuba for not meeting our definitions, we ought to condemn our definitions for failing to explain reality.

How much have you actually studied on the Cuban revolution, Yahuda? I'm not trying to be snarky or put you down. Most comrades don't really take the time to study it, and they have ideas in their heads about the history of Cuba that simply didn't happen. For some reason, most comrades don't know a simple historical fact, that a general strike brought down the Batista dictatorship.


Again, that may or may not be true, but even if the trade unions do have power, it's clear that it's power wielded by a wing of the bureaucracy, not by the mass of workers.

Your direct experience with Cuban workers is what?


Nothing is very simple in our world, let alone states. But as Lenin said, even the most democratic bourgeois republic is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In that sense it doesn't matter how supposedly democratic Cuba is - what matters is that revolutionaries would still advocate the overthrow of the bourgeois regime.

What bourgeoisie? If there were a bourgeoisie, Castro's daughter would be living the high life in Cuba, rather than living here in Miami.


That's rich. Are you saying then that Cuba is a healthy workers' state?

Hardly, but I don't condemn it to the ashes. I think that under ideal circumstances, it would be healthy, but given that it is 90 miles from the shores of the most powerful capitalist empire in the world, it's a siege state.

[Yehuda Stern]

Castro's aid is what radicalized the soviets to commit more aid to africa, and eventually the overextension that would topple the soviet union. please tell me how toppling the soviet union is serving USSR imperialist interests?

I'm sorry, but to me that's just fictional. First, I doubt that it was Castro that caused the USSR to give more aid to Africa. Second, I don't think the Soviet Union collapsed because of overextension - it collapsed because it was a very decayed and unstable form of capitalism that was in an even worse position than normal capitalism to stay on its feet.


Wouldn't this most likely create an opportunity for an imperialist invasion and a disaster for Cuba of unprecedented scale?

I don't buy that argument, which has always been used by bourgeois nationalists to excuse their opposition to a workers' revolution. Today, Chavez uses the same excuse to explain why he doesn't go through with his 'revolution.' The answer is that revolution will always provoke the imperialists and would most likely lead them to attack. The revolutionary party must be able to deal with this fact.


I don't buy any of the state capitalist definitions that people attempt to apply to the Communist governments. It's a crap theory, but I didn't want to get into a discussion on it.

A wise decision.


This is, again, an example of where people create definitions, than have problems because reality stubbornly refuses to conform. Rather then condemning Cuba for not meeting our definitions, we ought to condemn our definitions for failing to explain reality.I thought we were agreeing to disagree. My definitions fit Stalinist regimes quite fine - it's the definition of socialism that ends up looking ridiculous enforced on capitalist states. If you're wondering, our theory of state capitalism happens to be very different than that of the SWP. But, like you said...


How much have you actually studied on the Cuban revolution, Yahuda? I'm not trying to be snarky or put you down. Most comrades don't really take the time to study it, and they have ideas in their heads about the history of Cuba that simply didn't happen. For some reason, most comrades don't know a simple historical fact, that a general strike brought down the Batista dictatorship.First of all, it's Yehuda. I can understand when Americans get the name typed wrong after they only hear it, but it's pretty tough to do it when you've only ever read the name.

Second, while I am a hardly a professor on the subject, I know about the Cuban revolution quite well, thank you. I know there was a general strike. I doubt that it was the decisive factor in the revolution; more likely, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Either way, like I said, it is quite irrelevant, as even truly proletarian revolutions have at times been hijacked by reformist leaders who led them to failure. Castro had an easier time, as the workers were relatively passive already.


Your direct experience with Cuban workers is what?That they have no control over bourgeois regimes, and that bureaucrats often are the ones running trade unions in times of social peace.


What bourgeoisie? If there were a bourgeoisie, Castro's daughter would be living the high life in Cuba, rather than living here in Miami.Please decide if we're going to have a debate over the class nature of Cuba, then resume your questions.


Hardly, but I don't condemn it to the ashes. I think that under ideal circumstances, it would be healthy, but given that it is 90 miles from the shores of the most powerful capitalist empire in the world, it's a siege state.Well, you're definitely right - Lenin didn't have to use such measures because the imperialists never bothered the Soviets. Oh wait, that's actually not true - THEY SENT ALL THEIR ARMIES TO DESTROY THE SOVIET REGIME!

[Dust Bunnies]

Sure, he has made missteps, but because of his, Raul's, and Che's skill they had liberated the Cubans from being an American puppet. Also, there is a website that talks about cuba.

http://www.cubatruth.org/

[chegitz guevara]

I thought we were agreeing to disagree. My definitions fit Stalinist regimes quite fine - it's the definition of socialism that ends up looking ridiculous enforced on capitalist states. If you're wondering, our theory of state capitalism happens to be very different than that of the SWP. But, like you said...

That wasn't a comment about state capitalism, but the Trotskyist tendency to see the Russian Revolution as the one and only model by which workers revolution can come about. If it fails to follow the model, it's not a real workers revolution. I'm of the opinion that only one workers revolution will ever look like the Russian example, the Russian Revolution. Every revolution has its own character, it's own methods, its own way of doing things.


First of all, it's Yehuda. I can understand when Americans get the name typed wrong after they only hear it, but it's pretty tough to do it when you've only ever read the name.

People make typos. It's a fact of life. Best not to get upset about it.


I know there was a general strike. I doubt that it was the decisive factor in the revolution; more likely, it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

So the Bolsheviks were the decisive factor in the overthrow of the Tsar? The fact is, revolutions occur, not when regimes are at the height of their power, but when they are weakened. The guerrilla war broke the power of the Batista regime. The workers then overthrew it. Some disaster weakens the chains of oppression, and the people rise up and break them. Same way it happened in France or in Russia and Germany China, etc. In this case, the disaster was a guerrilla war, but the revolution was the general strike and what came after.


Either way, like I said, it is quite irrelevant, as even truly proletarian revolutions have at times been hijacked by reformist leaders who led them to failure. Castro had an easier time, as the workers were relatively passive already.

I don't consider mass marches of hundreds of thousands of people demanding Castro take the presidency or workers seizing the means of production passivity. The workers of Cuba were hardly passive. In fact, they drove the revolution, radicalized it, pushed it from being simply a bourgeois nationalist revolution into something qualitiatively different. As is often the case, the workers were out in front of their leaders.


That they have no control over bourgeois regimes, and that bureaucrats often are the ones running trade unions in times of social peace.

Really, that's your direct experience with the workers of Cuba? When were you in Cuba or Miami or Northern New Jersey to speak with these workers?


Well, you're definitely right - Lenin didn't have to use such measures because the imperialists never bothered the Soviets. Oh wait, that's actually not true - THEY SENT ALL THEIR ARMIES TO DESTROY THE SOVIET REGIME!

So what exactly is your point? If Lenin used the measures, it's okay, but if Castro used them, it's evidence that he's an agent for another class? Not following you here.

[ashaman1324]

I'm sorry, but to me that's just fictional. First, I doubt that it was Castro that caused the USSR to give more aid to Africa. Second, I don't think the Soviet Union collapsed because of overextension - it collapsed because it was a very decayed and unstable form of capitalism that was in an even worse position than normal capitalism to stay on its feet.
how wasn't it castro that caused the USSR to give more aid to africa, would the mighty USSR be shown up by a new (third world as you said) country?
i agree that overextension wasnt the sole cause of soviet decline, but it was definitely a major factor, if the USSR wasn't pouring so much money to support it's foreign campaigns they could pay to fix domestic problems and would probably have lasted longer.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't think it was Soviet foreign aid that brought it down, but the Cold War and bureaucratic inefficiency as well as the alienation of the Soviet working class.

[ashaman1324]

I don't think it was Soviet foreign aid that brought it down, but the Cold War and bureaucratic inefficiency as well as the alienation of the Soviet working class.
to each his own i guess. both your points definitely contributed, but primarily overextension as i see it.

[Yehuda Stern]

I'm of the opinion that only one workers revolution will ever look like the Russian example, the Russian Revolution.

So am I, yet I still would expect the taking of power by a revolutionary workers' party, not by a middle class guerilla movement.


So the Bolsheviks were the decisive factor in the overthrow of the Tsar?

No, but they were the decisive factor in the overthrow of capitalism. Overthrowing the Czar is not the same as overthrowing Russian imperialism, nor was overthrowing Batista the same as overthrowing Cuban capitalism. In both cases the revolutions were political - in the former it advanced into a social revolution, and in the latter, it did not.


I don't consider mass marches of hundreds of thousands of people demanding Castro take the presidency or workers seizing the means of production passivity.

Like I said, the workers were relatively passive - they were passive in the sense that they developed no political leadership of their own, and were still looking to the middle class for leadership.


Really, that's your direct experience with the workers of Cuba?

It's my experience with workers in capitalist societies in general. And please, no honor games, they fail to impress me.


So what exactly is your point?

My point is that under much more severe conditions, Lenin, unlike Castro, presided over a regime of soviet democracy, not of one man rule.


how wasn't it castro that caused the USSR to give more aid to africa, would the mighty USSR be shown up by a new (third world as you said) country?

You're going to have to rephrase that, I didn't get what you were trying to say.


i agree that overextension wasnt the sole cause of soviet decline, but it was definitely a major factor, if the USSR wasn't pouring so much money to support it's foreign campaigns they could pay to fix domestic problems and would probably have lasted longer.

It may have been a secondary factor. However, the USSR, like any imperialist force, was forced to protect its imperial interests globally lest it would be overcome by other imperialist powers. So superficially, it might be a cause, but concretely the 'over-extension' was inevitable.

[ashaman1324]

My point is that under much more severe conditions, Lenin, unlike Castro, presided over a regime of soviet democracy, not of one man rule.
castro presided over proportionately sever conditions, and ive been reading into cuban government and policy more than usual since we began our discussion, im convinced hes less a dictator than either of us think/ thought. cuba has a one party government that is almost as varied as revleft in views and interpretations of socialism. workers have massive unions and officials are nominated by the people, not the party and over 99% of the population turns out to vote.


You're going to have to rephrase that, I didn't get what you were trying to say.
would the USSR allow itself to be seen as less active than cuba in aiding foreign revolutions?
im saying castro was devoted enough to the worker that he spurred the soviet union to send more foreign aid, to not be outshone by cuba.


It may have been a secondary factor. However, the USSR, like any imperialist force, was forced to protect its imperial interests globally lest it would be overcome by other imperialist powers. So superficially, it might be a cause, but concretely the 'over-extension' was inevitable.
over- extension was inevitable i agree, but castro definitely sped it up.

[PRC-UTE]

I don't buy that argument, which has always been used by bourgeois nationalists to excuse their opposition to a workers' revolution. Today, Chavez uses the same excuse to explain why he doesn't go through with his 'revolution.' The answer is that revolution will always provoke the imperialists and would most likely lead them to attack. The revolutionary party must be able to deal with this fact.


You don't buy the argument that the USA would invade or sponsor an invasion if a Trotskyist-style political revolution occurred in Cuba?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

[PRC-UTE]

So am I, yet I still would expect the taking of power by a revolutionary workers' party, not by a middle class guerilla movement.

I guess you would likewise not have supported the Paris Commune or any revolution or revolutionary movement that was likewise not purely proletarian, even if it supported working class interests?



My point is that under much more severe conditions, Lenin, unlike Castro, presided over a regime of soviet democracy, not of one man rule.

False. This is called truthiness.

[Yehuda Stern]

castro presided over proportionately sever conditions

Did Castro have 14 imperialist armies marching around in his land? Didn't think so. Not even one until Bay of Pigs, actually.


and ive been reading into cuban government and policy more than usual since we began our discussion, im convinced hes less a dictator than either of us think/ thought. cuba has a one party government that is almost as varied as revleft in views and interpretations of socialism

Almost is the key word here - it doesn't include any view which supports a workers' political revolution in Cuba. I doesn't include any who believe that the Cuban state is still capitalist and that a socialist revolution is needed.


workers have massive unions and officials are nominated by the people, not the party and over 99% of the population turns out to vote.

Even if I do buy that, that makes Cuba at best almost as good as a bourgeois democracy.


would the USSR allow itself to be seen as less active than cuba in aiding foreign revolutions?

I don't think it had to - Cuba did the bidding of the USSR when it aided certain countries that the USSR wanted in its sphere of influence. The changing position of Castro on Eritrea / Mengitsu shows this fact clearly.


You don't buy the argument that the USA would invade or sponsor an invasion if a Trotskyist-style political revolution occurred in Cuba?

That much is obvious. I don't buy the argument that that means that we shouldn't make these revolutions. (just to be clear - I support a social revolution, not a political one, inasmuch as Cuba is still capitalist)


I guess you would likewise not have supported the Paris Commune or any revolution or revolutionary movement that was likewise not purely proletarian, even if it supported working class interests?

1. I would of course have supported the Paris Commune, which was a proletarian uprising, and would have tried to get the revolutionary party to become the leader of that uprising.
2. I would have even given military support to the guerillas in Cuba, possibly - but still, again, would fight for revolutionary workers to lead the movement.

[chegitz guevara]

So am I, yet I still would expect the taking of power by a revolutionary workers' party, not by a middle class guerilla movement.

How are you so certain of the class character of the guerrillas, for one? For two, the guerrillas did not make the revolution. They weakened the regime, and most certainly would have defeated it, but that task feel to the Cuban workers instead.

It is true that no mass revolutionary workers party existed in Cuba. But the capitalist state was unable to defend capitalism and the guerrillas stood aloof from the class struggle. Without another force suppressing them, the role of a revolutionary party isn't as necessary. The workers lurched forward, but fits and starts, seizing he means of production. Since the government didn't stop them, they took more and more, and pushed Castro and his guerrillas further to the left.


No, but they were the decisive factor in the overthrow of capitalism. Overthrowing the Czar is not the same as overthrowing Russian imperialism, nor was overthrowing Batista the same as overthrowing Cuban capitalism. In both cases the revolutions were political - in the former it advanced into a social revolution, and in the latter, it did not.But you are ignoring the years after the overthrow of Batista. If I ignored the the period between the February revolution and the end of the Civil War, you'd rightly conclude I don't know what I'm talking about. You show little understanding of the process that occurred in Cuba, because you ignore the workers making their own revolution.


Like I said, the workers were relatively passive - they were passive in the sense that they developed no political leadership of their own, and were still looking to the middle class for leadership.Were not the leaders of the Bolsheviks middle class?


It's my experience with workers in capitalist societies in general. And please, no honor games, they fail to impress me.

It's not about honor games. It's about a materialist investigation of the facts, rather than letting ideology be your guide. My experience with Cuban workers tells my your ideas are wrong.


My point is that under much more severe conditions, Lenin, unlike Castro, presided over a regime of soviet democracy, not of one man rule.My point would to respond that one: Cuba is not under one man rule, and Two, Soviet democracy ended in 1918, when the Soviets voted to shut themselves down so the could go off to fight the civil war. In fact, the repression and dictatorship under Lenin was much more repressive than was ever under Castro. I've yet to see evidence that Castro ordered the execution of a few hundred peasants in order to get them to comply with grain requisitioning. Where are the Cuban death squads (aside from the ones here in Miami)? The CHEKA killed fifty thousand people during the civil war. The Cubans executed 500 of the worst National Guards they got their hands on.

And Cuba is a fairly democratic state. Anyone can run for office at the lowest level of government, regardless of political party. That layer elects the level above it, and so on all the way up to the President. After 1921, how many non-Communists were elected in the USSR? I'm a staunch defender of Lenin and the Russian Revolution, but let's not pretend that it was a flowing democracy. As in Cuba, it was a siege state. Unlike in Cuba, because it faced far worse, it was far more repressive. I don't have a problem with that. I'm certainly not going to blame Cuba for not allowing itself to be overthrown by the North American empire.

[chegitz guevara]

Did Castro have 14 imperialist armies marching around in his land? Didn't think so. Not even one until Bay of Pigs, actually.

Is it your assertion that Cuba simply changed the names of dictators? That on Jan. 1, 1959, Castro became the new dictator of Cuba? Castro didn't even take power until a month and a half after the fall of Batista, when he was sworn in as Prime Minister.

Fairly soon after Batista was overthrown, but well before Castro became President, Cuban exiles would "steal" bombers from the U.S. Air force, fly to Cuba, and drop bombs. Then fly them back to the U.S., whether they would be reloaded and "stolen" again.

As in Russia, the development of a siege state took place over time, in order to combat sabotage, terrorism, and the anti-Castro guerrillas still fighting.

[ashaman1324]

Did Castro have 14 imperialist armies marching around in his land? Didn't think so. Not even one until Bay of Pigs, actually.
the USSR was considerably bigger and more powerful than cuba. i said "proportionately severe conditions" if 14 imperialist armies were to roam around in cuba, there probably wouldnt be any room for a battleground.



Almost is the key word here - it doesn't include any view which supports a workers' political revolution in Cuba. I doesn't include any who believe that the Cuban state is still capitalist and that a socialist revolution is needed.
if the workers wanted a revolution it would be represented. "almost as varied as revleft" was intended as, the cuban government probably doesnt include the more obscure branches of socialism, such as hoxhaism and probably not anarchists.



Even if I do buy that, that makes Cuba at best almost as good as a bourgeois democracy.
the key difference being its illegal for the nominees to spend great sums of money on their campaign, as we see in a bourgouise democracy. i would call cuba's system better.



I don't think it had to - Cuba did the bidding of the USSR when it aided certain countries that the USSR wanted in its sphere of influence. The changing position of Castro on Eritrea / Mengitsu shows this fact clearly.
the USSR certainly didnt have to, but their own arrogance clouded their logic. mengistu was a military dictator who gained power by killing seven rivals. its right for castro to withdraw support from him.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The question is this: is Cuba a worker's state? If so, when was it founded as a worker's state?

Castro (in his trips to New York) declared that "all classes" were bended to the Cuban Revolution, and he didn't declare himself a "Marxist-Leninist" until Moscow started providing military aid in exchange for exported sugar.

[ashaman1324]

The question is this: is Cuba a worker's state? If so, when was it founded as a worker's state?
yes, and it was established so in 1959 when castro's regime began.


Castro (in his trips to New York) declared that "all classes" were bended to the Cuban Revolution, and he didn't declare himself a "Marxist-Leninist" until Moscow started providing military aid in exchange for exported sugar.
castro's regime began in socialist hopes and achieved them, im unfamiliar with any claim that USSR aid helped castro decide toward marxism, its always been my belief that he was previously marxist to rebelling against batista with che guevara. please cite your source.

[PRC-UTE]

The question is this: is Cuba a worker's state? If so, when was it founded as a worker's state?

Castro (in his trips to New York) declared that "all classes" were bended to the Cuban Revolution, and he didn't declare himself a "Marxist-Leninist" until Moscow started providing military aid in exchange for exported sugar.

that's basically the version the Cuban state itself promotes: they were pushed into the socialist bloc by US aggression.

but it's not really what happened. the Castros and Che were planning and meeting with the communists and workers unions long before Fidel admitted his socialist politics publicly. they were also appointing communists as political officers within the July 26's armed forces and giving them lectures and education in Marxism (using mostly indigenous examples in their teachings) while publicly denying their aims were socialist. Fidel didn't want to play his hand too early, attempting to delay the inevitable showdown with the USA and his own reactionaries until they were ready- he even gave a very convincing appearance of demoting Che. Che also made reference to Fidel's strategy of giving the appearance that he wasn't socialist in his farewell letter to Fidel, admitting that he should've never doubted his leadership. Genius, honestly.

there were also organising of the peasants into something like a peasants congress even in the sierre maestra days.

see the book Che by Anderson. it's very well researched and explains a lot of this, it's useful despite its flaws.

[Ivhouse]

In typical dictator fashion when they overthrough the previous regime for the people they make it worse for the people and better for themselves. Piss on Castro and his thugs.

[benhur]

Well, you're definitely right - Lenin didn't have to use such measures because the imperialists never bothered the Soviets. Oh wait, that's actually not true - THEY SENT ALL THEIR ARMIES TO DESTROY THE SOVIET REGIME!

Can you point to a link that gives some info. on this? Thanks in advance.

[Guerrilla22]

He's done a lot for the Cuban people and people in general, it's easy to sit behind a computer and criticize a revolutionary figure for not adhering to your ideology exactly, but it's another thing to actually go out and fight for revolutionary change, which is what Fidel did for over 50 years.

[ashaman1324]

In typical dictator fashion when they overthrough the previous regime for the people they make it worse for the people and better for themselves. Piss on Castro and his thugs.
... please cite a source. any source other than your 9th grade history book.

[Yehuda Stern]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War

[JimmyJazz]

I support what exists in Cuba now, as I support what existed in Russia at one time.

But do I think that Fidel has dealt any more effectively than Lenin did at what seems to be the biggest problem of socialist revolutions--creating a reliable method for the transfer of power? I don't know for sure, but the fact that he put his own aging brother in charge doesn't bode well...

And if the revolution can't outlast the man, I'm not sure how much of my "support" it/he deserves.

[RedSonRising]

Although he is extreme, after reading Che Guevara's biography by John Lee Anderson, a lot of his methods make sense to me. They are not all totally justified, but it seems to me they wouldn't exist without a lot of the pressure the US puts/has put on Cuba and Latin America in general. Che closed the press immediately because of the way the US invaded the radio and media of Guatemala, resulting in the overthrow of Arbenz. There is much evidence that though it is single-party rule, grassroots democracy models allow regional decentralized representation. My conclusions to Castro's hold over power are either that the people idolize his revolutionary nature so much he is reelected, possibly along with a lack of power in competitors, OR Castro has personally held on to power in order to maintain continuity in policy and a better hold over the government in order to prevent US influence. Good or bad, it has been as effective as possible. Their economy is outdated, but with modern globalization and dominance from the WTO and IMF, Cuba will stand the test of time, especially if the embargo is lifted, which I feel is the most crippling thing to their economy and the woes of their workers/producers. I beleive he has had good intentions, regardless of his methods, and his leadership and understanding of imperialism makes me respect him as a leader and a vanguard for socialism in Latin America, where the education and healthcare methods they have implented are gravely needed.

[Agrippa]

Fidel Castro has sent aid [...] to many oppressed Countries.

There's a quote, I forget who said it, "philanthropy is stealing something wholesale and selling it retail"

For added fun, take any pro-Castro post in this thread and replace "Castro" with "president Bush", "Cuba" to "the U.S." and any reference to "revolution", "communism", etc. to "American democracy".

[Pogue]

Although I'm more on the libertarian side of socialism, I support him for his dedication, the risks he has taken throughout history and the much needed radical changes he has made, as well as for resisting neo-liberalism and aiding revolutionaries worldwide.

[Wanted Man]

There's a quote, I forget who said it, "philanthropy is stealing something wholesale and selling it retail"

For added fun, take any pro-Castro post in this thread and replace "Castro" with "president Bush", "Cuba" to "the U.S." and any reference to "revolution", "communism", etc. to "American democracy".
"President Bush has presided over the formation of American democracy. Grassroots democracy was introduced to the US under president Bush, while healthcare and education became freely available to all. Long live American democracy!"

Yeah, fits like a glove. :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

"President Bush has presided over the formation of American democracy. Grassroots democracy was introduced to the US under president Bush, while healthcare and education became freely available to all. Long live American democracy!"

Yeah, fits like a glove. :rolleyes:

:lol:

[#FF0000]

In typical dictator fashion when they overthrough the previous regime for the people they make it worse for the people and better for themselves. Piss on Castro and his thugs.

Excuse me? I'm not Che fanboy, but this is a fantastic example of pure ignorance. The Batista regime was not "for the people" in the least. You're talking about a guy who had people jailed or executed for having beards.

[Vendetta]

Excuse me? I'm not Che fanboy, but this is a fantastic example of pure ignorance. The Batista regime was not "for the people" in the least. You're talking about a guy who had people jailed or executed for having beards.

You read that wrong, he's saying they overthrew Batista for the people.

[chegitz guevara]

The question is this: is Cuba a worker's state? If so, when was it founded as a worker's state?

The government set up in the aftermath was a bourgeois one, but the state was not. As the workers became more and more active, taking greater and greater responsibilities for themselves, and ultimately seizing the means of production, the state sat back and didn't interfere. These politically active workers, i.e., the vanguard, then created a new state.


Castro (in his trips to New York) declared that "all classes" were bended to the Cuban Revolution, and he didn't declare himself a "Marxist-Leninist" until Moscow started providing military aid in exchange for exported sugar.

There are several possibilities. Castro was speaking the truth. Castro was lying. Castro thought he was telling the truth, but was wrong. I lean towards a combination of two and three.

[duffers]

Excuse me? I'm not Che fanboy, but this is a fantastic example of pure ignorance. The Batista regime was not "for the people" in the least. You're talking about a guy who had people jailed or executed for having beards.

This one put gays in camps, and AIDS sufferers in quarantine.

[Ptah_Khnemu]

This one put gays in camps, and AIDS sufferers in quarantine.
The camps for gays were not concentration camps, they were work camps gays went to because they were deemed unfit to do mandatory military service. All the men did on or the other (I don't know about women). Yes, it was unfair, but he never tried to kill them. Stop believing everything the american media tells you.

[chegitz guevara]

He's a Brit, first.

Second, if you read the interview of Castro by Sean Penn, you will see that Fidel acknowledges they were wrong and that they have taken steps undo the harm they did.

[Ptah_Khnemu]

He's a Brit, first.

Second, if you read the interview of Castro by Sean Penn, you will see that Fidel acknowledges they were wrong and that they have taken steps undo the harm they did.
Sorry about the nationality. I would assume the media in England isn't much better, though.

I know they were wrong, I wasn't saying it was right. I was just saying that he wasn't putting them in death camps or something.

Edit: Looking back, you didn't say anything that wasn't true. Sorry, I've been on really right-wing forums until now and I heard ridiculous slander against Fidel all the time. Defending Fidel against slander is so much a habit that I missed the point of your message. My bad, mate.

[scarletghoul]

A few years ago, it seemed like he was dying. But he has been alive and writing articles and stuff since then, so I wonder how long he will be around? Maybe he will recover, than he'll be all like "damn, i shouldn't have given up that presidency"

[chegitz guevara]

I'm glad he retired. He's given the world and his people so much. He deserves to have the time off, and to relax and enjoy himself. I hope he can enjoy another ten or twenty years of retirement. I'd like to meet him someday. I know two people who have.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah. I would love to meet him, so I'm hoping he will still be alive by the time I get the opportunity. Yes, he should stay around for a long time.

[duffers]

The camps for gays were not concentration camps, they were work camps gays went to because they were deemed unfit to do mandatory military service. All the men did on or the other (I don't know about women). Yes, it was unfair, but he never tried to kill them. Stop believing everything the american media tells you.

Oh sorry, I didn't know the word was synonymous with concentration camps. There was me thinking I put just the word camp.

Regardless, why are men who have different sexual orientation going to "camps" (no concentration before that, did you notice?) because they were "deemed unfit to do military service"; odd, no, especially in a revolutionary communist state? Egalitarianism for all, except the gays!

"Yes, it was unfair, but he never tried to kill them"; oh? Well that makes it alright then!

"American/English media"; Peter Tatchell is a representative for the whole American and English medias? Wasn't aware of that either...

Also, I'm neither a 'Brit', nor English. Funny the anomalies a far left site throws up; the use of oppression terms like Britain and the pejorative slur of Brit to go with it, the uncompromising defence of abuse to gays (they weren't killed though, so not so terrible after all), and the irrelevant question of where I'm from.

[Ptah_Khnemu]

Oh sorry, I didn't know the word was synonymous with concentration camps. There was me thinking I put just the word camp.

Regardless, why are men who have different sexual orientation going to "camps" (no concentration before that, did you notice?) because they were "deemed unfit to do military service"; odd, no, especially in a revolutionary communist state? Egalitarianism for all, except the gays!

"Yes, it was unfair, but he never tried to kill them"; oh? Well that makes it alright then!

"American/English media"; Peter Tatchell is a representative for the whole American and English medias? Wasn't aware of that either...

Also, I'm neither a 'Brit', nor English. Funny the anomalies a far left site throws up; the use of oppression terms like Britain and the pejorative slur of Brit to go with it, the uncompromising defence of abuse to gays (they weren't killed though, so not so terrible after all), and the irrelevant question of where I'm from.
See my last post.

[chegitz guevara]

Also, I'm neither a 'Brit', nor English. Funny the anomalies a far left site throws up; the use of oppression terms like Britain and the pejorative slur of Brit to go with it, the uncompromising defence of abuse to gays (they weren't killed though, so not so terrible after all), and the irrelevant question of where I'm from.

Yer in London, GB, yer a Brit until you say otherwise. As to why it's relevent, he was talking about the American media, which isn't relevant if you don't live in America. :rolleyes:

[Van]

I guess I'm critically supportive. The Cuban people are better off under him than under the Batista regime, that's for sure. However, I have mixed feelings about the current situation in Cuba.

[duffers]

See my last post.

Yeah I saw it, I fail how it answers your poor justification that places gays in camps is alright, aslong as they're alive at the end of it.

And the stereotype that Americans are culturally ignorant isn't being helped by you chegitz, when you're using terms like Brit or GB. Nor have I ever claimed I'm an Englishman. Won't you focus on your mindless cult personality adoring?

[Ptah_Khnemu]

Again, I wasn't trying to say that it was okay. I've just been on right-wing forums until a few days ago when I found this site, and the amount of 'castro put gays in concentration camps' I got was crazy. So I'm not disagreeing with what you said, I just misinterpreted what you said. I'm still getting used to a forum where communism isn't bashed all the time.

[Wanted Man]

Sorry, but the idea that "Fidel and Che hated gays, so they put them all into camps" is crap. There are some (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1242034&postcount=6) good (http://www.revleft.com/vb/behind-1980-39-t59607/index.html?p=913754) posts (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1078356&postcount=75) on this.

Please do some research before making such claims. I appreciated your arguments about Irish republicanism in the other thread. How would you like it if some uninformed guy was like: "The Irish republicans are fighting a sectarian war, on behalf of catholicism. This is wrong, because catholics are largely homophobic."

Argue from knowledge, not ignorance.

[ev]

He's a fucking legendary politician, a "heavy-weight" imo, even though I disagree with some of his politics, we must not be ignorant to the reasons why he has made certain decisions, who here cannot say that they cannot appreciate the fact that he has survived so many CIA assassination attempts, he should go down in the guiness book of records for that. He has made some fuckups though, but under the circumstances Cuba has alot of opportunity to move forward, to become more democratic and is not limited to more socialist policies being implemented within the 'framework of the state' the revolution hasn't rested and I only hope that it moves forwards instead of backwareds after Fidel Castro's death.

[Magdalen]

Yeah I saw it, I fail how it answers your poor justification that places gays in camps is alright, aslong as they're alive at the end of it.

I'll direct you back to a post I made in this thread some time ago.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1256072&postcount=129

[duffers]

Madgalen, thank you for telling me about Cuba in the 80's, which Peter Tatchell, his report, and the decade he wrote it in (2000's) all belong to, indefinitely it seems!

http://www.pinktriangle.org.uk/glh/213/cuba.html

The ostrich approach won't change facts, despite how far you dig your heads in.