There is much to criticise about Fidel. If one wouldn't go so far as to call his regime a dictatorship (but there is much to suggest it is), it certainly revolves around a cult of personality at least.
Homosexuality is not illegal in Cuba. In the 60's some gays were forced into labour camps for 'rehab' but now there is much tolerance - the good ol' Lonely Planet guidebook says that the film 'Fresa y Chocolate' led to a national discussion about tolerance - anyone seen this film?
Was Castro a true socialist? If you read Che's and Fidel's biographies (Anderson and Tzulc respectively), you definitely get the feeling that Fidel is a master politician with superior perceptions of people and extremely adept at taking on board whatever line suits his agenda. At the time of the revolution, Fidel very carefully assessed with whom he could form an allegiance - the Soviets were perfect at the time.
It seems clear that Fidel is highly intelligent and able to work everyone and everything to his advantage with great and subtle skill - that includes Che. He cleverly avoids the use of his own image as a symbol of the revolution - Che is the perfect advertising tool for that purpose. Whatever Fidel really feels about Che is irrelevant - he knew he had a perfect icon in Che and has used Che's image and mystique for propaganda ever since his death.
Fidel states the revolution is 'by the humble, for the humble' - and constantly says 'history will absolve me' - he employs the rhetoric of noble ideology very convincingly.
Still, there is much to be said for his social experiment and no one can deny the outstanding success of his health and education policies. A Fidel style dictatorship may in fact compare favourably with some 'free democracies'. It's all a matter of perception.
It cannot but be supportive, socialist, communist or whatever you want to call it. Does nature, and the human species with it, have much time left to survive in the absence of such change? Very little time. Who will be the builders of that new world? The
