A strong light has gone out in the world. He is being missed...

A strong light has gone out in the world. He is being missed...

Yes, they are grave dancing on the streets of Little Havana in Miami. And no doubt on twitter too, time to piss in that punch bowl.

Yes, they are grave dancing on the streets of Little Havana in Miami. And no doubt on twitter too, time to piss in that punch bowl.

Yeah, national "news" has been lying to beat the band all morning

Fidel Castro: A Remarkable Life in 14 Pictures
IN PICTURES: On Nov. 25, the leader of the Cuban Revolution Fidel Castro died at the age of 90. Fidel, as he was commonly known around the world, lead Cuba’s July 26 Movement which fought the U.S.-backed Batista dictatorship until achieving victory over Batista's forces in 1959.

For decades, from Venezuela to South Africa, his words and actions have inspired thousands around the world.

During his five decades of statesmanship, he also earned the ire of the United States, surviving more than 600 assassination attempts.

teleSUR takes a look at a remarkable life that has left en indelible imprint on Cuba and Latin America.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/multimedia/Fidel-Castro-A-Remarkable-Life-in-14-Pictures-20161126-0003.html

Please use the link.

¡Hasta la victoria siempre!

Message from the President of Cuba’s Councils of State and Ministers, Army General Raúl Castro, notifying the Cuban people and world of the death of the late leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro

Author: Raúl Castro Ruz | internet@granma.cu

november 26, 2016 05:11:57


Photo: Archivo
“Dear people of Cuba:

It is with deep sorrow that I come before you to inform our people, and friends of Our America and the world, that today, November 25, at 10.29pm, Comandante en Jefe of the Cuban Revolution Fidel Castro Ruz passed away. In accordance with his express wishes Compañero Fidel’s remains will be cremated. In the early hours of the morning of Saturday 26, the funeral organizing commission will provide our people with detailed information regarding the posthumous tributes which will be paid to the founder of the Cuban Revolution.

¡Hasta la victoria siempre!”

http://en.granma.cu/cuba/2016-11-26/hasta-la-victoria-siempre

Granma seems to be in 'safe' mode, must be getting hammered.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/mul...1126-0003.html

Very good photo essay.

Granma seems to be in 'safe' mode, must be getting hammered.

This is an event that rocks the world - regardless of which side you are on...

Fidel Castro, Fidel the Faithful. A man and a spirit set against the multitude of Judases, Thomases and the faithless and the faceless.
Fidel Castro: "I began revolution with 82 men. If I had do it again, I'd do it with 10 or 15 and absolute faith. It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and plan of action."
If there is an Isle of the Blessed (or Paradise) for the faithful communists, one has to wonder how it would look like and how many or few would make it there.
Socrates: "And that I am given to you by God is proved by this: - that if I had been like other men, I should not have neglected all my own concerns, or patiently seen the neglect of them during all these years, and have been doing yours, coming to you individually, like a father or elder brother, exhorting you to regard virtue; this I say, would not be like human nature. ... Now if death is like this, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world, and finds the true judges who are said to give judgment there, Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and Triptolemus, and other sons of God who were righteous in their own life, that pilgrimage will be worth making. What would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if this be true, let me die again and again. I, too, shall have a wonderful interest in a place where I can converse with Palamedes, and Ajax the son of Telamon, and other heroes of old, who have suffered death through an unjust judgment; and there will be no small pleasure, as I think, in comparing my own sufferings with theirs. Above all, I shall be able to continue my search into true and false knowledge; as in this world, so also in that; I shall find out who is wise, and who pretends to be wise, and is not. What would not a man give, O judges, to be able to examine the leader of the great Trojan expedition; or Odysseus or Sisyphus, or numberless others, men and women too! What infinite delight would there be in conversing with them and asking them questions! For in that world they do not put a man to death for this; certainly not. For besides being happier in that world than in this, they will be immortal, if what is said is true.
Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know this of a truth - that no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death. He and his are not neglected by the gods; nor has my own approaching end happened by mere chance."

https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.suchan/posts/10154081549698388

If there is an Isle of the Blessed (or Paradise) for the faithful communists, one has to wonder how it would look like and how many or few would make it there.

Vlad is florid, as usual, but it is heartfelt, that is plain.

Fidel Castro Speaks on Marxism-Leninism

No statement by a world leader has ever been so willfully distorted as Fidel Castro's historic speech of December 2nd, 1961. Made in a Havana television studio during the early hours of the morning and broadcast live over television and radio, the speech is a lengthy and complex analysis of the development of the Cuban Revolution, so frank .that it bars comparison. It was not a formal diplomatic utterance of a statesman, but an incredibly sincere and searching account by a tested revolutionary leader of the evolution of his own political thinking. Officially, the speech opened a series of talks to the Cuban people by revolutionary leaders on the organization of the new United Party of the Socialist Revolution. And Fidel takes great pains to outline the political and ideological reasons behind the formation of this new integrated revolutionary party.

http://www.walterlippmann.com/fc-12-02-1961.html

History Will Absolve Me

Spoken: 1953
Publisher: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, La Habana, Cuba. 1975

Translated: Pedro Álvarez Tabío & Andrew Paul Booth (who rechecked the translation with the Spanish La historia me absolverá, same publisher, in 1981)
Transcription/Markup: Andrew Paul Booth/Brian Baggins

Online Version: 1997, Castro Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2001


HONORABLE JUDGES:

Never has a lawyer had to practice his profession under such difficult conditions; never has such a number of overwhelming irregularities been committed against an accused man. In this case, counsel and defendant are one and the same. As attorney he has not even been able to take a look at the indictment. As accused, for the past seventy-six days he has been locked away in solitary confinement, held totally and absolutely incommunicado, in violation of every human and legal right.

He who speaks to you hates vanity with all his being, nor are his temperament or frame of mind inclined towards courtroom poses or sensationalism of any kind. If I have had to assume my own defense before this Court it is for two reasons. First: because I have been denied legal aid almost entirely, and second: only one who has been so deeply wounded, who has seen his country so forsaken and its justice trampled so, can speak at a moment like this with words that spring from the blood of his heart and the truth of his very gut.

There was no lack of generous comrades who wished to defend me, and the Havana Bar Association appointed a courageous and competent jurist, Dr. Jorge Pagliery, Dean of the Bar in this city, to represent me in this case. However, he was not permitted to carry out his task. As often as he tried to see me, the prison gates were closed before him. Only after a month and a half, and through the intervention of the Court, was he finally granted a ten minute interview with me in the presence of a sergeant from the Military Intelligence Agency (SIM). One supposes that a lawyer has a right to speak with his defendant in private, and this right is respected throughout the world, except in the case of a Cuban prisoner of war in the hands of an implacable tyranny that abides by no code of law, be it legal or humane. Neither Dr. Pagliery nor I were willing to tolerate such dirty spying upon our means of defense for the oral trial. Did they want to know, perhaps, beforehand, the methods we would use in order to reduce to dust the incredible fabric of lies they had woven around the Moncada Barracks events? How were we going to expose the terrible truth they would go to such great lengths to conceal? It was then that we decided that, taking advantage of my professional rights as a lawyer, I would assume my own defense.

This decision, overheard by the sergeant and reported by him to his superior, provoked a real panic. It looked like some mocking little imp was telling them that I was going to ruin all their plans. You know very well, Honorable Judges, how much pressure has been brought to bear on me in order to strip me as well of this right that is ratified by long Cuban tradition. The Court could not give in to such machination, for that would have left the accused in a state of total indefensiveness. The accused, who is now exercising this right to plead his own case, will under no circumstances refrain from saying what he must say. I consider it essential that I explain, at the onset, the reason for the terrible isolation in which I have been kept; what was the purpose of keeping me silent; what was behind the plots to kill me, plots which the Court is familiar with; what grave events are being hidden from the people; and the truth behind all the strange things which have taken place during this trial. I propose to do all this with utmost clarity.

You have publicly called this case the most significant in the history of the Republic. If you sincerely believed this, you should not have allowed your authority to be stained and degraded. The first court session was September 21st. Among one hundred machine guns and bayonets, scandalously invading the hall of justice, more than a hundred people were seated in the prisoner's dock. The great majority had nothing to do with what had happened. They had been under preventive arrest for many days, suffering all kinds of insults and abuses in the chambers of the repressive units. But the rest of the accused, the minority, were brave and determined, ready to proudly confirm their part in the battle for freedom, ready to offer an example of unprecedented self-sacrifice and to wrench from the jail's claws those who in deliberate bad faith had been included in the trial. Those who had met in combat confronted one another again. Once again, with the cause of justice on our side, we would wage the terrible battle of truth against infamy! Surely the regime was not prepared for the moral catastrophe in store for it!

How to maintain all its false accusations? How to keep secret what had really happened, when so many young men were willing to risk everything - prison, torture and death, if necessary - in order that the truth be told before this Court?

I was called as a witness at that first session. For two hours I was questioned by the Prosecutor as well as by twenty defense attorneys. I was able to prove with exact facts and figures the sums of money that had been spent, the way this money was collected and the arms we had been able to round up. I had nothing to hide, for the truth was: all this was accomplished through sacrifices without precedent in the history of our Republic. I spoke of the goals that inspired us in our struggle and of the humane and generous treatment that we had at all times accorded our adversaries. If I accomplished my purpose of demonstrating that those who were falsely implicated in this trial were neither directly nor indirectly involved, I owe it to the complete support and backing of my heroic comrades. For, as I said, the consequences they might be forced to suffer at no time caused them to repent of their condition as revolutionaries and patriots, I was never once allowed to speak with these comrades of mine during the time we were in prison, and yet we planned to do exactly the same. The fact is, when men carry the same ideals in their hearts, nothing can isolate them - neither prison walls nor the sod of cemeteries. For a single memory, a single spirit, a single idea, a single conscience, a single dignity will sustain them all.

From that moment on, the structure of lies the regime had erected about the events at Moncada Barracks began to collapse like a house of cards. As a result, the Prosecutor realized that keeping all those persons named as instigators in prison was completely absurd, and he requested their provisional release.

At the close of my testimony in that first session, I asked the Court to allow me to leave the dock and sit among the counsel for the defense. This permission was granted. At that point what I consider my most important mission in this trial began: to totally discredit the cowardly, miserable and treacherous lies which the regime had hurled against our fighters; to reveal with irrefutable evidence the horrible, repulsive crimes they had practiced on the prisoners; and to show the nation and the world the infinite misfortune of the Cuban people who are suffering the cruelest, the most inhuman oppression of their history.

The second session convened on Tuesday, September 22nd. By that time only ten witnesses had testified, and they had already cleared up the murders in the Manzanillo area, specifically establishing and placing on record the direct responsibility of the captain commanding that post. There were three hundred more witnesses to testify. What would happen if, with a staggering mass of facts and evidence, I should proceed to cross-examine the very Army men who were directly responsible for those crimes? Could the regime permit me to go ahead before the large audience attending the trial? Before journalists and jurists from all over the island? And before the party leaders of the opposition, who they had stupidly seated right in the prisoner's dock where they could hear so well all that might be brought out here? They would rather have blown up the court house, with all its judges, than allow that!

And so they devised a plan by which they could eliminate me from the trial and they proceeded to do just that, manu militari. On Friday night, September 25th, on the eve of the third session of the trial, two prison doctors visited me in my cell. They were visibly embarrassed. 'We have come to examine you,' they said. I asked them, 'Who is so worried about my health?' Actually, from the moment I saw them I realized what they had come for. They could not have treated me with greater respect, and they explained their predicament to me. That afternoon Colonel Chaviano had appeared at the prison and told them I 'was doing the Government terrible damage with this trial.' He had told them they must sign a certificate declaring that I was ill and was, therefore, unable to appear in court. The doctors told me that for their part they were prepared to resign from their posts and risk persecution. They put the matter in my hands, for me to decide. I found it hard to ask those men to unhesitatingly destroy themselves. But neither could I, under any circumstances, consent that those orders be carried out. Leaving the matter to their own consciences, I told them only: 'You must know your duty; I certainly know mine.'

After leaving the cell they signed the certificate. I know they did so believing in good faith that this was the only way they could save my life, which they considered to be in grave danger. I was not obliged to keep our conversation secret, for I am bound only by the truth. Telling the truth in this instance may jeopardize those good doctors in their material interests, but I am removing all doubt about their honor, which is worth much more. That same night, I wrote the Court a letter denouncing the plot; requesting that two Court physicians be sent to certify my excellent state of health, and to inform you that if to save my life I must take part in such deception, I would a thousand times prefer to lose it. To show my determination to fight alone against this whole degenerate frame-up, I added to my own words one of the Master's lines: 'A just cause even from the depths of a cave can do more than an army.' As the Court knows, this was the letter Dr. Melba Hernández submitted at the third session of the trial on September 26th. I managed to get it to her in spite of the heavy guard I was under. That letter, of course, provoked immediate reprisals. Dr. Hernández was subjected to solitary confinement, and I - since I was already incommunicado - was sent to the most inaccessible reaches of the prison. From that moment on, all the accused were thoroughly searched from head to foot before they were brought into the courtroom.

Two Court physicians certified on September 27th that I was, in fact, in perfect health. Yet, in spite of the repeated orders from the Court, I was never again brought to the hearings. What's more, anonymous persons daily circulated hundreds of apocryphal pamphlets which announced my rescue from jail. This stupid alibi was invented so they could physically eliminate me and pretend I had tried to escape. Since the scheme failed as a result of timely exposure by ever alert friends, and after the first affidavit was shown to be false, the regime could only keep me away from the trial by open and shameless contempt of Court.

This was an incredible situation, Honorable Judges: Here was a regime literally afraid to bring an accused man to Court; a regime of blood and terror that shrank in fear of the moral conviction of a defenseless man - unarmed, slandered and isolated. And so, after depriving me of everything else, they finally deprived me even of the trial in which I was the main accused. Remember that this was during a period in which individual rights were suspended and the Public Order Act as well as censorship of radio and press were in full force. What unbelievable crimes this regime must have committed to so fear the voice of one accused man!

I must dwell upon the insolence and disrespect which the Army leaders have at all times shown towards you. As often as this Court has ordered an end to the inhuman isolation in which I was held; as often as it has ordered my most elementary rights to be respected; as often as it has demanded that I be brought before it, this Court has never been obeyed! Worse yet: in the very presence of the Court, during the first and second hearings, a praetorian guard was stationed beside me to totally prevent me from speaking to anyone, even among the brief recesses. In other words, not only in prison, but also in the courtroom and in your presence, they ignored your decrees. I had intended to mention this matter in the following session, as a question of elementary respect for the Court, but - I was never brought back. And if, in exchange for so much disrespect, they bring us before you to be jailed in the name of a legality which they and they alone have been violating since March 10th, sad indeed is the role they would force on you. The Latin maxim Cedant arma togae has certainly not been fulfilled on a single occasion during this trial. I beg you to keep that circumstance well in mind.

What is more, these devices were in any case quite useless; my brave comrades, with unprecedented patriotism, did their duty to the utmost.

'Yes, we set out to fight for Cuba's freedom and we are not ashamed of having done so,' they declared, one by one, on the witness stand. Then, addressing the Court with impressive courage, they denounced the hideous crimes committed upon the bodies of our brothers. Although absent from Court, I was able, in my prison cell, to follow the trial in all its details. And I have the convicts at Boniato Prison to thank for this. In spite of all threats, these men found ingenious means of getting newspaper clippings and all kinds of information to me. In this way they avenged the abuses and immoralities perpetrated against them both by Taboada, the warden, and the supervisor, Lieutenant Rozabal, who drove them from sun up to sun down building private mansions and starved them by embezzling the prison food budget.

As the trial went on, the roles were reversed: those who came to accuse found themselves accused, and the accused became the accusers! It was not the revolutionaries who were judged there; judged once and forever was a man named Batista - monstruum horrendum! - and it matters little that these valiant and worthy young men have been condemned, if tomorrow the people will condemn the Dictator and his henchmen! Our men were consigned to the Isle of Pines Prison, in whose circular galleries Castells' ghost still lingers and where the cries of countless victims still echo; there our young men have been sent to expiate their love of liberty, in bitter confinement, banished from society, torn from their homes and exiled from their country. Is it not clear to you, as I have said before, that in such circumstances it is difficult and disagreeable for this lawyer to fulfill his duty?

As a result of so many turbid and illegal machinations, due to the will of those who govern and the weakness of those who judge, I find myself here in this little room at the Civilian Hospital, where I have been brought to be tried in secret, so that I may not be heard and my voice may be stifled, and so that no one may learn of the things I am going to say. Why, then, do we need that imposing Palace of Justice which the Honorable Judges would without doubt find much more comfortable? I must warn you: it is unwise to administer justice from a hospital room, surrounded by sentinels with fixed bayonets; the citizens might suppose that our justice is sick - and that it is captive.

Let me remind you, your laws of procedure provide that trials shall be 'public hearings;' however, the people have been barred altogether from this session of Court. The only civilians admitted here have been two attorneys and six reporters, in whose newspapers the censorship of the press will prevent printing a word I say. I see, as my sole audience in this chamber and in the corridors, nearly a hundred soldiers and officers. I am grateful for the polite and serious attention they give me. I only wish I could have the whole Army before me! I know, one day, this Army will seethe with rage to wash away the terrible, the shameful bloodstains splattered across the military uniform by the present ruthless clique in its lust for power. On that day, oh what a fall awaits those mounted in arrogance on their noble steeds! - provided that the people have not dismounted them long before that!

Finally, I should like to add that no treatise on penal law was allowed me in my cell. I have at my disposal only this tiny code of law lent to me by my learned counsel, Dr. Baudillo Castellanos, the courageous defender of my comrades. In the same way they prevented me from receiving the books of Martí; it seems the prison censorship considered them too subversive. Or is it because I said Martí was the inspirer of the 26th of July? Reference books on any other subject were also denied me during this trial. But it makes no difference! I carry the teachings of the Master in my heart, and in my mind the noble ideas of all men who have defended people's freedom everywhere!

I am going to make only one request of this court; I trust it will be granted as a compensation for the many abuses and outrages the accused has had to tolerate without protection of the law. I ask that my right to express myself be respected without restraint. Otherwise, even the merest semblance of justice cannot be maintained, and the final episode of this trial would be, more than all the others, one of ignominy and cowardice.

I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed. I had expected that the Honorable Prosecutor would come forward with a grave accusation. I thought he would be ready to justify to the limit his contention, and his reasons why I should be condemned in the name of Law and Justice - what law and what justice? - to 26 years in prison. But no. He has limited himself to reading Article 148 of the Social Defense Code. On the basis of this, plus aggravating circumstances, he requests that I be imprisoned for the lengthy term of 26 years! Two minutes seems a very short time in which to demand and justify that a man be put behind bars for more than a quarter of a century. Can it be that the Honorable Prosecutor is, perhaps, annoyed with the Court? Because as I see it, his laconic attitude in this case clashes with the solemnity with which the Honorable Judges declared, rather proudly, that this was a trial of the greatest importance! I have heard prosecutors speak ten times longer in a simple narcotics case asking for a sentence of just six months. The Honorable Prosecutor has supplied not a word in support of his petition. I am a just man. I realize that for a prosecuting attorney under oath of loyalty to the Constitution of the Republic, it is difficult to come here in the name of an unconstitutional, statutory, de facto government, lacking any legal much less moral basis, to ask that a young Cuban, a lawyer like himself - perhaps as honorable as he, be sent to jail for 26 years. But the Honorable Prosecutor is a gifted man and I have seen much less talented persons write lengthy diatribes in defense of this regime. How then can I suppose that he lacks reason with which to defend it, at least for fifteen minutes, however contemptible that might be to any decent person? It is clear that there is a great conspiracy behind all this.

Honorable Judges: Why such interest in silencing me? Why is every type of argument foregone in order to avoid presenting any target whatsoever against which I might direct my own brief? Is it that they lack any legal, moral or political basis on which to put forth a serious formulation of the question? Are they that afraid of the truth? Do they hope that I, too, will speak for only two minutes and that I will not touch upon the points which have caused certain people sleepless nights since July 26th? Since the prosecutor's petition was restricted to the mere reading of five lines of an article of the Social Defense Code, might they suppose that I too would limit myself to those same lines and circle round them like some slave turning a millstone? I shall by no means accept such a gag, for in this trial there is much more than the freedom of a single individual at stake. Fundamental matters of principle are being debated here, the right of men to be free is on trial, the very foundations of our existence as a civilized and democratic nation are in the balance. When this trial is over, I do not want to have to reproach myself for any principle left undefended, for any truth left unsaid, for any crime not denounced.

The Honorable Prosecutor's famous little article hardly deserves a minute of my time. I shall limit myself for the moment to a brief legal skirmish against it, because I want to clear the field for an assault against all the endless lies and deceits, the hypocrisy, conventionalism and moral cowardice that have set the stage for the crude comedy which since the 10th of March - and even before then - has been called Justice in Cuba.

It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that an imputed offense must correspond exactly to the type of crime described by law. If no law applies exactly to the point in question, then there is no offense.

The article in question reads textually: 'A penalty of imprisonment of from three to ten years shall be imposed upon the perpetrator of any act aimed at bringing about an armed uprising against the Constitutional Powers of the State. The penalty shall be imprisonment for from five to twenty years, in the event that insurrection actually be carried into effect.'

In what country is the Honorable Prosecutor living? Who has told him that we have sought to bring about an uprising against the Constitutional Powers of the State? Two things are self-evident. First of all, the dictatorship that oppresses the nation is not a constitutional power, but an unconstitutional one: it was established against the Constitution, over the head of the Constitution, violating the legitimate Constitution of the Republic. The legitimate Constitution is that which emanates directly from a sovereign people. I shall demonstrate this point fully later on, notwithstanding all the subterfuges contrived by cowards and traitors to justify the unjustifiable. Secondly, the article refers to Powers, in the plural, as in the case of a republic governed by a Legislative Power, an Executive Power, and a Judicial Power which balance and counterbalance one another. We have fomented a rebellion against one single power, an illegal one, which has usurped and merged into a single whole both the Legislative and Executive Powers of the nation, and so has destroyed the entire system that was specifically safeguarded by the Code now under our analysis. As to the independence of the Judiciary after the 10th of March, I shall not allude to that for I am in no mood for joking ... No matter how Article 148 may be stretched, shrunk or amended, not a single comma applies to the events of July 26th. Let us leave this statute alone and await the opportunity to apply it to those who really did foment an uprising against the Constitutional Powers of the State. Later I shall come back to the Code to refresh the Honorable Prosecutor's memory about certain circumstances he has unfortunately overlooked.

I warn you, I am just beginning! If there is in your hearts a vestige of love for your country, love for humanity, love for justice, listen carefully. I know that I will be silenced for many years; I know that the regime will try to suppress the truth by all possible means; I know that there will be a conspiracy to bury me in oblivion. But my voice will not be stifled - it will rise from my breast even when I feel most alone, and my heart will give it all the fire that callous cowards deny it.

From a shack in the mountains on Monday, July 27th, I listened to the dictator's voice on the air while there were still 18 of our men in arms against the government. Those who have never experienced similar moments will never know that kind of bitterness and indignation. While the long-cherished hopes of freeing our people lay in ruins about us we heard those crushed hopes gloated over by a tyrant more vicious, more arrogant than ever. The endless stream of lies and slanders, poured forth in his crude, odious, repulsive language, may only be compared to the endless stream of clean young blood which had flowed since the previous night - with his knowledge, consent, complicity and approval - being spilled by the most inhuman gang of assassins it is possible to imagine. To have believed him for a single moment would have sufficed to fill a man of conscience with remorse and shame for the rest of his life. At that time I could not even hope to brand his miserable forehead with the mark of truth which condemns him for the rest of his days and for all time to come. Already a circle of more than a thousand men, armed with weapons more powerful than ours and with peremptory orders to bring in our bodies, was closing in around us. Now that the truth is coming out, now that speaking before you I am carrying out the mission I set for myself, I may die peacefully and content. So I shall not mince my words about those savage murderers.

I must pause to consider the facts for a moment. The government itself said the attack showed such precision and perfection that it must have been planned by military strategists. Nothing could have been farther from the truth! The plan was drawn up by a group of young men, none of whom had any military experience at all. I will reveal their names, omitting two who are neither dead nor in prison: Abel Santamaría, José Luis Tasende, Renato Guitart Rosell, Pedro Miret, Jesús Montané and myself. Half of them are dead, and in tribute to their memory I can say that although they were not military experts they had enough patriotism to have given, had we not been at such a great disadvantage, a good beating to that entire lot of generals together, those generals of the 10th of March who are neither soldiers nor patriots. Much more difficult than the planning of the attack was our organizing, training, mobilizing and arming men under this repressive regime with its millions of dollars spent on espionage, bribery and information services. Nevertheless, all this was carried out by those men and many others like them with incredible seriousness, discretion and discipline. Still more praiseworthy is the fact that they gave this task everything they had; ultimately, their very lives.

The final mobilization of men who came to this province from the most remote towns of the entire island was accomplished with admirable precision and in absolute secrecy. It is equally true that the attack was carried out with magnificent coordination. It began simultaneously at 5:15 a.m. in both Bayamo and Santiago de Cuba; and one by one, with an exactitude of minutes and seconds prepared in advance, the buildings surrounding the barracks fell to our forces. Nevertheless, in the interest of truth and even though it may detract from our merit, I am also going to reveal for the first time a fact that was fatal: due to a most unfortunate error, half of our forces, and the better armed half at that, went astray at the entrance to the city and were not on hand to help us at the decisive moment. Abel Santamaría, with 21 men, had occupied the Civilian Hospital; with him went a doctor and two of our women comrades to attend to the wounded. Raúl Castro, with ten men, occupied the Palace of Justice, and it was my responsibility to attack the barracks with the rest, 95 men. Preceded by an advance group of eight who had forced Gate Three, I arrived with the first group of 45 men. It was precisely here that the battle began, when my car ran into an outside patrol armed with machine guns. The reserve group which had almost all the heavy weapons (the light arms were with the advance group), turned up the wrong street and lost its way in an unfamiliar city. I must clarify the fact that I do not for a moment doubt the courage of those men; they experienced great anguish and desperation when they realized they were lost. Because of the type of action it was and because the contending forces were wearing identically colored uniforms, it was not easy for these men to re-establish contact with us. Many of them, captured later on, met death with true heroism.

Everyone had instructions, first of all, to be humane in the struggle. Never was a group of armed men more generous to the adversary. From the beginning we took numerous prisoners - nearly twenty - and there was one moment when three of our men - Ramiro Valdés, José Suárez and Jesús Montané - managed to enter a barrack and hold nearly fifty soldiers prisoners for a short time. Those soldiers testified before the Court, and without exception they all acknowledged that we treated them with absolute respect, that we didn't even subject them to one scoffing remark. In line with this, I want to give my heartfelt thanks to the Prosecutor for one thing in the trial of my comrades: when he made his report he was fair enough to acknowledge as an incontestable fact that we maintained a high spirit of chivalry throughout the struggle.

Discipline among the soldiers was very poor. They finally defeated us because of their superior numbers - fifteen to one - and because of the protection afforded them by the defenses of the fortress. Our men were much better marksmen, as our enemies themselves conceded. There was a high degree of courage on both sides.

In analyzing the reasons for our tactical failure, apart from the regrettable error already mentioned, I believe we made a mistake by dividing the commando unit we had so carefully trained. Of our best trained men and boldest leaders, there were 27 in Bayamo, 21 at the Civilian Hospital and 10 at the Palace of Justice. If our forces had been distributed differently the outcome of the battle might have been different. The clash with the patrol (purely accidental, since the unit might have been at that point twenty seconds earlier or twenty seconds later) alerted the camp, and gave it time to mobilize. Otherwise it would have fallen into our hands without a shot fired, since we already controlled the guard post. On the other hand, except for the .22 caliber rifles, for which there were plenty of bullets, our side was very short of ammunition. Had we had hand grenades, the Army would not have been able to resist us for fifteen minutes.

When I became convinced that all efforts to take the barracks were now useless, I began to withdraw our men in groups of eight and ten. Our retreat was covered by six expert marksmen under the command of Pedro Miret and Fidel Labrador; heroically they held off the Army's advance. Our losses in the battle had been insignificant; 95% of our casualties came from the Army's inhumanity after the struggle. The group at the Civilian Hospital only had one casualty; the rest of that group was trapped when the troops blocked the only exit; but our youths did not lay down their arms until their very last bullet was gone. With them was Abel Santamaría, the most generous, beloved and intrepid of our young men, whose glorious resistance immortalizes him in Cuban history. We shall see the fate they met and how Batista sought to punish the heroism of our youth.

We planned to continue the struggle in the mountains in case the attack on the regiment failed. In Siboney I was able to gather a third of our forces; but many of these men were now discouraged. About twenty of them decided to surrender; later we shall see what became of them. The rest, 18 men, with what arms and ammunition were left, followed me into the mountains. The terrain was completely unknown to us. For a week we held the heights of the Gran Piedra range and the Army occupied the foothills. We could not come down; they didn't risk coming up. It was not force of arms, but hunger and thirst that ultimately overcame our resistance. I had to divide the men into smaller groups. Some of them managed to slip through the Army lines; others were surrendered by Monsignor Pérez Serantes. Finally only two comrades remained with me - José Suárez and Oscar Alcalde. While the three of us were totally exhausted, a force led by Lieutenant Sarría surprised us in our sleep at dawn. This was Saturday, August 1st. By that time the slaughter of prisoners had ceased as a result of the people's protest. This officer, a man of honor, saved us from being murdered on the spot with our hands tied behind us.

I need not deny here the stupid statements by Ugalde Carrillo and company, who tried to stain my name in an effort to mask their own cowardice, incompetence, and criminality. The facts are clear enough.

My purpose is not to bore the court with epic narratives. All that I have said is essential for a more precise understanding of what is yet to come.

Let me mention two important facts that facilitate an objective judgement of our attitude. First: we could have taken over the regiment simply by seizing all the high ranking officers in their homes. This possibility was rejected for the very humane reason that we wished to avoid scenes of tragedy and struggle in the presence of their families. Second: we decided not to take any radio station over until the Army camp was in our power. This attitude, unusually magnanimous and considerate, spared the citizens a great deal of bloodshed. With only ten men I could have seized a radio station and called the people to revolt. There is no questioning the people's will to fight. I had a recording of Eduardo Chibás' last message over the CMQ radio network, and patriotic poems and battle hymns capable of moving the least sensitive, especially with the sounds of live battle in their ears. But I did not want to use them although our situation was desperate.

The regime has emphatically repeated that our Movement did not have popular support. I have never heard an assertion so naive, and at the same time so full of bad faith. The regime seeks to show submission and cowardice on the part of the people. They all but claim that the people support the dictatorship; they do not know how offensive this is to the brave Orientales. Santiago thought our attack was only a local disturbance between two factions of soldiers; not until many hours later did they realize what had really happened. Who can doubt the valor, civic pride and limitless courage of the rebel and patriotic people of Santiago de Cuba? If Moncada had fallen into our hands, even the women of Santiago de Cuba would have risen in arms. Many were the rifles loaded for our fighters by the nurses at the Civilian Hospital. They fought alongside us. That is something we will never forget.

It was never our intention to engage the soldiers of the regiment in combat. We wanted to seize control of them and their weapons in a surprise attack, arouse the people and call the soldiers to abandon the odious flag of the tyranny and to embrace the banner of freedom; to defend the supreme interests of the nation and not the petty interests of a small clique; to turn their guns around and fire on the people's enemies and not on the people, among whom are their own sons and fathers; to unite with the people as the brothers that they are instead of opposing the people as the enemies the government tries to make of them; to march behind the only beautiful ideal worthy of sacrificing one's life - the greatness and happiness of one's country. To those who doubt that many soldiers would have followed us, I ask: What Cuban does not cherish glory? What heart is not set aflame by the promise of freedom?

The Navy did not fight against us, and it would undoubtedly have come over to our side later on. It is well known that that branch of the Armed Forces is the least dominated by the Dictatorship and that there is a very intense civic conscience among its members. But, as to the rest of the national armed forces, would they have fought against a people in revolt? I declare that they would not! A soldier is made of flesh and blood; he thinks, observes, feels. He is susceptible to the opinions, beliefs, sympathies and antipathies of the people. If you ask his opinion, he may tell you he cannot express it; but that does not mean he has no opinion. He is affected by exactly the same problems that affect other citizens - subsistence, rent, the education of his children, their future, etc. Everything of this kind is an inevitable point of contact between him and the people and everything of this kind relates him to the present and future situation of the society in which he lives. It is foolish to imagine that the salary a soldier receives from the State - a modest enough salary at that - should resolve the vital problems imposed on him by his needs, duties and feelings as a member of his community.

This brief explanation has been necessary because it is basic to a consideration to which few people, until now, have paid any attention - soldiers have a deep respect for the feelings of the majority of the people! During the Machado regime, in the same proportion as popular antipathy increased, the loyalty of the Army visibly decreased. This was so true that a group of women almost succeeded in subverting Camp Columbia. But this is proven even more clearly by a recent development. While Grau San Martín's regime was able to preserve its maximum popularity among the people, unscrupulous ex-officers and power-hungry civilians attempted innumerable conspiracies in the Army, although none of them found a following in the rank and file.

The March 10th coup took place at the moment when the civil government's prestige had dwindled to its lowest ebb, a circumstance of which Batista and his clique took advantage. Why did they not strike their blow after the first of June? Simply because, had they waited for the majority of the nation to express its will at the polls, the troops would not have responded to the conspiracy!

Consequently, a second assertion can be made: the Army has never revolted against a regime with a popular majority behind it. These are historic truths, and if Batista insists on remaining in power at all costs against the will of the majority of Cubans, his end will be more tragic than that of Gerardo Machado.

I have a right to express an opinion about the Armed Forces because I defended them when everyone else was silent. And I did this neither as a conspirator, nor from any kind of personal interest - for we then enjoyed full constitutional prerogatives. I was prompted only by humane instincts and civic duty. In those days, the newspaper Alerta was one of the most widely read because of its position on national political matters. In its pages I campaigned against the forced labor to which the soldiers were subjected on the private estates of high civil personages and military officers. On March 3rd, 1952 I supplied the Courts with data, photographs, films and other proof denouncing this state of affairs. I also pointed out in those articles that it was elementary decency to increase army salaries. I should like to know who else raised his voice on that occasion to protest against all this injustice done to the soldiers. Certainly not Batista and company, living well-protected on their luxurious estates, surrounded by all kinds of security measures, while I ran a thousand risks with neither bodyguards nor arms.

Just as I defended the soldiers then, now - when all others are once more silent - I tell them that they allowed themselves to be miserably deceived; and to the deception and shame of March 10th they have added the disgrace, the thousand times greater disgrace, of the fearful and unjustifiable crimes of Santiago de Cuba. From that time since, the uniform of the Army is splattered with blood. And as last year I told the people and cried out before the Courts that soldiers were working as slaves on private estates, today I make the bitter charge that there are soldiers stained from head to toe with the blood of the Cuban youths they have tortured and slain. And I say as well that if the Army serves the Republic, defends the nation, respects the people and protects the citizenry then it is only fair that the soldier should earn at least a hundred pesos a month. But if the soldiers slay and oppress the people, betray the nation and defend only the interests of one small group, then the Army deserves not a cent of the Republic's money and Camp Columbia should be converted into a school with ten thousand orphans living there instead of soldiers.

I want to be just above all else, so I can't blame all the soldiers for the shameful crimes that stain a few evil and treacherous Army men. But every honorable and upstanding soldier who loves his career and his uniform is dutybound to demand and to fight for the cleansing of this guilt, to avenge this betrayal and to see the guilty punished. Otherwise the soldier's uniform will forever be a mark of infamy instead of a source of pride.

Of course the March 10th regime had no choice but to remove the soldiers from the private estates. But it did so only to put them to work as doormen, chauffeurs, servants and bodyguards for the whole rabble of petty politicians who make up the party of the Dictatorship. Every fourth or fifth rank official considers himself entitled to the services of a soldier to drive his car and to watch over him as if he were constantly afraid of receiving the kick in the pants he so justly deserves.

If they had been at all interested in promoting real reforms, why did the regime not confiscate the estates and the millions of men like Genovevo Pérez Dámera, who acquired their fortunes by exploiting soldiers, driving them like slaves and misappropriating the funds of the Armed Forces? But no: Genovevo Pérez and others like him no doubt still have soldiers protecting them on their estates because the March 10th generals, deep in their hearts, aspire to the same future and can't allow that kind of precedent to be set.

The 10th of March was a miserable deception, yes ... After Batista and his band of corrupt and disreputable politicians had failed in their electoral plan, they took advantage of the Army's discontent and used it to climb to power on the backs of the soldiers. And I know there are many Army men who are disgusted because they have been disappointed. At first their pay was raised, but later, through deductions and reductions of every kind, it was lowered again. Many of the old elements, who had drifted away from the Armed Forces, returned to the ranks and blocked the way of young, capable and valuable men who might otherwise have advanced. Good soldiers have been neglected while the most scandalous nepotism prevails. Many decent military men are now asking themselves what need that Armed Forces had to assume the tremendous historical responsibility of destroying our Constitution merely to put a group of immoral men in power, men of bad reputation, corrupt, politically degenerate beyond redemption, who could never again have occupied a political post had it not been at bayonet-point; and they weren't even the ones with the bayonets in their hands ...

On the other hand, the soldiers endure a worse tyranny than the civilians. They are under constant surveillance and not one of them enjoys the slightest security in his job. Any unjustified suspicion, any gossip, any intrigue, or denunciation, is sufficient to bring transfer, dishonorable discharge or imprisonment. Did not Tabernilla, in a memorandum, forbid them to talk with anyone opposed to the government, that is to say, with ninety-nine percent of the people? ... What a lack of confidence! ... Not even the vestal virgins of Rome had to abide by such a rule! As for the much publicized little houses for enlisted men, there aren't 300 on the whole Island; yet with what has been spent on tanks, guns and other weaponry every soldier might have a place to live. Batista isn't concerned with taking care of the Army, but that the Army take care of him! He increases the Army's power of oppression and killing but does not improve living conditions for the soldiers. Triple guard duty, constant confinement to barracks, continuous anxiety, the enmity of the people, uncertainty about the future - this is what has been given to the soldier. In other words: 'Die for the regime, soldier, give it your sweat and blood. We shall dedicate a speech to you and award you a posthumous promotion (when it no longer matters) and afterwards ... we shall go on living luxuriously, making ourselves rich. Kill, abuse, oppress the people. When the people get tired and all this comes to an end, you can pay for our crimes while we go abroad and live like kings. And if one day we return, don't you or your children knock on the doors of our mansions, for we shall be millionaires and millionaires do not mingle with the poor. Kill, soldier, oppress the people, die for the regime, give your sweat and blood ...'

But if blind to this sad truth, a minority of soldiers had decided to fight the people, the people who were going to liberate them from tyranny, victory still would have gone to the people. The Honorable Prosecutor was very interested in knowing our chances for success. These chances were based on considerations of technical, military and social order. They have tried to establish the myth that modern arms render the people helpless in overthrowing tyrants. Military parades and the pompous display of machines of war are used to perpetuate this myth and to create a complex of absolute impotence in the people. But no weaponry, no violence can vanquish the people once they are determined to win back their rights. Both past and present are full of examples. The most recent is the revolt in Bolivia, where miners with dynamite sticks smashed and defeated regular army regiments.

Fortunately, we Cubans need not look for examples abroad. No example is as inspiring as that of our own land. During the war of 1895 there were nearly half a million armed Spanish soldiers in Cuba, many more than the Dictator counts upon today to hold back a population five times greater. The arms of the Spaniards were, incomparably, both more up to date and more powerful than those of our mambises. Often the Spaniards were equipped with field artillery and the infantry used breechloaders similar to those still in use by the infantry of today. The Cubans were usually armed with no more than their machetes, for their cartridge belts were almost always empty. There is an unforgettable passage in the history of our War of Independence, narrated by General Miró Argenter, Chief of Antonio Maceo's General Staff. I managed to bring it copied on this scrap of paper so I wouldn't have to depend upon my memory:

'Untrained men under the command of Pedro Delgado, most of them equipped only with machetes, were virtually annihilated as they threw themselves on the solid rank of Spaniards. It is not an exaggeration to assert that of every fifty men, 25 were killed. Some even attacked the Spaniards with their bare fists, without machetes, without even knives. Searching through the reeds by the Hondo River, we found fifteen more dead from the Cuban party, and it was not immediately clear what group they belonged to, They did not appear to have shouldered arms, their clothes were intact and only tin drinking cups hung from their waists; a few steps further on lay the dead horse, all its equipment in order. We reconstructed the climax of the tragedy. These men, following their daring chief, Lieutenant Colonel Pedro Delgado, had earned heroes' laurels: they had thrown themselves against bayonets with bare hands, the clash of metal which was heard around them was the sound of their drinking cups banging against the saddlehorn. Maceo was deeply moved. This man so used to seeing death in all its forms murmured this praise: "I had never seen anything like this, untrained and unarmed men attacking the Spaniards with only drinking cups for weapons. And I called it impedimenta!"'

This is how peoples fight when they want to win their freedom; they throw stones at airplanes and overturn tanks!

As soon as Santiago de Cuba was in our hands we would immediately have readied the people of Oriente for war. Bayamo was attacked precisely to locate our advance forces along the Cauto River. Never forget that this province, which has a million and a half inhabitants today, is the most rebellious and patriotic in Cuba. It was this province that sparked the fight for independence for thirty years and paid the highest price in blood, sacrifice and heroism. In Oriente you can still breathe the air of that glorious epic. At dawn, when the cocks crow as if they were bugles calling soldiers to reveille, and when the sun rises radiant over the rugged mountains, it seems that once again we will live the days of Yara or Baire!

I stated that the second consideration on which we based our chances for success was one of social order. Why were we sure of the people's support? When we speak of the people we are not talking about those who live in comfort, the conservative elements of the nation, who welcome any repressive regime, any dictatorship, any despotism, prostrating themselves before the masters of the moment until they grind their foreheads into the ground. When we speak of struggle and we mention the people we mean the vast unredeemed masses, those to whom everyone makes promises and who are deceived by all; we mean the people who yearn for a better, more dignified and more just nation; who are moved by ancestral aspirations to justice, for they have suffered injustice and mockery generation after generation; those who long for great and wise changes in all aspects of their life; people who, to attain those changes, are ready to give even the very last breath they have when they believe in something or in someone, especially when they believe in themselves. The first condition of sincerity and good faith in any endeavor is to do precisely what nobody else ever does, that is, to speak with absolute clarity, without fear. The demagogues and professional politicians who manage to perform the miracle of being right about everything and of pleasing everyone are, necessarily, deceiving everyone about everything. The revolutionaries must proclaim their ideas courageously, define their principles and express their intentions so that no one is deceived, neither friend nor foe.

In terms of struggle, when we talk about people we're talking about the six hundred thousand Cubans without work, who want to earn their daily bread honestly without having to emigrate from their homeland in search of a livelihood; the five hundred thousand farm laborers who live in miserable shacks, who work four months of the year and starve the rest, sharing their misery with their children, who don't have an inch of land to till and whose existence would move any heart not made of stone; the four hundred thousand industrial workers and laborers whose retirement funds have been embezzled, whose benefits are being taken away, whose homes are wretched quarters, whose salaries pass from the hands of the boss to those of the moneylender, whose future is a pay reduction and dismissal, whose life is endless work and whose only rest is the tomb; the one hundred thousand small farmers who live and die working land that is not theirs, looking at it with the sadness of Moses gazing at the promised land, to die without ever owning it, who like feudal serfs have to pay for the use of their parcel of land by giving up a portion of its produce, who cannot love it, improve it, beautify it nor plant a cedar or an orange tree on it because they never know when a sheriff will come with the rural guard to evict them from it; the thirty thousand teachers and professors who are so devoted, dedicated and so necessary to the better destiny of future generations and who are so badly treated and paid; the twenty thousand small business men weighed down by debts, ruined by the crisis and harangued by a plague of grafting and venal officials; the ten thousand young professional people: doctors, engineers, lawyers, veterinarians, school teachers, dentists, pharmacists, newspapermen, painters, sculptors, etc., who finish school with their degrees anxious to work and full of hope, only to find themselves at a dead end, all doors closed to them, and where no ears hear their clamor or supplication. These are the people, the ones who know misfortune and, therefore, are capable of fighting with limitless courage! To these people whose desperate roads through life have been paved with the bricks of betrayal and false promises, we were not going to say: 'We will give you ...' but rather: 'Here it is, now fight for it with everything you have, so that liberty and happiness may be yours!'

The five revolutionary laws that would have been proclaimed immediately after the capture of the Moncada Barracks and would have been broadcast to the nation by radio must be included in the indictment. It is possible that Colonel Chaviano may deliberately have destroyed these documents, but even if he has I remember them.

The first revolutionary law would have returned power to the people and proclaimed the 1940 Constitution the Supreme Law of the State until such time as the people should decide to modify or change it. And in order to effect its implementation and punish those who violated it - there being no electoral organization to carry this out - the revolutionary movement, as the circumstantial incarnation of this sovereignty, the only source of legitimate power, would have assumed all the faculties inherent therein, except that of modifying the Constitution itself: in other words, it would have assumed the legislative, executive and judicial powers.

This attitude could not be clearer nor more free of vacillation and sterile charlatanry. A government acclaimed by the mass of rebel people would be vested with every power, everything necessary in order to proceed with the effective implementation of popular will and real justice. From that moment, the Judicial Power - which since March 10th had placed itself against and outside the Constitution - would cease to exist and we would proceed to its immediate and total reform before it would once again assume the power granted it by the Supreme Law of the Republic. Without these previous measures, a return to legality by putting its custody back into the hands that have crippled the system so dishonorably would constitute a fraud, a deceit, one more betrayal.

The second revolutionary law would give non-mortgageable and non-transferable ownership of the land to all tenant and subtenant farmers, lessees, share croppers and squatters who hold parcels of five caballerías of land or less, and the State would indemnify the former owners on the basis of the rental which they would have received for these parcels over a period of ten years.

The third revolutionary law would have granted workers and employees the right to share 30% of the profits of all the large industrial, mercantile and mining enterprises, including the sugar mills. The strictly agricultural enterprises would be exempt in consideration of other agrarian laws which would be put into effect.

The fourth revolutionary law would have granted all sugar planters the right to share 55% of sugar production and a minimum quota of forty thousand arrobas for all small tenant farmers who have been established for three years or more.

The fifth revolutionary law would have ordered the confiscation of all holdings and ill-gotten gains of those who had committed frauds during previous regimes, as well as the holdings and ill-gotten gains of all their legates and heirs. To implement this, special courts with full powers would gain access to all records of all corporations registered or operating in this country, in order to investigate concealed funds of illegal origin, and to request that foreign governments extradite persons and attach holdings rightfully belonging to the Cuban people. Half of the property recovered would be used to subsidize retirement funds for workers and the other half would be used for hospitals, asylums and charitable organizations.

Furthermore, it was declared that the Cuban policy in the Americas would be one of close solidarity with the democratic peoples of this continent, and that all those politically persecuted by bloody tyrannies oppressing our sister nations would find generous asylum, brotherhood and bread in the land of Martí; not the persecution, hunger and treason they find today. Cuba should be the bulwark of liberty and not a shameful link in the chain of despotism.

These laws would have been proclaimed immediately. As soon as the upheaval ended and prior to a detailed and far reaching study, they would have been followed by another series of laws and fundamental measures, such as the Agrarian Reform, the Integral Educational Reform, nationalization of the electric power trust and the telephone trust, refund to the people of the illegal and repressive rates these companies have charged, and payment to the treasury of all taxes brazenly evaded in the past.

All these laws and others would be based on the exact compliance of two essential articles of our Constitution: one of them orders the outlawing of large estates, indicating the maximum area of land any one person or entity may own for each type of agricultural enterprise, by adopting measures which would tend to revert the land to the Cubans. The other categorically orders the State to use all means at its disposal to provide employment to all those who lack it and to ensure a decent livelihood to each manual or intellectual laborer. None of these laws can be called unconstitutional. The first popularly elected government would have to respect them, not only because of moral obligations to the nation, but because when people achieve something they have yearned for throughout generations, no force in the world is capable of taking it away again.

The problem of the land, the problem of industrialization, the problem of housing, the problem of unemployment, the problem of education and the problem of the people's health: these are the six problems we would take immediate steps to solve, along with restoration of civil liberties and political democracy.

This exposition may seem cold and theoretical if one does not know the shocking and tragic conditions of the country with regard to these six problems, along with the most humiliating political oppression.

Eighty-five per cent of the small farmers in Cuba pay rent and live under constant threat of being evicted from the land they till. More than half of our most productive land is in the hands of foreigners. In Oriente, the largest province, the lands of the United Fruit Company and the West Indian Company link the northern and southern coasts. There are two hundred thousand peasant families who do not have a single acre of land to till to provide food for their starving children. On the other hand, nearly three hundred thousand caballerías of cultivable land owned by powerful interests remain uncultivated. If Cuba is above all an agricultural State, if its population is largely rural, if the city depends on these rural areas, if the people from our countryside won our war of independence, if our nation's greatness and prosperity depend on a healthy and vigorous rural population that loves the land and knows how to work it, if this population depends on a State that protects and guides it, then how can the present state of affairs be allowed to continue?

Except for a few food, lumber and textile industries, Cuba continues to be primarily a producer of raw materials. We export sugar to import candy, we export hides to import shoes, we export iron to import plows ... Everyone agrees with the urgent need to industrialize the nation, that we need steel industries, paper and chemical industries, that we must improve our cattle and grain production, the technology and processing in our food industry in order to defend ourselves against the ruinous competition from Europe in cheese products, condensed milk, liquors and edible oils, and the United States in canned goods; that we need cargo ships; that tourism should be an enormous source of revenue. But the capitalists insist that the workers remain under the yoke. The State sits back with its arms crossed and industrialization can wait forever.

Just as serious or even worse is the housing problem. There are two hundred thousand huts and hovels in Cuba; four hundred thousand families in the countryside and in the cities live cramped in huts and tenements without even the minimum sanitary requirements; two million two hundred thousand of our urban population pay rents which absorb between one fifth and one third of their incomes; and two million eight hundred thousand of our rural and suburban population lack electricity. We have the same situation here: if the State proposes the lowering of rents, landlords threaten to freeze all construction; if the State does not interfere, construction goes on so long as landlords get high rents; otherwise they would not lay a single brick even though the rest of the population had to live totally exposed to the elements. The utilities monopoly is no better; they extend lines as far as it is profitable and beyond that point they don't care if people have to live in darkness for the rest of their lives. The State sits back with its arms crossed and the people have neither homes nor electricity.

Our educational system is perfectly compatible with everything I've just mentioned. Where the peasant doesn't own the land, what need is there for agricultural schools? Where there is no industry, what need is there for technical or vocational schools? Everything follows the same absurd logic; if we don't have one thing we can't have the other. In any small European country there are more than 200 technological and vocational schools; in Cuba only six such schools exist, and their graduates have no jobs for their skills. The little rural schoolhouses are attended by a mere half of the school age children - barefooted, half-naked and undernourished - and frequently the teacher must buy necessary school materials from his own salary. Is this the way to make a nation great?

Only death can liberate one from so much misery. In this respect, however, the State is most helpful - in providing early death for the people. Ninety per cent of the children in the countryside are consumed by parasites which filter through their bare feet from the ground they walk on. Society is moved to compassion when it hears of the kidnapping or murder of one child, but it is indifferent to the mass murder of so many thousands of children who die every year from lack of facilities, agonizing with pain. Their innocent eyes, death already shining in them, seem to look into some vague infinity as if entreating forgiveness for human selfishness, as if asking God to stay His wrath. And when the head of a family works only four months a year, with what can he purchase clothing and medicine for his children? They will grow up with rickets, with not a single good tooth in their mouths by the time they reach thirty; they will have heard ten million speeches and will finally die of misery and deception. Public hospitals, which are always full, accept only patients recommended by some powerful politician who, in return, demands the votes of the unfortunate one and his family so that Cuba may continue forever in the same or worse condition.

With this background, is it not understandable that from May to December over a million persons are jobless and that Cuba, with a population of five and a half million, has a greater number of unemployed than France or Italy with a population of forty million each?

When you try a defendant for robbery, Honorable Judges, do you ask him how long he has been unemployed? Do you ask him how many children he has, which days of the week he ate and which he didn't, do you investigate his social context at all? You just send him to jail without further thought. But those who burn warehouses and stores to collect insurance do not go to jail, even though a few human beings may have gone up in flames. The insured have money to hire lawyers and bribe judges. You imprison the poor wretch who steals because he is hungry; but none of the hundreds who steal millions from the Government has ever spent a night in jail. You dine with them at the end of the year in some elegant club and they enjoy your respect. In Cuba, when a government official becomes a millionaire overnight and enters the fraternity of the rich, he could very well be greeted with the words of that opulent character out of Balzac - Taillefer - who in his toast to the young heir to an enormous fortune, said: 'Gentlemen, let us drink to the power of gold! Mr. Valentine, a millionaire six times over, has just ascended the throne. He is king, can do everything, is above everyone, as all the rich are. Henceforth, equality before the law, established by the Constitution, will be a myth for him; for he will not be subject to laws: the laws will be subject to him. There are no courts nor are there sentences for millionaires.'

The nation's future, the solutions to its problems, cannot continue to depend on the selfish interests of a dozen big businessmen nor on the cold calculations of profits that ten or twelve magnates draw up in their air-conditioned offices. The country cannot continue begging on its knees for miracles from a few golden calves, like the Biblical one destroyed by the prophet's fury. Golden calves cannot perform miracles of any kind. The problems of the Republic can be solved only if we dedicate ourselves to fight for it with the same energy, honesty and patriotism our liberators had when they founded it. Statesmen like Carlos Saladrigas, whose statesmanship consists of preserving the statu quo and mouthing phrases like 'absolute freedom of enterprise,' 'guarantees to investment capital' and 'law of supply and demand,' will not solve these problems. Those ministers can chat away in a Fifth Avenue mansion until not even the dust of the bones of those whose problems require immediate solution remains. In this present-day world, social problems are not solved by spontaneous generation.

A revolutionary government backed by the people and with the respect of the nation, after cleansing the different institutions of all venal and corrupt officials, would proceed immediately to the country's industrialization, mobilizing all inactive capital, currently estimated at about 1.5 billion pesos, through the National Bank and the Agricultural and Industrial Development Bank, and submitting this mammoth task to experts and men of absolute competence totally removed from all political machines for study, direction, planning and realization.

After settling the one hundred thousand small farmers as owners on the land which they previously rented, a revolutionary government would immediately proceed to settle the land problem. First, as set forth in the Constitution, it would establish the maximum amount of land to be held by each type of agricultural enterprise and would acquire the excess acreage by expropriation, recovery of swampland, planting of large nurseries, and reserving of zones for reforestation. Secondly, it would distribute the remaining land among peasant families with priority given to the larger ones, and would promote agricultural cooperatives for communal use of expensive equipment, freezing plants and unified professional technical management of farming and cattle raising. Finally, it would provide resources, equipment, protection and useful guidance to the peasants.

A revolutionary government would solve the housing problem by cutting all rents in half, by providing tax exemptions on homes inhabited by the owners; by tripling taxes on rented homes; by tearing down hovels and replacing them with modern apartment buildings; and by financing housing all over the island on a scale heretofore unheard of, with the criterion that, just as each rural family should possess its own tract of land, each city family should own its own house or apartment. There is plenty of building material and more than enough manpower to make a decent home for every Cuban. But if we continue to wait for the golden calf, a thousand years will have gone by and the problem will remain the same. On the other hand, today possibilities of taking electricity to the most isolated areas on the island are greater than ever. The use of nuclear energy in this field is now a reality and will greatly reduce the cost of producing electricity.

With these three projects and reforms, the problem of unemployment would automatically disappear and the task of improving public health and fighting against disease would become much less difficult.

Finally, a revolutionary government would undertake the integral reform of the educational system, bringing it into line with the projects just mentioned with the idea of educating those generations which will have the privilege of living in a happier land. Do not forget the words of the Apostle: 'A grave mistake is being made in Latin America: in countries that live almost completely from the produce of the land, men are being educated exclusively for urban life and are not trained for farm life.' 'The happiest country is the one which has best educated its sons, both in the instruction of thought and the direction of their feelings.' 'An educated country will always be strong and free.'

The soul of education, however, is the teacher, and in Cuba the teaching profession is miserably underpaid. Despite this, no one is more dedicated than the Cuban teacher. Who among us has not learned his three Rs in the little public schoolhouse? It is time we stopped paying pittances to these young men and women who are entrusted with the sacred task of teaching our youth. No teacher should earn less than 200 pesos, no secondary teacher should make less than 350 pesos, if they are to devote themselves exclusively to their high calling without suffering want. What is more, all rural teachers should have free use of the various systems of transportation; and, at least once every five years, all teachers should enjoy a sabbatical leave of six months with pay so they may attend special refresher courses at home or abroad to keep abreast of the latest developments in their field. In this way, the curriculum and the teaching system can be easily improved. Where will the money be found for all this? When there is an end to the embezzlement of government funds, when public officials stop taking graft from the large companies that owe taxes to the State, when the enormous resources of the country are brought into full use, when we no longer buy tanks, bombers and guns for this country (which has no frontiers to defend and where these instruments of war, now being purchased, are used against the people), when there is more interest in educating the people than in killing them there will be more than enough money.

Cuba could easily provide for a population three times as great as it has now, so there is no excuse for the abject poverty of a single one of its present inhabitants. The markets should be overflowing with produce, pantries should be full, all hands should be working. This is not an inconceivable thought. What is inconceivable is that anyone should go to bed hungry while there is a single inch of unproductive land; that children should die for lack of medical attention; what is inconceivable is that 30% of our farm people cannot write their names and that 99% of them know nothing of Cuba's history. What is inconceivable is that the majority of our rural people are now living in worse circumstances than the Indians Columbus discovered in the fairest land that human eyes had ever seen.

To those who would call me a dreamer, I quote the words of Martí: 'A true man does not seek the path where advantage lies, but rather the path where duty lies, and this is the only practical man, whose dream of today will be the law of tomorrow, because he who has looked back on the essential course of history and has seen flaming and bleeding peoples seethe in the cauldron of the ages knows that, without a single exception, the future lies on the side of duty.'

Only when we understand that such a high ideal inspired them can we conceive of the heroism of the young men who fell in Santiago. The meager material means at our disposal was all that prevented sure success. When the soldiers were told that Prío had given us a million pesos, they were told this in the regime's attempt to distort the most important fact: the fact that our Movement had no link with past politicians: that this Movement is a new Cuban generation with its own ideas, rising up against tyranny; that this Movement is made up of young people who were barely seven years old when Batista perpetrated the first of his crimes in 1934. The lie about the million pesos could not have been more absurd. If, with less than 20,000 pesos, we armed 165 men and attacked a regiment and a squadron, then with a million pesos we could have armed 8,000 men, to attack 50 regiments and 50 squadrons - and Ugalde Carrillo still would not have found out until Sunday, July 26th, at 5:15 a.m. I assure you that for every man who fought, twenty well trained men were unable to fight for lack of weapons. When these young men marched along the streets of Havana in the student demonstration of the Martí Centennial, they solidly packed six blocks. If even 200 more men had been able to fight, or we had possessed 20 more hand grenades, perhaps this Honorable Court would have been spared all this inconvenience.

The politicians spend millions buying off consciences, whereas a handful of Cubans who wanted to save their country's honor had to face death barehanded for lack of funds. This shows how the country, to this very day, has been governed not by generous and dedicated men, but by political racketeers, the scum of our public life.

With the greatest pride I tell you that in accordance with our principles we have never asked a politician, past or present, for a penny. Our means were assembled with incomparable sacrifice. For example, Elpidio Sosa, who sold his job and came to me one day with 300 pesos 'for the cause;' Fernando Chenard, who sold the photographic equipment with which he earned his living; Pedro Marrero, who contributed several months' salary and who had to be stopped from actually selling the very furniture in his house; Oscar Alcalde, who sold his pharmaceutical laboratory; Jesús Montané, who gave his five years' savings, and so on with many others, each giving the little he had.

One must have great faith in one's country to do such a thing. The memory of these acts of idealism bring me straight to the most bitter chapter of this defense - the price the tyranny made them pay for wanting to free Cuba from oppression and injustice.

Beloved corpses, you that once
Were the hope of my Homeland,
Cast upon my forehead
The dust of your decaying bones!
Touch my heart with your cold hands!
Groan at my ears!
Each of my moans will
Turn into the tears of one more tyrant!
Gather around me! Roam about,
That my soul may receive your spirits
And give me the horror of the tombs
For tears are not enough
When one lives in infamous bondage!

(our post limit is 150000 characters, This famously long speech is 151398 characters long, so I've had to divide it. bp)

History will absolve me PtII

Multiply the crimes of November 27th, 1871 by ten and you will have the monstrous and repulsive crimes of July 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th, 1953, in the province of Oriente. These are still fresh in our memory, but someday when years have passed, when the skies of the nation have cleared once more, when tempers have calmed and fear no longer torments our spirits, then we will begin to see the magnitude of this massacre in all its shocking dimension, and future generations will be struck with horror when they look back on these acts of barbarity unprecedented in our history. But I do not want to become enraged. I need clearness of mind and peace in my heavy heart in order to relate the facts as simply as possible, in no sense dramatizing them, but just as they took place. As a Cuban I am ashamed that heartless men should have perpetrated such unthinkable crimes, dishonoring our nation before the rest of the world.

The tyrant Batista was never a man of scruples. He has never hesitated to tell his people the most outrageous lies. To justify his treacherous coup of March 10th, he concocted stories about a fictitious uprising in the Army, supposedly scheduled to take place in April, and which he 'wanted to avert so that the Republic might not be drenched in blood.' A ridiculous little tale nobody ever believed! And when he himself did want to drench the Republic in blood, when he wanted to smother in terror and torture the just rebellion of Cuba's youth, who were not willing to be his slaves, then he contrived still more fantastic lies. How little respect one must have for a people when one tries to deceive them so miserably! On the very day of my arrest I publicly assumed the responsibility for our armed movement of July 26th. If there had been an iota of truth in even one of the many statements the Dictator made against our fighters in his speech of July 27th, it would have been enough to undermine the moral impact of my case. Why, then, was I not brought to trial? Why were medical certificates forged? Why did they violate all procedural laws and ignore so scandalously the rulings of the Court? Why were so many things done, things never before seen in a Court of Law, in order to prevent my appearance at all costs? In contrast, I could not begin to tell you all I went through in order to appear. I asked the Court to bring me to trial in accordance with all established principles, and I denounced the underhanded schemes that were afoot to prevent it. I wanted to argue with them face to face. But they did not wish to face me. Who was afraid of the truth, and who was not?

The statements made by the Dictator at Camp Columbia might be considered amusing if they were not so drenched in blood. He claimed we were a group of hirelings and that there were many foreigners among us. He said that the central part of our plan was an attempt to kill him - him, always him. As if the men who attacked the Moncada Barracks could not have killed him and twenty like him if they had approved of such methods. He stated that our attack had been planned by ex-President Prío, and that it had been financed with Prío's money. It has been irrefutably proven that no link whatsoever existed between our Movement and the last regime. He claimed that we had machine guns and hand-grenades. Yet the military technicians have stated right here in this Court that we only had one machine gun and not a single hand-grenade. He said that we had beheaded the sentries. Yet death certificates and medical reports of all the Army's casualties show not one death caused by the blade. But above all and most important, he said that we stabbed patients at the Military Hospital. Yet the doctors from that hospital - Army doctors - have testified that we never even occupied the building, that no patient was either wounded or killed by us, and that the hospital lost only one employee, a janitor, who imprudently stuck his head out of an open window.

Whenever a Chief of State, or anyone pretending to be one, makes declarations to the nation, he speaks not just to hear the sound of his own voice. He always has some specific purpose and expects some specific reaction, or has a given intention. Since our military defeat had already taken place, insofar as we no longer represented any actual threat to the dictatorship, why did they slander us like that? If it is still not clear that this was a blood-drenched speech, that it was simply an attempt to justify the crimes that they had been perpetrating since the night before and that they were going to continue to perpetrate, then, let figures speak for me: On July 27th, in his speech from the military headquarters, Batista said that the assailants suffered 32 dead. By the end of the week the number of dead had risen to more than 80 men. In what battles, where, in what clashes, did these young men die? Before Batista spoke, more than 25 prisoners had been murdered. After Batista spoke fifty more were massacred.

What a great sense of honor those modest Army technicians and professionals had, who did not distort the facts before the Court, but gave their reports adhering to the strictest truth! These surely are soldiers who honor their uniform; these, surely, are men! Neither a real soldier nor a true man can degrade his code of honor with lies and crime. I know that many of the soldiers are indignant at the barbaric assassinations perpetrated. I know that they feel repugnance and shame at the smell of homicidal blood that impregnates every stone of Moncada Barracks.

Now that he has been contradicted by men of honor within his own Army, I defy the dictator to repeat his vile slander against us. I defy him to try to justify before the Cuban people his July 27th speech. Let him not remain silent. Let him speak. Let him say who the assassins are, who the ruthless, the inhumane. Let him tell us if the medals of honor, which he went to pin on the breasts of his heroes of that massacre, were rewards for the hideous crimes they had committed. Let him, from this very moment, assume his responsibility before history. Let him not pretend, at a later date, that the soldiers were acting without direct orders from him! Let him offer the nation an explanation for those 70 murders. The bloodshed was great. The nation needs an explanation. The nation seeks it. The nation demands it.

It is common knowledge that in 1933, at the end of the battle at the National Hotel, some officers were murdered after they surrendered. Bohemia Magazine protested energetically. It is also known that after the surrender of Fort Atarés the besiegers' machine guns cut down a row of prisoners. And that one soldier, after asking who Blas Hernández was, blasted him with a bullet directly in the face, and for this cowardly act was promoted to the rank of officer. It is well-known in Cuban history that assassination of prisoners was fatally linked with Batista's name. How naive we were not to foresee this! However, unjustifiable as those killings of 1933 were, they took place in a matter of minutes, in no more time than it took for a round of machine gun fire. What is more, they took place while tempers were still on edge.

This was not the case in Santiago de Cuba. Here all forms of ferocious outrages and cruelty were deliberately overdone. Our men were killed not in the course of a minute, an hour or a day. Throughout an entire week the blows and tortures continued, men were thrown from rooftops and shot. All methods of extermination were incessantly practiced by well-skilled artisans of crime. Moncada Barracks were turned into a workshop of torture and death. Some shameful individuals turned their uniforms into butcher's aprons. The walls were splattered with blood. The bullets imbedded in the walls were encrusted with singed bits of skin, brains and human hair, the grisly reminders of rifle shots fired full in the face. The grass around the barracks was dark and sticky with human blood. The criminal hands that are guiding the destiny of Cuba had written for the prisoners at the entrance to that den of death the very inscription of Hell: 'Forsake all hope.'

They did not even attempt to cover appearances. They did not bother in the least to conceal what they were doing. They thought they had deceived the people with their lies and they ended up deceiving themselves. They felt themselves lords and masters of the universe, with power over life and death. So the fear they had experienced upon our attack at daybreak was dissipated in a feast of corpses, in a drunken orgy of blood.

Chronicles of our history, down through four and a half centuries, tell us of many acts of cruelty: the slaughter of defenseless Indians by the Spaniards; the plundering and atrocities of pirates along the coast; the barbarities of the Spanish soldiers during our War of Independence; the shooting of prisoners of the Cuban Army by the forces of Weyler; the horrors of the Machado regime, and so on through the bloody crimes of March, 1935. But never has such a sad and bloody page been written in numbers of victims and in the viciousness of the victimizers, as in Santiago de Cuba. Only one man in all these centuries has stained with blood two separate periods of our history and has dug his claws into the flesh of two generations of Cubans. To release this river of blood, he waited for the Centennial of the Apostle, just after the fiftieth anniversary of the Republic, whose people fought for freedom, human rights and happiness at the cost of so many lives. Even greater is his crime and even more condemnable because the man who perpetrated it had already, for eleven long years, lorded over his people - this people who, by such deep-rooted sentiment and tradition, loves freedom and repudiates evil. This man has furthermore never been sincere, loyal, honest or chivalrous for a single minute of his public life.

He was not content with the treachery of January, 1934, the crimes of March, 1935 and the forty million dollar fortune that crowned his first regime. He had to add the treason of March, 1952, the crimes of July, 1953, and all the millions that only time will reveal. Dante divided his Inferno into nine circles. He put criminals in the seventh, thieves in the eighth and traitors in the ninth. Difficult dilemma the devils will be faced with, when they try to find an adequate spot for this man's soul - if this man has a soul. The man who instigated the atrocious acts in Santiago de Cuba doesn't even have a heart.

I know many details of the way in which these crimes were carried out, from the lips of some of the soldiers who, filled with shame, told me of the scenes they had witnessed.

When the fighting was over, the soldiers descended like savage beasts on Santiago de Cuba and they took the first fury of their frustrations out against the defenseless population. In the middle of a street, and far from the site of the fighting, they shot through the chest an innocent child who was playing by his doorstep. When the father approached to pick him up, they shot him through his head. Without a word they shot 'Niño' Cala, who was on his way home with a loaf of bread in his hands. It would be an endless task to relate all the crimes and outrages perpetrated against the civilian population. And if the Army dealt thus with those who had had no part at all in the action, you can imagine the terrible fate of the prisoners who had taken part or who were believed to have taken part. Just as, in this trial, they accused many people not at all involved in our attack, they also killed many prisoners who had no involvement whatsoever. The latter are not included in the statistics of victims released by the regime; those statistics refer exclusively to our men. Some day the total number of victims will be known.

The first prisoner killed has our doctor, Mario Muñoz, who bore no arms, wore no uniform, and was dressed in the white smock of a physician. He was a generous and competent man who would have given the same devoted care to the wounded adversary as to a friend. On the road from the Civilian Hospital to the barracks they shot him in the back and left him lying there, face down in a pool of blood. But the mass murder of prisoners did not begin until after three o'clock in the afternoon. Until this hour they awaited orders. Then General Martín Díaz Tamayo arrived from Havana and brought specific instructions from a meeting he had attended with Batista, along with the head of the Army, the head of the Military Intelligence, and others. He said: 'It is humiliating and dishonorable for the Army to have lost three times as many men in combat as the insurgents did. Ten prisoners must be killed for each dead soldier.' This was the order!

In every society there are men of base instincts. The sadists, brutes, conveyors of all the ancestral atavisms go about in the guise of human beings, but they are monsters, only more or less restrained by discipline and social habit. If they are offered a drink from a river of blood, they will not be satisfied until they drink the river dry. All these men needed was the order. At their hands the best and noblest Cubans perished: the most valiant, the most honest, the most idealistic. The tyrant called them mercenaries. There they were dying as heroes at the hands of men who collect a salary from the Republic and who, with the arms the Republic gave them to defend her, serve the interests of a clique and murder her best citizens.

Throughout their torturing of our comrades, the Army offered them the chance to save their lives by betraying their ideology and falsely declaring that Prío had given them money. When they indignantly rejected that proposition, the Army continued with its horrible tortures. They crushed their testicles and they tore out their eyes. But no one yielded. No complaint was heard nor a favor asked. Even when they had been deprived of their vital organs, our men were still a thousand times more men than all their tormentors together. Photographs, which do not lie, show the bodies torn to pieces, Other methods were used. Frustrated by the valor of the men, they tried to break the spirit of our women. With a bleeding eye in their hands, a sergeant and several other men went to the cell where our comrades Melba Hernández and Haydée Santamaría were held. Addressing the latter, and showing her the eye, they said: 'This eye belonged to your brother. If you will not tell us what he refused to say, we will tear out the other.' She, who loved her valiant brother above all things, replied full of dignity: 'If you tore out an eye and he did not speak, much less will I.' Later they came back and burned their arms with lit cigarettes until at last, filled with spite, they told the young Haydée Santamaría: 'You no longer have a fiancé because we have killed him too.' But still imperturbable, she answered: 'He is not dead, because to die for one's country is to live forever.' Never had the heroism and the dignity of Cuban womanhood reached such heights.

There wasn't even any respect for the combat wounded in the various city hospitals. There they were hunted down as prey pursued by vultures. In the Centro Gallego they broke into the operating room at the very moment when two of our critically wounded were receiving blood transfusions. They pulled them off the tables and, as the wounded could no longer stand, they were dragged down to the first floor where they arrived as corpses.

They could not do the same in the Spanish Clinic, where Gustavo Arcos and José Ponce were patients, because they were prevented by Dr. Posada who bravely told them they could enter only over his dead body.

Air and camphor were injected into the veins of Pedro Miret, Abelardo Crespo and Fidel Labrador, in an attempt to kill them at the Military Hospital. They owe their lives to Captain Tamayo, an Army doctor and true soldier of honor who, pistol in hand, wrenched them out of the hands of their merciless captors and transferred them to the Civilian Hospital. These five young men were the only ones of our wounded who survived.

In the early morning hours, groups of our men were removed from the barracks and taken in automobiles to Siboney, La Maya, Songo, and elsewhere. Then they were led out - tied, gagged, already disfigured by the torture - and were murdered in isolated spots. They are recorded as having died in combat against the Army. This went on for several days, and few of the captured prisoners survived. Many were compelled to dig their own graves. One of our men, while he was digging, wheeled around and slashed the face of one of his assassins with his pick. Others were even buried alive, their hands tied behind their backs. Many solitary spots became the graveyards of the brave. On the Army target range alone, five of our men lie buried. Some day these men will be disinterred. Then they will be carried on the shoulders of the people to a place beside the tomb of Martí, and their liberated land will surely erect a monument to honor the memory of the Martyrs of the Centennial.

The last youth they murdered in the surroundings of Santiago de Cuba was Marcos Martí. He was captured with our comrade Ciro Redondo in a cave at Siboney on the morning of Thursday the 30th. These two men were led down the road, with their arms raised, and the soldiers shot Marcos Martí in the back. After he had fallen to the ground, they riddled him with bullets. Redondo was taken to the camp. When Major Pérez Chaumont saw him he exclaimed: 'And this one? Why have you brought him to me?' The Court heard this incident from Redondo himself, the young man who survived thanks to what Pérez Chaumont called 'the soldiers' stupidity.'

It was the same throughout the province. Ten days after July 26th, a newspaper in this city printed the news that two young men had been found hanged on the road from Manzanillo to Bayamo. Later the bodies were identified as those of Hugo Camejo and Pedro Vélez. Another extraordinary incident took place there: There were three victims - they had been dragged from Manzanillo Barracks at two that morning. At a certain spot on the highway they were taken out, beaten unconscious, and strangled with a rope. But after they had been left for dead, one of them, Andrés García, regained consciousness and hid in a farmer's house. Thanks to this the Court learned the details of this crime too. Of all our men taken prisoner in the Bayamo area, this is the only survivor.

Near the Cauto River, in a spot known as Barrancas, at the bottom of a pit, lie the bodies of Raúl de Aguiar, Armando del Valle and Andrés Valdés. They were murdered at midnight on the road between Alto Cedro and Palma Soriano by Sergeant Montes de Oca - in charge of the military post at Miranda Barracks - Corporal Maceo, and the Lieutenant in charge of Alta Cedro where the murdered men were captured. In the annals of crime, Sergeant Eulalio Gonzáles - better known as the 'Tiger' of Moncada Barracks - deserves a special place. Later this man didn't have the slightest qualms in bragging about his unspeakable deeds. It was he who with his own hands murdered our comrade Abel Santamaría. But that didn't satisfy him. One day as he was coming back from the Puerto Boniato Prison, where he raises pedigree fighting cocks in the back courtyard, he got on a bus on which Abel's mother was also traveling. When this monster realized who she was he began to brag about his grisly deeds, and - in a loud voice so that the woman dressed in mourning could hear him - he said: 'Yes, I have gouged many eyes out and I expect to continue gouging them out.' The unprecedented moral degradation our nation is suffering is expressed beyond the power of words in that mother's sobs of grief before the cowardly insolence of the very man who murdered her son. When these mothers went to Moncada Barracks to ask about their sons, it was with incredible cynicism and sadism that they were told: 'Surely madam, you may see him at the Santa Ifigenia Hotel where we have put him up for you.' Either Cuba is not Cuba, or the men responsible for these acts will have to face their reckoning one day. Heartless men, they threw crude insults at the people who bared their heads in reverence as the corpses of the revolutionaries were carried by.

There were so many victims that the government still has not dared make public the complete list. They know their figures are false. They have all the victims' names, because prior to every murder they recorded all the vital statistics. The whole long process of identification through the National Identification Bureau was a huge farce, and there are families still waiting for word of their sons' fate. Why has this not been cleared up, after three months?

I wish to state for the record here that all the victims' pockets were picked to the very last penny and that all their personal effects, rings and watches, were stripped from their bodies and are brazenly being worn today by their assassins.

Honorable Judges, a great deal of what I have just related you already know, from the testimony of many of my comrades. But please note that many key witnesses have been barred from this trial, although they were permitted to attend the sessions of the previous trial. For example, I want to point out that the nurses of the Civilian Hospital are absent, even though they work in the same place where this hearing is being held. They were kept from this Court so that, under my questioning, they would not be able to testify that - besides Dr. Mario Muñoz - twenty more of our men were captured alive. The regime fears that from the questioning of these witnesses some extremely dangerous testimony could find its way into the official transcript.

But Major Pérez Chaumont did appear here and he could not elude my questioning. What we learned from this man, a 'hero' who fought only against unarmed and handcuffed men, gives us an idea of what could have been learned at the Courthouse if I had not been isolated from the proceedings. I asked him how many of our men had died in his celebrated skirmishes at Siboney. He hesitated. I insisted and he finally said twenty-one. Since I knew such skirmishes had never taken place, I asked him how many of our men had been wounded. He answered: 'None. All of them were killed.' It was then that I asked him, in astonishment, if the soldiers were using nuclear weapons. Of course, where men are shot point blank, there are no wounded. Then I asked him how many casualties the Army had sustained. He replied that two of his men had been wounded. Finally I asked him if either of these men had died, and he said no. I waited. Later, all of the wounded Army soldiers filed by and it was discovered that none of them had been wounded at Siboney. This same Major Pérez Chaumont who hardly flinched at having assassinated twenty-one defenseless young men has built a palatial home in Ciudamar Beach. It's worth more than 100,000 pesos - his savings after only a few months under Batista's new rule. And if this is the savings of a Major, imagine how much generals have saved!

Honorable Judges: Where are our men who were captured July 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th? It is known that more than sixty men were captured in the area of Santiago de Cuba. Only three of them and the two women have been brought before the Court. The rest of the accused were seized later. Where are our wounded? Only five of them are alive; the rest were murdered. These figures are irrefutable. On the other hand, twenty of the soldiers who we held prisoner have been presented here and they themselves have declared that they received not even one offensive word from us. Thirty soldiers who were wounded, many in the street fighting, also appeared before you. Not one was killed by us. If the Army suffered losses of nineteen dead and thirty wounded, how is it possible that we should have had eighty dead and only five wounded? Who ever witnessed a battle with 21 dead and no wounded, like these famous battles described by Pérez Chaumont?

We have here the casualty lists from the bitter fighting sustained by the invasion troops in the war of 1895, both in battles where the Cuban army was defeated and where it was victorious. The battle of Los Indios in Las Villas: 12 wounded, none dead. The battle of Mal Tiempo: 4 dead, 23 wounded. Calimete: 16 dead, 64 wounded. La Palma: 39 dead, 88 wounded. Cacarajícara: 5 dead, 13 wounded. Descanso: 4 dead, 45 wounded. San Gabriel de Lombillo: 2 dead, 18 wounded ... In all these battles the number of wounded is twice, three times and up to ten times the number of dead, although in those days there were no modern medical techniques by which the percentage of deaths could be reduced. How then, now, can we explain the enormous proportion of sixteen deaths per wounded man, if not by the government's slaughter of the wounded in the very hospitals, and by the assassination of the other helpless prisoners they had taken? The figures are irrefutable.

'It is shameful and a dishonor to the Army to have lost three times as many men in combat as those lost by the insurgents; we must kill ten prisoners for each dead soldier.' This is the concept of honor held by the petty corporals who became generals on March 10th. This is the code of honor they wish to impose on the national Army. A false honor, a feigned honor, an apparent honor based on lies, hypocrisy and crime; a mask of honor molded by those assassins with blood. Who told them that to die fighting is dishonorable? Who told them the honor of an army consists of murdering the wounded and prisoners of war?

In war time, armies that murder prisoners have always earned the contempt and abomination of the entire world. Such cowardice has no justification, even in a case where national territory is invaded by foreign troops. In the words of a South American liberator: 'Not even the strictest military obedience may turn a soldier's sword into that of an executioner.' The honorable soldier does not kill the helpless prisoner after the fight, but rather, respects him. He does not finish off a wounded man, but rather, helps him. He stands in the way of crime and if he cannot prevent it, he acts as did that Spanish captain who, upon hearing the shots of the firing squad that murdered Cuban students, indignantly broke his sword in two and refused to continue serving in that Army.

The soldiers who murdered their prisoners were not worthy of the soldiers who died. I saw many soldiers fight with courage - for example, those in the patrols that fired their machine guns against us in almost hand-to-hand combat, or that sergeant who, defying death, rang the alarm to mobilize the barracks. Some of them live. I am glad. Others are dead. They believed they were doing their duty and in my eyes this makes them worthy of admiration and respect. I deplore only the fact that valiant men should fall for an evil cause. When Cuba is freed, we should respect, shelter and aid the wives and children of those courageous soldiers who perished fighting against us. They are not to blame for Cuba's miseries. They too are victims of this nefarious situation.

But what honor was earned by the soldiers who died in battle was lost by the generals who ordered prisoners to be killed after they surrendered. Men who became generals overnight, without ever having fired a shot; men who bought their stars with high treason against their country; men who ordered the execution of prisoners taken in battles in which they didn't even participate: these are the generals of the 10th of March - generals who would not even have been fit to drive the mules that carried the equipment in Antonio Maceo's army.

The Army suffered three times as many casualties as we did. That was because our men were expertly trained, as the Army men themselves have admitted; and also because we had prepared adequate tactical measures, another fact recognized by the Army. The Army did not perform brilliantly; despite the millions spent on espionage by the Military Intelligence Agency, they were totally taken by surprise, and their hand grenades failed to explode because they were obsolete. And the Army owes all this to generals like Martín Díaz Tamayo and colonels like Ugalde Carrillo and Albert del Río Chaviano. We were not 17 traitors infiltrated into the ranks of the Army, as was the case on March 10th. Instead, we were 165 men who had traveled the length and breadth of Cuba to look death boldly in the face. If the Army leaders had a notion of real military honor they would have resigned their commands rather than trying to wash away their shame and incompetence in the blood of their prisoners.

To kill helpless prisoners and then declare that they died in battle: that is the military capacity of the generals of March 10th. That was the way the worst butchers of Valeriano Weyler behaved in the cruelest years of our War of Independence. The Chronicles of War include the following story: 'On February 23rd, officer Baldomero Acosta entered Punta Brava with some cavalry when, from the opposite road, a squad of the Pizarro regiment approached, led by a sergeant known in those parts as Barriguilla (Pot Belly). The insurgents exchanged a few shots with Pizarro's men, then withdrew by the trail that leads from Punta Brava to the village of Guatao. Followed by another battalion of volunteers from Marianao, and a company of troops from the Public Order Corps, who were led by Captain Calvo, Pizarro's squad of 50 men marched on Guatao ... As soon as their first forces entered the village they commenced their massacre - killing twelve of the peaceful inhabitants ... The troops led by Captain Calvo speedily rounded up all the civilians that were running about the village, tied them up and took them as prisoners of war to Havana ... Not yet satisfied with their outrages, on the outskirts of Guatao they carried out another barbaric action, killing one of the prisoners and horribly wounding the rest. The Marquis of Cervera, a cowardly and palatine soldier, informed Weyler of the pyrrhic victory of the Spanish soldiers; but Major Zugasti, a man of principles, denounced the incident to the government and officially called the murders perpetrated by the criminal Captain Calvo and Sergeant Barriguilla an assassination of peaceful citizens.

'Weyler's intervention in this horrible incident and his delight upon learning the details of the massacre may be palpably deduced from the official dispatch that he sent to the Ministry of War concerning these cruelties. "Small column organized by commander Marianao with forces from garrison, volunteers and firemen led by Captain Calvo, fought and destroyed bands of Villanueva and Baldomero Acosta near Punta Brava, killing twenty of theirs, who were handed over to Mayor of Guatao for burial, and taking fifteen prisoners, one of them wounded, we assume there are many wounded among them. One of ours suffered critical wounds, some suffered light bruises and wounds. Weyler."'

What is the difference between Weyler's dispatch and that of Colonel Chaviano detailing the victories of Major Pérez Chaumont? Only that Weyler mentions one wounded soldier in his ranks. Chaviano mentions two. Weyler speaks of one wounded man and fifteen prisoners in the enemy's ranks. Chaviano records neither wounded men nor prisoners.

Just as I admire the courage of the soldiers who died bravely, I also admire the officers who bore themselves with dignity and did not drench their hands in this blood. Many of the survivors owe their lives to the commendable conduct of officers like Lieutenant Sarría, Lieutenant Campa, Captain Tamayo and others, who were true gentlemen in their treatment of the prisoners. If men like these had not partially saved the name of the Armed Forces, it would be more honorable today to wear a dishrag than to wear an Army uniform.

For my dead comrades, I claim no vengeance. Since their lives were priceless, the murderers could not pay for them even with their own lives. It is not by blood that we may redeem the lives of those who died for their country. The happiness of their people is the only tribute worthy of them.

What is more, my comrades are neither dead nor forgotten; they live today, more than ever, and their murderers will view with dismay the victorious spirit of their ideas rise from their corpses. Let the Apostle speak for me: 'There is a limit to the tears we can shed at the graveside of the dead. Such limit is the infinite love for the homeland and its glory, a love that never falters, loses hope nor grows dim. For the graves of the martyrs are the highest altars of our reverence.'

... When one dies
In the arms of a grateful country
Agony ends, prison chains break - and
At last, with death, life begins!

Up to this point I have confined myself almost exclusively to relating events. Since I am well aware that I am before a Court convened to judge me, I will now demonstrate that all legal right was on our side alone, and that the verdict imposed on my comrades - the verdict now being sought against me - has no justification in reason, in social morality or in terms of true justice.

I wish to be duly respectful to the Honorable Judges, and I am grateful that you find in the frankness of my plea no animosity towards you. My argument is meant simply to demonstrate what a false and erroneous position the Judicial Power has adopted in the present situation. To a certain extent, each Court is nothing more than a cog in the wheel of the system, and therefore must move along the course determined by the vehicle, although this by no means justifies any individual acting against his principles. I know very well that the oligarchy bears most of the blame. The oligarchy, without dignified protest, abjectly yielded to the dictates of the usurper and betrayed their country by renouncing the autonomy of the Judicial Power. Men who constitute noble exceptions have attempted to mend the system's mangled honor with their individual decisions. But the gestures of this minority have been of little consequence, drowned as they were by the obsequious and fawning majority. This fatalism, however, will not stop me from speaking the truth that supports my cause. My appearance before this Court may be a pure farce in order to give a semblance of legality to arbitrary decisions, but I am determined to wrench apart with a firm hand the infamous veil that hides so much shamelessness. It is curious: the very men who have brought me here to be judged and condemned have never heeded a single decision of this Court.

Since this trial may, as you said, be the most important trial since we achieved our national sovereignty, what I say here will perhaps be lost in the silence which the dictatorship has tried to impose on me, but posterity will often turn its eyes to what you do here. Remember that today you are judging an accused man, but that you yourselves will be judged not once, but many times, as often as these days are submitted to scrutiny in the future. What I say here will be then repeated many times, not because it comes from my lips, but because the problem of justice is eternal and the people have a deep sense of justice above and beyond the hairsplitting of jurisprudence. The people wield simple but implacable logic, in conflict with all that is absurd and contradictory. Furthermore, if there is in this world a people that utterly abhors favoritism and inequality, it is the Cuban people. To them, justice is symbolized by a maiden with a scale and a sword in her hands. Should she cower before one group and furiously wield that sword against another group, then to the people of Cuba the maiden of justice will seem nothing more than a prostitute brandishing a dagger. My logic is the simple logic of the people.

Let me tell you a story: Once upon a time there was a Republic. It had its Constitution, its laws, its freedoms, a President, a Congress and Courts of Law. Everyone could assemble, associate, speak and write with complete freedom. The people were not satisfied with the government officials at that time, but they had the power to elect new officials and only a few days remained before they would do so. Public opinion was respected and heeded and all problems of common interest were freely discussed. There were political parties, radio and television debates and forums and public meetings. The whole nation pulsated with enthusiasm. This people had suffered greatly and although it was unhappy, it longed to be happy and had a right to be happy. It had been deceived many times and it looked upon the past with real horror. This country innocently believed that such a past could not return; the people were proud of their love of freedom and they carried their heads high in the conviction that liberty would be respected as a sacred right. They felt confident that no one would dare commit the crime of violating their democratic institutions. They wanted a change for the better, aspired to progress; and they saw all this at hand. All their hope was in the future.

Poor country! One morning the citizens woke up dismayed; under the cover of night, while the people slept, the ghosts of the past had conspired and has seized the citizenry by its hands, its feet, and its neck. That grip, those claws were familiar: those jaws, those death-dealing scythes, those boots. No; it was no nightmare; it was a sad and terrible reality: a man named Fulgencio Batista had just perpetrated the appalling crime that no one had expected.

Then a humble citizen of that people, a citizen who wished to believe in the laws of the Republic, in the integrity of its judges, whom he had seen vent their fury against the underprivileged, searched through a Social Defense Code to see what punishment society prescribed for the author of such a coup, and he discovered the following:

'Whosoever shall perpetrate any deed destined through violent means directly to change in whole or in part the Constitution of the State or the form of the established government shall incur a sentence of six to ten years imprisonment.

'A sentence of three to ten years imprisonment will be imposed on the author of an act directed to promote an armed uprising against the Constitutional Powers of the State. The sentence increases from five to twenty years if the insurrection is carried out.

'Whosoever shall perpetrate an act with the specific purpose of preventing, in whole or in part, even temporarily, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the President, or the Supreme Court from exercising their constitutional functions will incur a sentence of from six to ten years imprisonment.

'Whosoever shall attempt to impede or tamper with the normal course of general elections, will incur a sentence of from four to eight years imprisonment.

'Whosoever shall introduce, publish, propagate or try to enforce in Cuba instructions, orders or decrees that tend ... to promote the unobservance of laws in force, will incur a sentence of from two to six years imprisonment.

'Whosoever shall assume command of troops, posts, fortresses, military camps, towns, warships, or military aircraft, without the authority to do so, or without express government orders, will incur a sentence of from five to ten years imprisonment.

'A similar sentence will be passed upon anyone who usurps the exercise of a function held by the Constitution as properly belonging to the powers of State.'

Without telling anyone, Code in one hand and a deposition in the other, that citizen went to the old city building, that old building which housed the Court competent and under obligation to bring cause against and punish those responsible for this deed. He presented a writ denouncing the crimes and asking that Fulgencio Batista and his seventeen accomplices be sentenced to 108 years in prison as decreed by the Social Defense Code; considering also aggravating circumstances of secondary offense treachery, and acting under cover of night.

Days and months passed. What a disappointment! The accused remained unmolested: he strode up and down the country like a great lord and was called Honorable Sir and General: he removed and replaced judges at will. The very day the Courts opened, the criminal occupied the seat of honor in the midst of our august and venerable patriarchs of justice.

Once more the days and the months rolled by, the people wearied of mockery and abuses. There is a limit to tolerance! The struggle began against this man who was disregarding the law, who had usurped power by the use of violence against the will of the people, who was guilty of aggression against the established order, had tortured, murdered, imprisoned and prosecuted those who had taken up the struggle to defend the law and to restore freedom to the people.

Honorable Judges: I am that humble citizen who one day demanded in vain that the Courts punish the power-hungry men who had violated the law and torn our institutions to shreds. Now that it is I who am accused for attempting to overthrow this illegal regime and to restore the legitimate Constitution of the Republic, I am held incommunicado for 76 days and denied the right to speak to anyone, even to my son; between two heavy machine guns I am led through the city. I am transferred to this hospital to be tried secretly with the greatest severity; and the Prosecutor with the Code in his hand solemnly demands that I be sentenced to 26 years in prison.

You will answer that on the former occasion the Courts failed to act because force prevented them from doing so. Well then, confess, this time force will compel you to condemn me. The first time you were unable to punish the guilty; now you will be compelled to punish the innocent. The maiden of justice twice raped.

And so much talk to justify the unjustifiable, to explain the inexplicable and to reconcile the irreconcilable! The regime has reached the point of asserting that 'Might makes right' is the supreme law of the land. In other words, that using tanks and soldiers to take over the presidential palace, the national treasury, and the other government offices, and aiming guns at the heart of the people, entitles them to govern the people! The same argument the Nazis used when they occupied the countries of Europe and installed their puppet governments.

I heartily believe revolution to be the source of legal right; but the nocturnal armed assault of March 10th could never be considered a revolution. In everyday language, as José Ingenieros said, it is common to give the name of revolution to small disorders promoted by a group of dissatisfied persons in order to grab, from those in power, both the political sinecures and the economic advantages. The usual result is no more than a change of hands, the dividing up of jobs and benefits. This is not the criterion of a philosopher, as it cannot be that of a cultured man.

Leaving aside the problem of integral changes in the social system, not even on the surface of the public quagmire were we able to discern the slightest motion that could lessen the rampant putrefaction. The previous regime was guilty of petty politics, theft, pillage, and disrespect for human life; but the present regime has increased political skullduggery five-fold, pillage ten-fold, and a hundred-fold the lack of respect for human life.

It was known that Barriguilla had plundered and murdered, that he was a millionaire, that he owned in Havana a good many apartment houses, countless stock in foreign companies, fabulous accounts in American banks, that he agreed to divorce settlements to the tune of eighteen million pesos, that he was a frequent guest in the most lavishly expensive hotels for Yankee tycoons. But no one would ever think of Barriguilla as a revolutionary. Barriguilla is that sergeant of Weyler's who assassinated twelve Cubans in Guatao. Batista's men murdered seventy in Santiago de Cuba. De te fabula narratur.

Four political parties governed the country before the 10th of March: the Auténtico, Liberal, Democratic and Republican parties. Two days after the coup, the Republican party gave its support to the new rulers. A year had not yet passed before the Liberal and Democratic parties were again in power: Batista did not restore the Constitution, did not restore civil liberties, did not restore Congress, did not restore universal suffrage, did not restore in the last analysis any of the uprooted democratic institutions. But he did restore Verdeja, Guas Inclán, Salvito García Ramos, Anaya Murillo and the top hierarchy of the traditional government parties, the most corrupt, rapacious, reactionary and antediluvian elements in Cuban politics. So went the 'revolution' of Barriguilla!.

Lacking even the most elementary revolutionary content, Batista's regime represents in every respect a 20 year regression for Cuba. Batista's regime has exacted a high price from all of us, but primarily from the humble classes which are suffering hunger and misery. Meanwhile the dictatorship has laid waste the nation with commotion, ineptitude and anguish, and now engages in the most loathsome forms of ruthless politics, concocting formula after formula to perpetuate itself in power, even if over a stack of corpses and a sea of blood.

Batista's regime has not set in motion a single nationwide program of betterment for the people. Batista delivered himself into the hands of the great financial interests. Little else could be expected from a man of his mentality - utterly devoid as he is of ideals and of principles, and utterly lacking the faith, confidence and support of the masses. His regime merely brought with it a change of hands and a redistribution of the loot among a new group of friends, relatives, accomplices and parasitic hangers-on that constitute the political retinue of the Dictator. What great shame the people have been forced to endure so that a small group of egoists, altogether indifferent to the needs of their homeland, may find in public life an easy and comfortable modus vivendi.

How right Eduardo Chibás was in his last radio speech, when he said that Batista was encouraging the return of the colonels, castor oil and the law of the fugitive! Immediately after March 10th, Cubans again began to witness acts of veritable vandalism which they had thought banished forever from their nation. There was an unprecedented attack on a cultural institution: a radio station was stormed by the thugs of the SIM, together with the young hoodlums of the PAU, while broadcasting the 'University of the Air' program. And there was the case of the journalist Mario Kuchilán, dragged from his home in the middle of the night and bestially tortured until he was nearly unconscious. There was the murder of the student Rubén Batista and the criminal volleys fired at a peaceful student demonstration next to the wall where Spanish volunteers shot the medical students in 1871. And many cases such as that of Dr. García Bárcena, where right in the courtrooms men have coughed up blood because of the barbaric tortures practiced upon them by the repressive security forces. I will not enumerate the hundreds of cases where groups of citizens have been brutally clubbed - men, women, children and the aged. All of this was being done even before July 26th. Since then, as everyone knows, even Cardinal Arteaga himself was not spared such treatment. Everybody knows he was a victim of repressive agents. According to the official story, he fell prey to a 'band of thieves'. For once the regime told the truth. For what else is this regime? ...

People have just contemplated with horror the case of the journalist who was kidnapped and subjected to torture by fire for twenty days. Each new case brings forth evidence of unheard-of effrontery, of immense hypocrisy: the cowardice of those who shirk responsibility and invariably blame the enemies of the regime. Governmental tactics enviable only by the worst gangster mobs. Even the Nazi criminals were never so cowardly. Hitler assumed responsibility for the massacres of June 30, 1934, stating that for 24 hours he himself had been the German Supreme Court; the henchmen of this dictatorship which defies all comparison because of its baseness, maliciousness and cowardice, kidnap, torture, murder and then loathsomely put the blame on the adversaries of the regime. Typical tactics of Sergeant Barriguilla!

Not once in all the cases I have mentioned, Honorable Judges, have the agents responsible for these crimes been brought to Court to be tried for them. How is this? Was this not to be the regime of public order, peace and respect for human life?

I have related all this in order to ask you now: Can this state of affairs be called a revolution, capable of formulating law and establishing rights? Is it or is it not legitimate to struggle against this regime? And must there not be a high degree of corruption in the courts of law when these courts imprison citizens who try to rid the country of so much infamy?

Cuba is suffering from a cruel and base despotism. You are well aware that resistance to despots is legitimate. This is a universally recognized principle and our 1940 Constitution expressly makes it a sacred right, in the second paragraph of Article 40: 'It is legitimate to use adequate resistance to protect previously granted individual rights.' And even if this prerogative had not been provided by the Supreme Law of the Land, it is a consideration without which one cannot conceive of the existence of a democratic collectivity. Professor Infiesta, in his book on Constitutional Law, differentiates between the political and legal constitutions, and states: 'Sometimes the Legal Constitution includes constitutional principles which, even without being so classified, would be equally binding solely on the basis of the people's consent, for example, the principle of majority rule or representation in our democracies.' The right of insurrection in the face of tyranny is one such principle, and whether or not it be included in the Legal Constitution, it is always binding within a democratic society. The presentation of such a case to a high court is one of the most interesting problems of general law. Duguit has said in his Treatise on Constitutional Law: 'If an insurrection fails, no court will dare to rule that this unsuccessful insurrection was technically no conspiracy, no transgression against the security of the State, inasmuch as, the government being tyrannical, the intention to overthrow it was legitimate.' But please take note: Duguit does not state, 'the court ought not to rule.' He says, 'no court will dare to rule.' More explicitly, he means that no court will dare, that no court will have enough courage to do so, under a tyranny. If the court is courageous and does its duty, then yes, it will dare.

Recently there has been a loud controversy concerning the 1940 Constitution. The Court of Social and Constitutional Rights ruled against it in favor of the so-called Statutes. Nevertheless, Honorable Judges, I maintain that the 1940 Constitution is still in force. My statement may seem absurd and extemporaneous to you. But do not be surprised. It is I who am astonished that a court of law should have attempted to deal a death blow to the legitimate Constitution of the Republic. Adhering strictly to facts, truth and reason - as I have done all along - I will prove what I have just stated. The Court of Social and Constitutional Rights was instituted according to Article 172 of the 1940 Constitution, and the supplementary Act of May 31, 1949. These laws, in virtue of which the Court was created, granted it, insofar as problems of unconstitutionality are concerned, a specific and clearly defined area of legal competence: to rule in all matters of appeals claiming the unconstitutionality of laws, legal decrees, resolutions, or acts that deny, diminish, restrain or adulterate the constitutional rights and privileges or that jeopardize the operations of State agencies. Article 194 established very clearly the following: 'All judges and courts are under the obligation to find solutions to conflicts between the Constitution and the existing laws in accordance with the principle that the former shall always prevail over the latter.' Therefore, according to the laws that created it, the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights should always rule in favor of the Constitution. When this Court caused the Statutes to prevail above the Constitution of the Republic, it completely overstepped its boundaries and its established field of competence, thereby rendering a decision which is legally null and void. Furthermore, the decision itself is absurd, and absurdities have no validity in law nor in fact, not even from a metaphysical point of view. No matter how venerable a court may be, it cannot assert that circles are square or, what amounts to the same thing, that the grotesque offspring of the April 4th Statutes should be considered the official Constitution of a State.

The Constitution is understood to be the basic and supreme law of the nation, to define the country's political structure, regulate the functioning of its government agencies, and determine the limits of their activities. It must be stable, enduring and, to a certain extent, inflexible. The Statutes fulfill none of these qualifications. To begin with, they harbor a monstrous, shameless, and brazen contradiction in regard to the most vital aspect of all: the integration of the Republican structure and the principle of national sovereignty. Article 1 reads: 'Cuba is a sovereign and independent State constituted as a democratic Republic.' Article 2 reads: 'Sovereignty resides in the will of the people, and all powers derive from this source.' But then comes Article 118, which reads: 'The President will be nominated by the Cabinet.' So it is not the people who choose the President, but rather the Cabinet. And who chooses the Cabinet? Article 120, section 13: 'The President will be authorized to nominate and reappoint the members of the Cabinet and to replace them when occasion arises.' So, after all, who nominates whom? Is this not the classical old problem of the chicken and the egg that no one has ever been able to solve?

One day eighteen hoodlums got together. Their plan was to assault the Republic and loot its 350 million pesos annual budget. Behind peoples' backs and with great treachery, they succeeded in their purpose. 'Now what do we do next?' they wondered. One of them said to the rest: 'You name me Prime Minister, and I'll make you generals.' When this was done, he rounded up a group of 20 men and told them: 'I will make you my Cabinet if you make me President.' In this way they named each other generals, ministers and president, and then took over the treasury and the Republic.

What is more, it was not simply a matter of usurping sovereignty at a given moment in order to name a Cabinet, Generals and a President. This man ascribed to himself, through these Statutes, not only absolute control of the nation, but also the power of life and death over every citizen - control, in fact, over the very existence of the nation. Because of this, I maintain that the position of the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights is not only treacherous, vile, cowardly and repugnant, but also absurd.

The Statutes contain an article which has not received much attention, but which gives us the key to this situation and is the one from which we shall derive decisive conclusions. I refer specifically to the modifying clause included in Article 257, which reads: 'This constitutional law is open to reform by the Cabinet with a two-thirds quorum vote.' This is where mockery reaches its climax. Not only did they exercise sovereignty in order to impose a Constitution upon a people without that people's consent, and to install a regime which concentrates all power in their own hands, but also, through Article 257, they assume the most essential attribute of sovereignty: the power to change the Basic and Supreme Law of the Land. And they have already changed it several times since March 10th. Yet, with the greatest gall, they assert in Article 2 that sovereignty resides in the will of the people and that the people are the source of all power. Since these changes may be brought about by a vote of two-thirds of the Cabinet and the Cabinet is named by the President, then the right to make and break Cuba is in the hands of one man, a man who is, furthermore, the most unworthy of all the creatures ever to be born in this land. Was this then accepted by the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights? And is all that derives from it valid and legal? Very well, you shall see what was accepted: 'This constitutional law is open to reform by the Cabinet with a two-thirds quorum vote.' Such a power recognizes no limits. Under its aegis, any article, any chapter, any section, even the whole law may be modified. For example, Article 1, which I have just mentioned, says that Cuba is a sovereign and independent State constituted as a democratic Republic, 'although today it is in fact a bloody dictatorship.' Article 3 reads: 'The national boundaries include the island of Cuba, the Isle of Pines, and the neighboring keys ...' and so on. Batista and his Cabinet under the provisions of Article 257 can modify all these other articles. They can say that Cuba is no longer a Republic but a hereditary monarchy and he, Batista, can anoint himself king. He can dismember the national territory and sell a province to a foreign country as Napoleon did with Louisiana. He may suspend the right to life itself, and like Herod, order the decapitation of newborn children. All these measures would be legal and you would have to incarcerate all those who opposed them, just as you now intend to do with me. I have put forth extreme examples to show how sad and humiliating our present situation is. To think that all these absolute powers are in the hands of men truly capable of selling our country along with all its citizens!

As the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights has accepted this state of affairs, what more are they waiting for? They may as well hang up their judicial robes. It is a fundamental principle of general law that there can be no constitutional status where the constitutional and legislative powers reside in the same body. When the Cabinet makes the laws, the decrees and the rules - and at the same time has the power to change the Constitution in a moment of time - then I ask you: why do we need a Court of Social and Constitutional Rights? The ruling in favor of this Statute is irrational, inconceivable, illogical and totally contrary to the Republican laws that you, Honorable Judges, swore to uphold. When the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights supported Batista's Statutes against the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land was not abolished but rather the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights placed itself outside the Constitution, renounced its autonomy and committed legal suicide. May it rest in peace!

The right to rebel, established in Article 40 of the Constitution, is still valid. Was it established to function while the Republic was enjoying normal conditions? No. This provision is to the Constitution what a lifeboat is to a ship at sea. The lifeboat is only launched when the ship has been torpedoed by enemies laying wait along its course. With our Constitution betrayed and the people deprived of all their prerogatives, there was only one way open: one right which no power may abolish. The right to resist oppression and injustice. If any doubt remains, there is an article of the Social Defense Code which the Honorable Prosecutor would have done well not to forget. It reads, and I quote: 'The appointed or elected government authorities that fail to resist sedition with all available means will be liable to a sentence of interdiction of from six to eight years.' The judges of our nation were under the obligation to resist Batista's treacherous military coup of the 10th of March. It is understandable that when no one has observed the law and when nobody else has done his duty, those who have observed the law and have done their duty should be sent to prison.

You will not be able to deny that the regime forced upon the nation is unworthy of Cuba's history. In his book, The Spirit of Laws, which is the foundation of the modern division of governmental power, Montesquieu makes a distinction between three types of government according to their basic nature: 'The Republican form wherein the whole people or a portion thereof has sovereign power; the Monarchical form where only one man governs, but in accordance with fixed and well-defined laws; and the Despotic form where one man without regard for laws nor rules acts as he pleases, regarding only his own will or whim.' And then he adds: 'A man whose five senses constantly tell him that he is everything and that the rest of humanity is nothing is bound to be lazy, ignorant and sensuous.' 'As virtue is necessary to democracy, and honor to a monarchy, fear is of the essence to a despotic regime, where virtue is not needed and honor would be dangerous.'

The right of rebellion against tyranny, Honorable Judges, has been recognized from the most ancient times to the present day by men of all creeds, ideas and doctrines.

It was so in the theocratic monarchies of remote antiquity. In China it was almost a constitutional principle that when a king governed rudely and despotically he should be deposed and replaced by a virtuous prince.

The philosophers of ancient India upheld the principle of active resistance to arbitrary authority. They justified revolution and very often put their theories into practice. One of their spiritual leaders used to say that 'an opinion held by the majority is stronger than the king himself. A rope woven of many strands is strong enough to hold a lion.'

The city states of Greece and republican Rome not only admitted, but defended the meting-out of violent death to tyrants.

In the Middle Ages, John Salisbury in his Book of the Statesman says that when a prince does not govern according to law and degenerates into a tyrant, violent overthrow is legitimate and justifiable. He recommends for tyrants the dagger rather than poison.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, rejects the doctrine of tyrannicide, and yet upholds the thesis that tyrants should be overthrown by the people.

Martin Luther proclaimed that when a government degenerates into a tyranny that violates the laws, its subjects are released from their obligations to obey. His disciple, Philippe Melanchton, upholds the right of resistance when governments become despotic. Calvin, the outstanding thinker of the Reformation with regard to political ideas, postulates that people are entitled to take up arms to oppose any usurpation.

No less a man that Juan Mariana, a Spanish Jesuit during the reign of Philip II, asserts in his book, De Rege et Regis Institutione, that when a governor usurps power, or even if he were elected, when he governs in a tyrannical manner it is licit for a private citizen to exercise tyrannicide, either directly or through subterfuge with the least possible disturbance.

The French writer, François Hotman, maintained that between the government and its subjects there is a bond or contract, and that the people may rise in rebellion against the tyranny of government when the latter violates that pact.

About the same time, a booklet - which came to be widely read - appeared under the title Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, and it was signed with the pseudonym Stephanus Junius Brutus. It openly declared that resistance to governments is legitimate when rulers oppress the people and that it is the duty of Honorable Judges to lead the struggle.

The Scottish reformers John Knox and John Poynet upheld the same points of view. And, in the most important book of that movement, George Buchanan stated that if a government achieved power without taking into account the consent of the people, or if a government rules their destiny in an unjust or arbitrary fashion, then that government becomes a tyranny and can be divested of power or, in a final recourse, its leaders can be put to death.

John Althus, a German jurist of the early 17th century, stated in his Treatise on Politics that sovereignty as the supreme authority of the State is born from the voluntary concourse of all its members; that governmental authority stems from the people and that its unjust, illegal or tyrannical function exempts them from the duty of obedience and justifies resistance or rebellion.

Thus far, Honorable Judges, I have mentioned examples from antiquity, from the Middle Ages, and from the beginnings of our times. I selected these examples from writers of all creeds. What is more, you can see that the right to rebellion is at the very root of Cuba's existence as a nation. By virtue of it you are today able to appear in the robes of Cuban Judges. Would it be that those garments really served the cause of justice!

It is well known that in England during the 17th century two kings, Charles I and James II, were dethroned for despotism. These actions coincided with the birth of liberal political philosophy and provided the ideological base for a new social class, which was then struggling to break the bonds of feudalism. Against divine right autocracies, this new philosophy upheld the principle of the social contract and of the consent of the governed, and constituted the foundation of the English Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1775 and the French Revolution of 1789. These great revolutionary events ushered in the liberation of the Spanish colonies in the New World - the final link in that chain being broken by Cuba. The new philosophy nurtured our own political ideas and helped us to evolve our Constitutions, from the Constitution of Guáimaro up to the Constitution of 1940. The latter was influenced by the socialist currents of our time; the principle of the social function of property and of man's inalienable right to a decent living were built into it, although large vested interests have prevented fully enforcing those rights.

The right of insurrection against tyranny then underwent its final consecration and became a fundamental tenet of political liberty.

As far back as 1649, John Milton wrote that political power lies with the people, who can enthrone and dethrone kings and have the duty of overthrowing tyrants.

John Locke, in his essay on government, maintained that when the natural rights of man are violated, the people have the right and the duty to alter or abolish the government. 'The only remedy against unauthorized force is opposition to it by force.'

Jean-Jaques Rousseau said with great eloquence in his Social Contract: 'While a people sees itself forced to obey and obeys, it does well; but as soon as it can shake off the yoke and shakes it off, it does better, recovering its liberty through the use of the very right that has been taken away from it.' 'The strongest man is never strong enough to be master forever, unless he converts force into right and obedience into duty. Force is a physical power; I do not see what morality one may derive from its use. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will; at the very least, it is an act of prudence. In what sense should this be called a duty?' 'To renounce freedom is to renounce one's status as a man, to renounce one's human rights, including one's duties. There is no possible compensation for renouncing everything. Total renunciation is incompatible with the nature of man and to take away all free will is to take away all morality of conduct. In short, it is vain and contradictory to stipulate on the one hand an absolute authority and on the other an unlimited obedience ...'

Thomas Paine said that 'one just man deserves more respect than a rogue with a crown.'

The people's right to rebel has been opposed only by reactionaries like that clergyman of Virginia, Jonathan Boucher, who said: 'The right to rebel is a censurable doctrine derived from Lucifer, the father of rebellions.'

The Declaration of Independence of the Congress of Philadelphia, on July 4th, 1776, consecrated this right in a beautiful paragraph which reads: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'

The famous French Declaration of the Rights of Man willed this principle to the coming generations: 'When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for them the most sacred of rights and the most imperative of duties.' 'When a person seizes sovereignty, he should be condemned to death by free men.'

I believe I have sufficiently justified my point of view. I have called forth more reasons than the Honorable Prosecutor called forth to ask that I be condemned to 26 years in prison. All these reasons support men who struggle for the freedom and happiness of the people. None support those who oppress the people, revile them, and rob them heartlessly. Therefore I have been able to call forth many reasons and he could not adduce even one. How can Batista's presence in power be justified when he gained it against the will of the people and by violating the laws of the Republic through the use of treachery and force? How could anyone call legitimate a regime of blood, oppression and ignominy? How could anyone call revolutionary a regime which has gathered the most backward men, methods and ideas of public life around it? How can anyone consider legally valid the high treason of a Court whose duty was to defend the Constitution? With what right do the Courts send to prison citizens who have tried to redeem their country by giving their own blood, their own lives? All this is monstrous to the eyes of the nation and to the principles of true justice!

Still there is one argument more powerful than all the others. We are Cubans and to be Cuban implies a duty; not to fulfill that duty is a crime, is treason. We are proud of the history of our country; we learned it in school and have grown up hearing of freedom, justice and human rights. We were taught to venerate the glorious example of our heroes and martyrs. Céspedes, Agramonte, Maceo, Gómez and Martí were the first names engraved in our minds. We were taught that the Titan once said that liberty is not begged for but won with the blade of a machete. We were taught that for the guidance of Cuba's free citizens, the Apostle wrote in his book The Golden Age: 'The man who abides by unjust laws and permits any man to trample and mistreat the country in which he was born is not an honorable man ... In the world there must be a certain degree of honor just as there must be a certain amount of light. When there are many men without honor, there are always others who bear in themselves the honor of many men. These are the men who rebel with great force against those who steal the people's freedom, that is to say, against those who steal honor itself. In those men thousands more are contained, an entire people is contained, human dignity is contained ...' We were taught that the 10th of October and the 24th of February are glorious anniversaries of national rejoicing because they mark days on which Cubans rebelled against the yoke of infamous tyranny. We were taught to cherish and defend the beloved flag of the lone star, and to sing every afternoon the verses of our National Anthem: 'To live in chains is to live in disgrace and in opprobrium,' and 'to die for one's homeland is to live forever!' All this we learned and will never forget, even though today in our land there is murder and prison for the men who practice the ideas taught to them since the cradle. We were born in a free country that our parents bequeathed to us, and the Island will first sink into the sea before we consent to be the slaves of anyone.

It seemed that the Apostle would die during his Centennial. It seemed that his memory would be extinguished forever. So great was the affront! But he is alive; he has not died. His people are rebellious. His people are worthy. His people are faithful to his memory. There are Cubans who have fallen defending his doctrines. There are young men who in magnificent selflessness came to die beside his tomb, giving their blood and their lives so that he could keep on living in the heart of his nation. Cuba, what would have become of you had you let your Apostle die?

I come to the close of my defense plea but I will not end it as lawyers usually do, asking that the accused be freed. I cannot ask freedom for myself while my comrades are already suffering in the ignominious prison of the Isle of Pines. Send me there to join them and to share their fate. It is understandable that honest men should be dead or in prison in a Republic where the President is a criminal and a thief.

To you, Honorable Judges, my sincere gratitude for having allowed me to express myself free from contemptible restrictions. I hold no bitterness towards you, I recognize that in certain aspects you have been humane, and I know that the Chief Judge of this Court, a man of impeccable private life, cannot disguise his repugnance at the current state of affairs that compels him to dictate unjust decisions. Still, a more serious problem remains for the Court of Appeals: the indictments arising from the murders of seventy men, that is to say, the greatest massacre we have ever known. The guilty continue at liberty and with weapons in their hands - weapons which continually threaten the lives of all citizens. If all the weight of the law does not fall upon the guilty because of cowardice or because of domination of the courts, and if then all the judges do not resign, I pity your honor. And I regret the unprecedented shame that will fall upon the Judicial Power.

I know that imprisonment will be harder for me than it has ever been for anyone, filled with cowardly threats and hideous cruelty. But I do not fear prison, as I do not fear the fury of the miserable tyrant who took the lives of 70 of my comrades. Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me.

https://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1953/10/16.htm

Vlad is florid, as usual, but it is heartfelt, that is plain.

Yes, he is and it is, and a sweet balm after some time on the 'Fidel Castro' feed, so full of contemptible swine that I am beside myself and the old blood pressure has entirely gone to hell. The urge to violence is great at the moment, nobody better not fuck with me...

Yes, he is and it is, and a sweet balm after some time on the 'Fidel Castro' feed, so full of contemptible swine that I am beside myself and the old blood pressure has entirely gone to hell. The urge to violence is great at the moment, nobody better not fuck with me...

I was on there for about a minute - could not take it. The world is full of fools and assholes, there are far, far too few great men like Castro. We can't afford to lose him. The Greek communist composer(edit), Mikis Theodorakis said that Fidel had left us and it was the first time that he had ever disagreed with El Jefe...

I was on there for about a minute - could not take it. The world is full of fools and assholes, there are far, far too few great men like Castro. We can't afford to lose him. The Greek communist poet (I will butcher his name -I'll look it up later) said that Fidel had left us and it was the first time that he had ever disagreed with El Jefe...

Chilling now, Cuban jazz works better for me than Socrates.

This from Club de Cordeliers on twitter

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyMLRUAW8AAy9H2.jpg

It is really appropriate today.

Communist Party of Greece (KKE): Statement on the death of the leader of the Cuban revolution Fidel Castro

STATEMENT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE KKE.

In its statement on the death of the leader of the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro, the Central Committee of the KKE noted:
«The CC of the KKE, with great sadness, bids farewell to the legendary figure of the international communist movement, the leader of the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro.
We express our most sincere condolences to the President of Cuba, Raul Castro, the CC of the CP of Cuba and to the entire Cuban people.
Fidel Castro was born in Birán, Cuba, on the 13th of August 1926 and studied law at Havana University. As a student he began to participate in the revolutionary movement against the Batista dictatorship in Cuba, a dictatorship which was also openly supported by the USA.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zCvd6TgAOhg/WDm0nKA9fvI/AAAAAAAAB4E/QmKOEKfgikYWllf1K8b5ACv6s3bSDYL2wCLcB/s640/KKE%2BFIDEL%2BCASTRO%2BDEATH.jpg

On the 26th of July 1953, he was the head of a group of revolutionaries that attacked the military barracks of Moncada, with the aim of encouraging the people of the island to rise up against the dictatorship. The attempt failed and he and his comrades were arrested, however the 26th of July marked the beginning of a great popular uprising against the dictatorial regime of Fulgencio Batista.
Faced by his accusers, on the 6th of October 1953, in the courtroom of Santiago in Cuba, Fidel Castro said: "I know that imprisonment will be harder for me than it has ever been for anyone, filled with cowardly threats and hideous cruelty. But I do not fear prison, as I do not fear the fury of the miserable tyrant who took the lives of 70 of my comrades. Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me."
The court sentenced him to 15 years in prison.
On the 15th of May 1955, Castro was released and at the beginning of July he departed for Mexico, where he organized and militarily trained a group of revolutionaries, from whose ranks emerged all the great leaders of the Cuban Revolution, such as Camillo Cienfuegos, Juan Almeida and Ernesto Che Guevara.
The revolutionaries began their rebellion in the mountains of the Sierra Maestra and the revolutionary army that was formed was based on the systematic political-military preparation, which had been begun by the 26th of July Movement under F. Pais, the Popular Socialist Party, as the CP of Cuba had been named, and the Revolutionary Directory comprised of revolutionary students. It was based on that activity of organized forces in the cities, on the clandestine work developed by the communists in the workplaces, farmers and youth. This preparation of the working class and the other popular strata contributed decisively to the victorious outcome of the revolutionary struggle. These were also the main forces that were then united into the Integrated Revolutionary Organizations, which led to the reconstitution of the CP of Cuba in 1965.
On the 1st of January 1959, the people's guerilla army of Cuba entered Havana triumphantly, after the long struggle of the people of Cuba against the Batista dictatorship, which was supported by the USA. The Cuban Revolution demonstrated that imperialism is not invincible and immediately found the full support of the Soviet Union and the then socialist countries.
Two years and 4 months after the Revolution, the Cuban people, guided by its leadership and by Castro himself, repelled the invasion and landing of 1,400 mercenaries sent by the US government at the Bay of Pigs in Giron,.
At the large demonstration on the 16th of April 1961, at the funeral of those killed by the air raids (shortly before the landing of the CIA mercenaries), Fidel Castro for the first time declared the socialist character of the Revolution. For decades Fidel Castro as the President of Cuba and the head of the CP of Cuba, led the struggle of the people of the country to construct socialism, in the difficult conditions of imperialist aggressiveness and encirclement and particularly after the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries in 1989-1991.
Fidel Castro leaves a valuable legacy for the international communist movement and particularly for the Cuban people, in the struggle they are still waging today against the US embargo that continues and against all the efforts to undermine the socialist development path, efforts in which the USA and the EU are playing a leading role.
Fidel Castro will forever live on in the historical memory and collective consciousness of the peoples of the entire world, of the oppressed, in the struggle for the liberation of humanity from the exploitation of man by man, for the final victory, for socialism-communism.
Hasta la victoria siempre!»
26.11.2016

https://communismgr.blogspot.gr/2016/11/communist-party-of-greece-kke-statement_26.html

Fidel Castro-a great friend of Vietnamese people
NOVEMBER 26, 2016


(VOVworld)-“The Vietnam-Cuba relationship is special, unprecedented and represents the role model for international relations” and “For Vietnam, Cuba is willing to donate all our blood!” are a few examples of impressive statements Fidel Castro made about Vietnam. Under Fidel’s leadership, Cuba has always taken the lead in the movement to support Vietnam’ past struggle for national independence and current national development process.

http://static.vovworld.vn/w450/Uploaded/truonggiang/2016_11_26/Fidel%20Lanh%20dao%20VN.jpg
President Fidel Castro and General Vo Nguyen Giap (Source: VNA)

Cuba was the first country to recognize the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (1961) and establish a committee for the solidarity with Vietnam (1963). Cuba was also the only country to set up an embassy by the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam in the liberated zone. 1967 was observed in Cuba as “Heroic Vietnam Year”. In 1972, Fidel stated that Cuba’s solidarity with and trust in Vietnam is absolute and unconditional.

http://static.vovworld.vn/w450/Uploaded/truonggiang/2016_11_26/Fidel%20wave.jpg
Fidel Castro waving the victory flag in Quang Tri province in 1973 (Source; VNA)

In September 1973, Fidel became the first and only foreign head of state to visit a liberated zone in Vietnam during the American war. The image of the Cuban Commander in Chief in a military uniform waving the liberation flag in Quang Tri province provided an endless source of encouragement for Vietnamese people and soldiers. In 1995 and 2003, Fidel paid his 2nd and 3rd visit to Vietnam, marking new milestones in the friendship and solidarity between the 2 countries. During the visits, the Cuban leader reiterated that the Vietnamese people will forever be friends, brothers and sisters of the Cuban people. He said he firmly believes in the prospects of Vietnam-Cuba relations.

For Vietnamese people, Fidel will forever be a great friend, who lives eternally in their hearts!

https://www.cubird.com/2016/11/fidel-castro-a-great-friend-of-vietnamese-people/

Press release from the Organizing Commission
Submitted by editor on Sat, 11/26/2016 - 08:00

http://www.minrex.gob.cu/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/imagenes/articulos/portada-580x321_1.jpg?itok=R2QS6rzy

CUBA, 26 November 2016 .- The Organizing Commission of the Central Committee of the Party, State and Government for the funeral rites of Commander in Chief Fidel Castro Ruz, informs the populace that as of 29 November, from 09:00 until 22:00, at the José Marti Memorial, the population of the capital may present themselves to pay their respects in tribute to their leader. The hours will be extended until 29 November from 9:00 to 12:00.

On 28 and 29 November, from 09:00 to 22:00, at locations to be notified at the opportune time, in every city and town including the capital Havana, every Cuban will have the possibility of paying homage and signing the solemn oath to fulfill the Concept of Revolution expressed by our historical leader on the first of May of 2000, as expression of our will to continue his ideas and those of our Socialism.

On 29 November, at 19:00, a mass rally will be held in José Martí Revolution Square of Havana.

The following day, his ashes will be taken along the itinerary recalling The Caravan of Freedom of January 1959, to the province of Santiago de Cuba, to conclude on 3 December.

On 3 December, at 19:00, a mass rally will be held at Antonio Maceo Square.

Burial will take place at 07:00 on 4 December at the Santa Ifigenia Cemetery.

We also inform our people that the Military Review and the March of the Combative People for the 60th anniversary of the Landing of the Granma Expeditionaries, Revolutionary Armed Forces Day, will be postponed until 2 January of 2017.

The Organizing Committee

(Cubaminrex-Granma)

http://www.minrex.gob.cu/en/node/37768

Sad news. An unfortunate, yet timely, reminder of what really matters.

"200 million children in the world today sleep in the streets — none of them are Cuban".

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyNjdZSWQAAl8xN.jpg

Fuck every detractor of Cuba until their eyes bleed.

Hezbollah Offers Condolences to Cuban Leadership, People over Castro Death

http://english.almanar.com.lb/framework/includes/uploads/2016/11/manar-09700950014801435529.jpg
Cuban revolutionary icon Fidel Castro Cuban revolutionary icon Fidel Castro
Lebanon - Live News - News - Top

Head of Hezbollah International Relations Department Sayyed Ammar Al-Moussawi phoned, on behalf of the party, the Cuban embassy in Beirut to offer condolences over the death of the major leader Fidel Castro.

Stressing that Castro has been always the minaret of the rebels across the world.

Al-Moussawi expressed his full trust that the revolutionary leadership in Cuba will continue following the path of the late leader Castro.

Source: Al-Manar Website

http://english.almanar.com.lb/114706

Cuba and the Struggle for Survival (Part 1)
by Rick Smith / August 28th, 2008

The following is Part 1 of an edited and enhanced radio interview conducted in August 2008 with Dr. Doug Morris, Eastern New Mexico University Department of Curriculum and Instruction.

Rick Smith: One of the things I love hearing about is what is happening in other countries. I like to hear from the inside and I like to hear different opinions. This is why we have our next guest, Dr. Doug Morris, from Eastern New Mexico University. He just returned recently from Cuba, and I am always interested and fascinated to find out what goes on in the closed-arena there. Why did you go? I can’t go, as far as I know… how did you get there?

Doug Morris: I went as part of the “Research Network in Cuba Group,” sponsored by the US based “Radical Philosophers Association.” The group does research in Cuba and participates in a yearly conference at the University of Havana as part of that research, and shares that work back here in the US in various academic and public settings. A number of the participants travel back and forth to Cuba numerous times over the year to carry out research and to keep open lines of communication, for example around socialist economics and agriculture. The group travels legally on an academic research general license provided by the US State Department. There are different categories for research and legal travel to Cuba, including journalistic research, so one would guess that you would be able to obtain a license to do “legal” journalistic work and research in Cuba. We should add that it is not Cuba that is trying to keep US citizens out of Cuba; rather, it is the US government that is violating our Constitutional right to travel.

I should also say that the reasons for going to Cuba are many and also share that I am not an expert on Cuba. Cuba is not my primary area of academic interest but more peripheral. Cuba remains a source of interest and inspiration mostly because Cuba is attempting to carry out a social project outside of the global neoliberal model, a neoliberal model that places profits first and is a source of many global calamities and much human suffering. Cuba’s project, filled with contradictions and struggles, is working to ensure that people come first. Cuba remains an inspiration because they have accomplished so much under very trying conditions and circumstances, not least of which is the presence of the hostile global behemoth just to the North.

Cuba, as one Cuban scholar pointed out, always “walks on a razor’s edge, and does so in a world that stands on the edge of a precipice.” In other words, Cuba, always struggling to survive, is often forced to pursue policies against their basic commitments, but they must survive, and they are trying to survive as a socialist island in a rising sea of neoliberal abominations. There is no rule book available for revolutionaries so they can simply open to page 155 to find the answer to the latest dilemma. Cuba, though it walks on a razor’s edge, is an inspiring source of alternative political, economic, agricultural and pedagogical knowledge that we, standing on the precipice, so desperately need as we now face ever-growing global threats through climate change, ecological catastrophes, growing poverty and inequality, food and hunger crises, water shortages, political authoritarianism, corporate tyranny, and an increasingly militarized globe. So, Cuba has been designated the only sustainable society in the world by the World Wildlife Fund, and that is of great importance at a time when a sustainable human future is in serious question.

As to Cuba being a “closed-arena” one must be careful on how that gets interpreted because people in the US will use that to intimate that Cuba is some kind of Stalinist society in which people lack all freedoms, where everyone lives under constant surveillance and fear, where people are abducted from the streets in the middle of the night if they disagree with State opinion, where people are sent off to torture camps, etc. But that is not the case in Cuba, although one might draw links between what was just described and the US base at Guantanamo, a real core of human rights abuse on land that belongs to Cuba but is occupied by a US Naval base. The “closed-arena” in Cuba is partially a myth created by US propaganda in order to keep the US population distanced from understanding what really happens in Cuba, and partially a consequence of Cuba living constantly under the threat of US aggression, a situation that compels certain forms of centralized control and suspicions that may occasionally result in forms of repression beyond that which one could support.

One might ask why US power is interested in keeping US citizens from understanding what is happening inside Cuba, and I would argue that the primary reason is that Cuba is working to carry out an experiment in economics and politics that puts human interests and well-being first, is committed to ecological rationality and sustainable agriculture, and assumes that there are sets of human rights that should be honored, for example, the rights to food, health care, education, housing, employment, access to culture, sports, participation, etc. Cuba sees these rights as basic to human needs, and they should not therefore be available only to those who can afford them in the market. The problem with Cuba from the perspective of US power, I would say, is that if Cuba succeeds in carrying out this people-first experiment in politics and economics, it will demonstrate the legitimacy of what in Cuba is called “people’s power.” The Cuban revolution violated 150 years of US policy and belief as expressed in the Monroe Doctrine, i.e., US power owns the hemisphere and US power will determine who does what and in whose interests, etc.

Soon after the Cuban revolution the Kennedy Administration made it clear what the problem was. The Cuban model, they suggested, was providing a source of inspiration for people across the hemisphere who had been robbed and exploited for hundreds of years, people who now might want to follow the Cuban example and take matters into their own hands to advance their own interests and live lives outside of misery, poverty and despair. Of course, if that interferes with profits and power concerns, that is intolerable from the perspective of US power. So, one of the central problems with Cuba from the view and interests of US power is that Cuba can show that a society can be run by the people through various interactions between formal and informal democracy, between participatory and representative forms of democracy, and, crucially, Cuba can demonstrate that a society can be run in the interest of people without resorting to a profit-based and tyrannical economic system.

And, secondly, the threat of US aggression is very real as history has demonstrated quite clearly. More than 200 years ago, John Adams argued that Cuba is a “natural extension of the US,” and that Cuba should be annexed by the US. Jefferson wrote that “Cuba [is] the most interesting addition that can be made to our system of states,” and John Quincy Adams referred to “the inevitability of the annexation of Cuba,” suggesting that it would eventually fall into US hands by the laws of political gravity, like “a ripe fruit.” In the 1850s, the US Ostend Manifesto warned against Cuba becoming “Africanized [like Haiti]… with all the attendant horror for the white race.” In addition, of course, were commercial interests, and by the 1880s Cuba was a key US commercial “partner,” especially around sugar. The US provided 70% of the Cuban market. Prior to the US intervention in Cuba’s second war of independence, the US undersecretary of war, J. Breckenridge wrote that Cubans were incapable of managing their own society, that they had only “a vague notion of what is right and wrong,” and therefore the US should “destroy everything within our cannon’s range of fire, impose a harsh blockade so that hunger runs rampant, undermine the peaceful population, and decimate the Cuban army.”

In 1901, the US forced the Cubans to accept the Platt Amendment, still used to “justify” the US military base at Guantanamo Bay. It also gave the US the “right” to intervene in Cuban affairs anytime to “preserve Cuban independence” (but not independence from US intervention, of course), and to protect life, liberty, and crucially property. The US acted on the amendment in 1906 and militarily occupied Cuba until 1909. From 1901 until 1959 and the triumph of the revolution that overthrew the US backed Batista dictatorship, Cuba, in Robert Scheer’s words “was more of an appendage of the US than a sovereign nation.” Most of the land and resources was under various forms of US control.

The US has, for close to fifty years now, been hostile to the Cuban revolution, has wanted to reestablish US domination over Cuba, and has engaged in outright military aggression, economic strangulation of multiple sorts, endless forms of terrorism, biological and chemical warfare attacks, diplomatic maneuvers to isolate Cuba, introduced legislation such as the Helms-Burton Act and the Torricelli Bill to punish Cuba and other countries that deal with Cuba at a time when Cuba was in dire straits and in need of serious assistance not further punishment, sponsored people who carried out bombing attacks in Cuba or blew-up a Cuban airplane (killing all on board), planned dozens of assassination attempts against Cuban leaders, engaged in widespread propaganda attacks around the world against the Cuban experiment (a good portion of it through US embassies), funded anti-Cuban think tanks, etc.

We should also keep in mind, that if we consider the definition of terrorism to be “the use of force and violence, or the THREAT of force and violence, to intimate, coerce or control, in order to advance ideological, political, religious or economic interests,” a close paraphrase of the official US definition, then the US is engaged in terrorism 100% of the time because the announced policy of its willingness to not only attack anyone, anywhere, anytime for any reason, made formal in the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, and demonstrated in the illegal US attack against Iraq, but the US also reserves the “right” to use nuclear weapons in a first strike. That means the US is always engaged in the THREAT to use force and violence around the world, i.e., always engaged in terror. Cubans are well aware of this, and we should be too.

The continuing hostility against the Cuban revolution is grounded, arguably, in three main considerations. The first is the commercial and financial losses for US business interests in Cuba. The Wall Street Journal referred to the revolution as a “watermelon.” The more you slice it “the redder it gets.” For example, Cuba nationalized the oil refineries. Cuba had signed a trade deal with the Soviet Union in early 1960, and it included Soviet crude. At the command of the US government Texaco and Standard Oil refused to refine the crude, thus forcing Cuba to nationalize the refineries. Nationalizations were carried out with offers of compensation based on the reported assets and earnings provided by the companies in their official record. These assets and earnings were typically underreported in order to save on taxes.

The second is Cuba’s commitment to pursue a course of economic, political and social development that is independent of US hegemony, and the concomitant threat that the Cuban revolution could provide inspiration for others in the region to challenge US domination.

Advisor to JFK, Arthur Schlesinger stated that the problem with the Castro regime, i.e., the Cuban revolution, was that it represented a successful resistance to US hegemony, and that defiance undermined 50 years of US policy in the region. In other words, the Cuban revolution was providing an emancipatory opening for people to move beyond subservience and subjugation. In short, as the Administration said, “the poor and underprivileged [i.e., exploited] might demand opportunities for a decent living,” and that is simply unacceptable. The Kennedy Administration responded to this “threat” by implementing the “Alliance for Progress.” Interestingly, about ten years after the Alliance began, a major US study demonstrated that Cuba, the one country excluded from the Alliance, was the only country that had achieved what the Alliance purported to be carrying out, for example, advances in public health, education, transportation, as well as the integration of rural and urban sectors.

And, the third is Cuba’s commitment to international solidarity, revealed in Cuba’s international projects in medicine, literacy, and agriculture, as well as “Operation Miracle,” through which more than one million people have been treated to restore their vision. Cuba demonstrates that international relations can be built on solidarity rather then exploitation, domination and aggression. And then there is the matter of people’s power, i.e. people taking matters into their own hands.

RS: What was the purpose of the conference in Cuba?

DM: The purpose of the conference includes efforts to build bridges of solidarity and understanding between Cuban and US academics and Cuban and US citizens. The conference itself revolves around different areas of research including research in economic matters, philosophical issues, education, agriculture, various forms of social organization, history, projections about what kind of future we should struggle for, the role that civil society plays in creating popular empowerment in Cuba and the role that civil society could play in producing citizen empowerment in the United States, etc.

RS: Would you say we are not politically empowered in the United States?

DM: I would argue that the Cuban population is much more politically empowered than the population in the United States for a fairly simple reason, one that is surely considered a controversial perspective by many people in the US. Cuba has a much different, more wide-ranging and stronger concept of democracy than we have in the United States.

In the United States the notion of democracy basically stops at the most elementary, rudimentary and least developed form of democracy, electoral democracy. Every two or four years, people are permitted to vote for a set of candidates who are essentially pre-selected by the owners of society, the business class. Anyone who challenges the interests of the owners is essentially marginalized or excluded from serious consideration. The case of Dennis Kucinich demonstrates this rather clearly. We vote for one or another of the corporate-sponsored candidates and very little changes in terms of the public interest being advanced, in terms of public well-being improving, in terms of pursuing the overall public good, in terms of the public developing capacities, resources and knowledge to meaningfully and effectively shape politics in ways that represent real public concerns, such as universal health care, environmental protection, a political system that responds to public concerns, better education, less militarism, infrastructure repair and development, a fairer economic system, etc.

Electoral democracy in the US generally produces a form of competition limited to major parties funded by wealthy elites and the corporate sector, and while public interest and enthusiasm, in some sectors, can be temporarily elevated by the hyper-spectacles that are regularly presented during campaign season, the barrage of PR materials, or by the constant repetition of largely empty slogans around “hope” and “change,” the final result is that very little of substance changes in regards to policies that promote, represent or fulfill public interests, needs and concerns, or stimulate public empowerment.

The public is largely aware of this sham, and that is surely one reason why participation in electoral democracy is so low in the US. In electoral democracies, voters vote every two or four years, with virtually zero input into policies and programs, but as George Soros makes clear, “markets vote every day,” suggesting that without meaningful forms of democratic participation in the economy and in social arrangements, democracy remains a largely empty and formal vessel, a shadow that hides the substance of power and decision making which lives and works largely at the corporate level.

In Cuba, I would suggest, they have extended the idea of democracy beyond electoral democracy (they do have elections in Cuba, contrary to what we have been taught in the US), to include political democracy, which is the beginning of more participatory forms of democracy, as well as social democracy and economic democracy. So, elections in Cuba are not funded and controlled by elites but organized by the people.

RS: Wait a second, how it that possible? Castro has been the leader their for a long time; is he being elected? What I keep hearing is that he is a communist dictator.

DM: Cuba, as I understand it, is carrying out an experiment, and this has to be emphasized, what is happening in Cuba is an experiment being carried out under extremely harsh conditions not of their own choosing. Still, it must be said that Cuba exhibits none of the chronic human abominations one witnesses in most other countries of the region: there are not droves of homeless people rotting in gutters, no children starving, no mass illiteracy, no high levels of infant mortality or unemployment, no death squads roaming the countryside, no monstrous inequalities, no high levels of political and social instability, etc. There is a housing crisis, but there are programs underway to address the housing crisis. For example, in 2006 Cuba constructed roughly 110,000 new houses, and in 2007 roughly 67,000 new houses. They project that if they can average 50,000 new houses per year for ten years, they will have addressed the main issues of the housing crisis, and they are on target to meet those expectations.

What they are attempting to do in Cuba is mobilize the collective intelligence and imagination of a population of people to manage and run the society and they are doing it through a combination of participatory and representative democracy organized through local and national political organizations such as the Youth Communist League with roughly 800,000 members of young people between the ages of 14 and 30, the Communist Party of Cuba with roughly 1.5 million members (it should be noted that the Party is not an electoral party, that is, the Party does not participate in the nomination or election of political candidates at the local, provincial or national levels of assembly elections, nor can the party propose legislation in the representative political bodies; this is not to say that the Party lacks influence in Cuban politics, it is clearly very influential across Cuban society in its role as sort of protector and stimulator of socialist consciousness and in encouraging people to, as they say, “Be like Ché,” which essentially calls for developing a concern for and a commitment to the collective good and a willingness to make sacrifices for the collective good).

Then there are the mass organizations that include the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, the Women’s Federation, the Worker’s Unions, Student Federations at the University, Secondary and Elementary school levels, professional organizations and the organs of the state which include judicial bodies, the armed forces, the Organ’s of People’s Power that include the National, Provincial and Municipal Assemblies, and the Popular Councils that serve as a bridge between neighborhoods and Municipal Assemblies, the Council of State, and the Working Commissions of the National Assembly of People’s Power. The National Assembly has legislative authority and the delegates to the assembly are elected by the Cuban electorate. The National Assembly chooses from among the members of the Assembly the Council of State. The Council of State is then responsible for selecting the Council of Ministers.

As I understand it, the Council of State selects a president, but the president must first be nominated at the level of his local municipality in order to achieve the status of National Assembly representative who then moves into the Council of State, etc. Furthermore, as I understand it, the status of President does not accord any dictatorial powers, but it does provide the opportunity for the President to present arguments for or against any piece of legislation. There are numerous cases over the years in which Fidel argued one way and others argued the other, and Fidel’s position did not carry the day. Legislation and decrees must be ratified by the National Assembly. Fidel’s status, or now Raul’s status, provides a symbolic and influential power in Cuba that others may not have by virtue of their participation in the Cuban revolutionary struggle since the early 1950s, in particular since the attack on the Moncada Barracks in 1953, 55 years ago this July 26th.

At the same time, one should note that there has been a significant turnover in the Cuban political system over the last decade or so, and many of those running the system are in their 30s and 40s. The creation of the Popular Councils in the early 90s, in the early years of the Special Economic Period (after the Soviet Union collapsed and Cuba lost roughly 85% of its trade overnight), was carried out as a bulwark against centralization and bureaucracy and as a way to enhance local government power and popular participation. Candidacy Commissions, made up of people from the mass and popular organizations and presided over by members of the worker unions were established to organize the provincial and national assembly elections. Their primary purpose is to ensure a fairer representation from across the populace. In other words, the citizenry is involved in both nominating and electing its representatives. Provincial and national elections are held every five years, and municipal elections every 2½ years.

Roughly half the representatives in the National Assembly are from the Municipal Assemblies and the other half are comprised of national figures who are politicians, scientists, intellectuals, artists, athletes, workers, etc. Of particular interest to the audience for this program in the US, “where working people come to talk,” is the role of unions in Cuba and the worker assemblies. Isaac Saney, in his book, A Revolution in Motion, describes how Cubans are involved in an intense political learning process and how “the system responds to popular demands for adjustment.”

In 1993, during some of the worst times of the Special Economic Period when the Cuban economy was in the gutter, and Cubans were suffering, the National Assembly wanted to introduce a tax on wages. Union representative opposed this proposal on the grounds that the workers had not had an opportunity to discuss and debate the measures. The National Assembly thus delayed any action until the worker’s parliaments could meet. There were three months of meetings, over 80,000 meetings, involving over 3 million workers where these matters were discussed and debated, and new proposals were offered. National policy reflected worker views. When the new tax law was finally passed the taxes were primarily on the self-employed rather than on wage workers. This is one example that demonstrates how mass consultations and input from citizens distinguish the Cuban experiment from other countries.

All Cuban citizens can vote upon turning 16, and they can be nominated by fellow citizens in local popular assemblies at the age of 18. So, people are nominated in neighborhood mass assemblies at the local level to serve in Municipal Assemblies. It is a process of consultations and dialogues within popular and community organizations. We should also note that

Cubans possess the capacity to recall the representatives they elect if it is determined that the performance of the representative is unsatisfactory. This Cuban right is carried forth in periodic meetings, sort of accountability sessions with constituents, where representatives report on their work.

Let me return to the point of moving from electoral democracy to political democracy, and then from there into social and economic democracy. Democracy becomes more engaging politically when forms of effective and more participatory political representation are permitted and encouraged. In short, where there is established public controls on the financing of elections, not private control by those who own the society; where access to vital information is available and accessible rather than the kinds of limited access we experience in the US through the dominant corporate media where we very seldom learn what public opinion really is and only see it refracted through corporate interests; where the role of lobbies is constrained (so in the US the oil lobby spent roughly $83 million last year and will probably surpass that figure this year in attempts to direct legislation and voting their way…the pharmaceutical industry, the Chamber of Commerce, Phillip Morris and General Electric are near the top of lobbyists working to ensure that policies are endorsed and legislation passed to protect and promote private power, corporate profits and wealth for the privileged…), so lobbying would be constrained except to the extent that lobbying is carried forth in the public interest not to promote private power and wealth.

Political democracy also would be a form in which legislative bodies are empowered to carry out the will of the people, by the people and for the people; with the people having opportunities to recall candidates who are not serving the interests of the public; where there are instruments through which the public can express its interest and concerns through forms of collective consultation, dialogue, discussion and referenda; and where there are more equitable and responsible distributions of power. To some folks in the US this “of, by and for the people” notion of democracy would sound crazy, but it does reflect a rather Lincolnesque notion of democracy and that is as American as apple-pie, yes?

Democracy becomes more meaningful when politically engaging forms are combined with electoral forms in the context of social forms that recognize citizenship as a component of a social contract in which rising standards of living are measured through how well the society provides access to basic services and needs around food, recreation, education, social security, health, housing, arts, and transportation. In short, effective citizenship is rooted in social justice, a de-commodification of society, as well as equality of rights and conditions because people are fundamentally citizens in a participatory democracy rather than consumers in a profit based and undemocratic and dehumanizing market system.

Basically, in a social democracy needs are not satisfied through the ability to purchase commodities but are seen as a social right and duty. This form of social democracy eliminates the rampant exclusionary prejudice present in commodified markets where goods, needs and services are available only to those who have enough money and power for purchase rather than being available to all by virtue of their condition as citizens and human beings living under a mutually fulfilling and responsible social contract. This is the de-commodification mentioned above. In the United States, all of the goods and services mentioned above, from food, to health, to education, to sports, etc. are not available to people as a human right, but are seen as a privilege and available only to those who can purchase them on the market. I would suggest that is very anti-democratic and it has the consequence of dehumanizing people and social relations because too many people lack the ability to have their needs satisfied and they don’t live in a culture dedicated to fully developing their capacities.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/08/cuba-and-the-struggle-for-survival/

Cuba and the Struggle for Survival (Part 2)
by Rick Smith / August 29th, 2008

Rick Smith: We are talking about Cuba and during the break Dr. Morris shared an interesting observation when hearing this John Lennon song. Can you share that with the audience?

Doug Morris: Sure, the song is John Lennon’s “Power to the People.” In Cuba, the popular form of democracy is called “People’s Power.” Under harsh circumstances, filled with many conflicts and contradictions, some successes and some failures, and in no way static, it could be argued that they are attempting to create a form of people’s power in which the population can participate in meaningful and effective ways in shaping the decisions and managing the organization of how people live together with one another in society in order to satisfy needs and fully develop human abilities.

RS: So, they are really trying to be the antithesis of America; instead of us being the “me” society, they are really trying to be the “we” society.”

DM: They are definitely the antithesis of the neoliberal model that has been imposed on the world. One of the serious struggles for Cuba is that Cuba is a tiny island attempting a people-first experiment in politics and economics and it is trying to exist in a rising sea of global neoliberal capitalism whose values are in opposition to the values that Cuba is trying to implement. The Cuban values they are trying to implement, not always successfully, Cuba is not “Utopia,” and in fact, Cuba is not interested in utopia, they are interested, in mobilizing people to create a people-first social order around the values of social justice, critical inquiry, respect for others, a rising standard of living measured not in the accumulation of commodities but in the flourishing of human well-being, full and meaningful employment, substantive forms of equality and freedom, freedom of the sort where people have the knowledge and ability to make meaningful choices that impact their lives, sustainability and ecological rationality, around notions of civic courage and a deep concern for the collective good because they understand that the free and creative development of each is conditioned on and nurtured by the free and creative development of all and the free and creative development of all is conditioned on and nourished by the free and creative development of each.

That is in opposition to the neoliberal values that are rooted in self-interest, profiteering, privatization, hyper-individualism, ruthless competition and rapacious greed. All of this gets back to a comment made earlier in your show about people falling through the cracks in the United States. If you operate a society on those neoliberal values you are going to have large and growing numbers of people sinking through the cracks because there is little sense of the common good and little sense of mutual responsibility.

So, getting back to notions of democracy, a substantive democracy cannot stop at the level of formal electoral procedures, it must develop projects and processes dedicated to the ongoing creation of a good and decent society grounded in promoting inclusive, informed, involved and energized citizens. It must be a society that recognizes and understands the crucial and reciprocal links between social conditions and individual fulfillment. I don’t want to suggest that Cuba has succeeded in all of these domains, and I don’t want to suggest that Cuba is without serious struggles, mistakes and contradictions politically, economically and socially, but as I understand the struggle in Cuba, the development of more substantive forms of democracy, economically, politically and socially, is central to the Cuban project of empowering the citizens.

Integral to such projects and processes is economic democracy. That, arguably, is the most advanced form of democratic unfolding, and it is virtually entirely lacking in the US because the economy is under the control of tyrannical institutions called corporations, institutions over which the public has very little control, especially since the introduction of neoliberalism’s agenda of deregulation, i.e., eliminating the capacity for the public to regulate what corporations do, and privatization, i.e., policies that hand over all public spaces to corporate exploitation, including the space of the public mind. For a compelling discussion of substantive democracy, I would recommend a fairly recent piece by Atilio Boron, called “The Truth About Capitalist Democracy.” It is published in a wonderful Monthly Review Press book titled Telling the Truth, edited by Leo Panitch & Colin Keys. It is part of the ongoing Socialist Register series, always worth reading.

So, in the end, I think one can say that because the Cuban experiment provides a deeper and more expansive notion of democracy through which Cuban citizens can participate more broadly in running and managing their society, the Cuban population is more empowered than the US population.

RS: One thing I find most interesting is that one of Cuba’s largest exports is the export of doctors. They export doctors to Venezuela, for instance, in exchange for oil. What is amazing to me is that this is a country that has not surrendered to neoliberal, IMF, WTO plans. They have not been pried open as an export model. They have remained their own entity and have found ways to exist despite all the pressures against them. On the one hand you say it is an amazing story, but on another hand you say aren’t a lot of their people suffering in poverty and starvation. We see this in the media when they talk about Cuba; they never say anything good. I’m excited to hear about what you are saying, but is the other side true as well.

DM: It depends how you measure poverty. Cuba is a poor country, no doubt. But if understanding poverty is linked to access to basic human needs such as food, health care, education, housing, child care, recreation, and we look at Cuba’s infant mortality rate, life expectancy and measures of sustainable development, all areas in which Cuba has equaled or surpassed the US, and then also note that in Cuba there is not really the ability to profit off the suffering and exploitation of others because it is a non-profit based society, and add the more egalitarian distributions in Cuba, then the poverty in Cuba is of a much different sort than one finds in most other countries of what is sometimes called the “developing” world.

Furthermore, Cuba, a poor country, exports more doctors than any country in the world, as far as I know, and those doctors work with the poor. It is one of the Cuban examples of working to address the horrors of poverty on an international scale. The others include the literacy workers and the agricultural workers Cuba sends to other countries to assist in addressing issues of poverty. So, an important question would also be “how is it that Cuba accomplishes so much, given so little?” And answering that question would lead us to start examining the benefits of alternative ways of organizing society; that is, ways of organizing built around social, political and economic democracy.

The poverty at the height of the Special Period when Cuba lost about 85% of its trade virtually overnight, when the GDP was down roughly 40%, and caloric intake was at the level of Haiti, that was very serious poverty, but Cuba survived, and that survival points to the resilience of the Cuban revolution. One might say that during this harsh period Cuba attempted to equalize the suffering and also ensure that those who needed assistance most were given assistance first.

As of 2005, the Cuban economy basically had recovered to where it was back in 1989 before the onset of the Special Period. In 2005, the GDP was up 12.5%; in 2006, it was up 12%; and in 2007 it was up about 7%. This is compared to an average in Latin America between 4 and 5%. Around the world one in five people live in abject poverty. In Latin America, about 60% of the people live in poverty and a good portion of those people live in abject poverty. Latin America, outside of Cuba, has the most acute inequality in the world. One would be hard pressed to find many people in Cuba living in abject poverty, in part because of the social programs in Cuba that provide access to food, health care, education, etc., and Cuba has the lowest rate of inequality in Latin America.

Around the world there are about 100 million street children. In Cuba, one sees no street children. Half of the world’s more than a billion people living in severe poverty are children. In Cuba, there is a major investment in children; so again, one would be hard pressed to find any Cuban children suffering under conditions of extreme poverty. 90 million children in Latin America live in poverty. 200 million children around the world lack access to basic health care. Cuban children have access to health care. There are about 115 million children around the world of primary school age who are not in school, and who will probably remain illiterate. Cuba has a 100% literacy rate, and virtually all Cuban children attend schools that produce what some consider the best education in the hemisphere at the elementary level.

So, you don’t see Cuban children going hungry the way you do in other developing countries. You don’t see elderly people eating cat food to survive. In the United States, 13 million children live in poverty. About 10 million children lack health care coverage. Millions of US children attend schools that provide at best a very poor education in schools that are deteriorating. 50% of the children in the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. live in poverty.

People here often talk about a lack of freedom in Cuba, and there are some freedoms lacking. For example, Cubans are not free to live in a society that does not provide health care for all of its citizens. Cubans are not free to live in a society that does not provide a great elementary education for its children. Cubans are not free to live in a society dedicated to international relations grounded in domination and military aggression. Cubans live in a society that is dedicated to carrying out international relations founded in solidarity and that gets back to your point about the export of doctors, the export of literacy workers, and the export of agricultural workers, both scientists and farmers. The latter export is crucial because Cuba is carrying out an experiment in sustainable agriculture that is very successful and that is one reason why Cuba is considered the one country in the world that has achieved a point of sustainable development.

So, Cuba is engaged in an internal struggle for a people first society, while at the same time they always have a foot in international solidarity. The international relations with countries like Venezuela help to ensure that the social project in Cuba based in human dignity, social security and meeting human needs continues in the context of being a poor society that has been living for 50 years now under the threat of US military violence, under US terrorism and US propaganda against Cuba, the economic blockade.

So, yes, Cuba has poverty, for sure, but it is not the kind of poverty one sees in every other Latin American country.

RS: During the break we were talking about another freedom in Cuba. We have family medical leave in the US, but it is unpaid, in Cuba apparently it is paid medical leave. When you think about it, that is an important family value.

DM: Absolutely, that is a deep family value. For example, maternity leave in Cuba, which has also been extended to fathers, provides mothers 18 weeks of leave, 6 before birth and 12 after birth at full pay, and an additional 40 weeks at 60% pay, and they keep their job. There is a national subsidized day-care for children starting at one year of age. In 2003, the leave-option was extended to fathers for 60% pay for 40 weeks. So, families can now decide if the father or mother stays home with the children during those 40 weeks. Labor laws have also been passed to protect women from work-related activities that may be harmful during pregnancy. Women have six paid days of leave during pregnancy to attend prenatal care sessions and examinations. Creating social programs that support families are deep investments in family values.

Cuba has a social contract that grows out of something very, very important. Any serious social contract should grow out of a very serious commitment to the well-being of young people and Cuba ensures that every child is well-fed, has access to great education, access to health care, and Cuba sees children as a vital investment in the future. Furthermore, providing access to employment, and now a project directed toward meaningful employment, social security, health services and primary care along with preventive medicine, multiple forms of education including a new “univeralization of university education” program through which Cuba wants to work to ensure that every Cuban receives a university education, literacy projects, social assistance for the sick, etc. are all social commitments linked to family values, because the values families bring to the table are not disconnected from the values encouraged in the society in which the family is living and growing.

RS: OK, now the BIG question… considering that we seem to revel in the fact that we have 1,300 billionaires. How many billionaires do they have in Cuba?

DM: ZERO!

RS: Ah, there the problem…

DM: Cubans live in a non-profit based society. That is a key value difference in Cuba. That is why, arguably, people develop a different sense of having a link in a chain of human activity and why one could argue that there is a different set of “family values” in Cuba. In the United States we often lack an understanding of our links through this chain of human activity because our relationships are mostly driven through commodities and we thus develop a relationship with the next commodity we are driven to purchase. That is not so true in Cuba because it is a non-profit society, so you don’t have people promoting commodities through 24/7 advertisements and commercials. In fact, in Cuba you don’t see billboards advertising commodities, you only see billboards celebrating the accomplishments of the revolution, or reminding people of the plight of the Cuban Five where the billboard announces accurately “In prison in the US for fighting terrorism.” The Cuban Five have been in US prisons now for ten years because they were engaged in a fight AGAINST terrorism.

So, in Cuba, rather than developing relationships with commodities, people have greater opportunities to develop a concept of what it means to develop meaningful and supportive relationships with fellow human beings. Again, I do not want to paint a utopian picture. Cuba does definitely have serious problems, but miraculously there is a lot of resilience in the Cuban struggle and they have found ways to continue this project under harsh conditions.

Phone question: I was wondering what it might take to become a citizen of Cuba, and I was wondering if Dr. Morris was going to become a citizen of Cuba or if he is going to remain a US citizen?

DM: The first part of the question I cannot answer, what it would require to become a Cuban citizen. As to the second part, it is easy: I am going to remain a US citizen.

RS: OK, so you have laid out a very utopian view of Cuba, one that most people have never heard, including me. It seems like a great place, so why do we see people leaving? Why would anyone leave?

DM: People regularly leave any area of the world to go to other areas. I am sure that plenty of people leave Pennsylvania every day to go to other areas of the US. These moves are typically driven by economic reasons. Historically, when poor countries exist next to rich countries, some people in the poor country will make the choice to try to go to the rich country in an attempt to improve their economic situation. It is not an entirely irrational decision under the circumstances. Cuba is a poor country, and it is located next to the richest country in human history, the United States. So, it makes sense that some Cubans would be leaving in order to try to get to the US.

In the US media there is often a flood of coverage when Cubans leave Cuba and it is presented from a perspective that suggests that Cubans are leaving because of political persecution.

But even the US Interest Section in Havana states that they are hard pressed to find real cases of political persecution in the processing of visa applications. In the 1990s, they wrote that most people were applying in order to escape deteriorating economic conditions. They noted that human rights cases are the least solid category of the refugee program and they are the most susceptible to fraudulent claims. So, Cuban emigration does not exist in a historical vacuum. We rarely hear that roughly 600,000 Colombians fled in the years 1999 to 2002, or of the more than 500,000 who left Ecuador in the same period.

Compared to the rest of Latin America the number of Cubans leaving, legally or illegally is almost surely both relatively and absolutely lower. Still, the number of Cubans who leave is overplayed in the public mind because of the overblown coverage Cubans receive. So, we hear about Cubans but we do not hear about Salvadorans, Haitians, Peruvians, etc. who leave. In addition, there is a long-term US policy of encouraging Cuban emigration, something that is not done with other countries. Radio Marti, a US propaganda station that encourages Cubans to leave, broadcasts regularly into Cuba. During the Special Period the US intensified the blockade by passing the Helms-Burton Act and the Torricelli Bill, both designed to make the Cuban economy scream, with the concomitant impact of encouraging Cubans to leave for economic reasons.

Cuba and the US signed an immigration agreement in 1994 calling for the issuing of a minimum 20,000 visas by the US per year. The number of visas offered by the US typically falls far below that number. Cuban law is clear regarding immigration. People can leave Cuba after they have received the proper documentation and authorization to do so from the country to which they wish to migrate. Then there is the Cuban Adjustment Act. Because of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, Cubans receive preferential treatment compared to other immigrants.

Cubans are welcomed by the US far more than any other migrants from Latin America and with special conditions attached for Cubans. Cubans get a greased path to work-permits, a social security number, and permanent residence status in the US. While others are generally seen as economic refugees, Cubans often fall into the category of political refugees from the US perspective and are given what amounts to political asylum. That designation is essentially US propaganda. A political refugee must clearly demonstrate a well-grounded fear of persecution to be granted asylum in the US, but persecution has little to do with US judgment in the case of Cuba.

Persecution in Cuba compared to persecution in many other Latin American countries over the years is virtually invisible. When Haitians fled the vicious and murderous US backed military dictatorship in the early 90s they were clearly escaping from very harsh political repression and persecution. The standard US response was to send them back to Haiti, sometimes to be killed. The same was true of Guatemalans in the 1980s, etc., etc. There are many such cases.

While Cuban immigrants are granted political asylum virtually 100% of the time, those from other countries are only granted asylum in a minority of cases, well-under 50%. Unlike others, Cubans have no stringent requirements. Cubans who make it to US soil are typically granted financial assistance for basic necessities, for education, a fast track to employment, access to welfare and unemployment, etc.

We could ask some other questions: “Why do so many Mexicans leave?” “Why is there not a Mexican Adjustment Act, or a Haitian Adjustment Act?” If there were such acts, how many Mexicans and Haitians, not to mention people from every other country in Latin America, would go to the US? Clearly, there would be millions of people rushing across borders.

So, given all that is done to encourage Cubans to leave, and to grease the path to the US, one might ask a different question, “Why do so few Cubans leave Cuba?” I think it was at the 1994 Pan American games where the US put on a major propaganda effort to entice Cuban athletes to defect. Huge sports contracts were offered, there were billboards put up to make the offers very visible and very attractive. Of the many hundreds of Cubans who participated in the games, only a few decided to defect. We should note that 1994 was the height of the Special Period when Cubans were suffering most. Athletes from other countries told the Cubans that if the US offered them the same things they were offering the Cubans, virtually 100% of the people would take the offer.

If we want to understand some of the darkness behind US foreign policy imperatives, we might reflect on why the US has over the years typically returned people to hellish conditions of repression, back to countries with the worst human rights records, where people suffer poor health, malnutrition, possible death squad terror, homelessness, high infant mortality, poor education, etc., but when it comes to Cuba, a country with perhaps the best health care and education in Latin America, the best reforestation project, the most serious commitment to sustainable agriculture on the planet, an infant mortality and life expectancy rate soon to surpass those of the US, some of the best scientific research in all of the Americas, the US is working overtime to encourage people to leave? Again, at the core, I would argue, is US power’s opposition to the Cuban “people-first” rather than “profits-first” project.

RS: The more I learn about Cuba the more I am amazed that in this country we are not following best practices. We are not attempting to do things differently to make our lives better. We seem to be plodding along the same path and it is leading down the same failed road we have been in the past.

DM: Can I mention one last thing related to that where Cuba is offering an alternative that I think the rest of the world should study very carefully? There is a growing global food crisis. Last year alone 100 million more people were put into conditions of chronic hunger, beyond the 800 million who already live in conditions of chronic hunger. Cuba is carrying out an agricultural experiment in sustainability that is unlike any experiment, as far as I know, being carried out in any other country.

The Cuban experiment, part of the larger decentralization and expansion of democracy experiment in Cuba, is rooted in an ecological rationality that involves: bio-control of pests and the use of organic fertilizers, along with animal traction in place of tractors that use fuel and despoil conditions (farmers also discovered they can develop a relationship between an animal and the interactions with local environmental conditions and of course no relationship can be established with a tractor); soil conservation; a decentralization of control and decision making that has encouraged more popular participation; a diversification of crop production and crop adjustments even at the very local level of a single farm; a redistribution of land to farmers; a commitment to small farms that inspires more worker participation, production, enthusiasm, and a sense of belonging; fair prices for farmers (contrary to the neoliberal model that is undermining small farmers across the globe) without increases in food prices at the market; increased community participation which includes a tapping into local knowledge; the creation of energetically and democratically organized cooperatives called Basic Units of Cooperative Production; environmental education programs in rural communities; and an inversion of the standard pattern of rural to urban migration.

In Cuba there is an urban to rural migration. All of this is carried out within Cuba’s continuing commitment to the larger humanist social project. Whereas in the not too distant past more than 80% of farms were under State control, that has been reduced to under 15% as part of the decentralization plan and the commitment to small, organic farms that link the land to the people and the people to the land and that encourage the democratization of production, distribution and consumption.

So, this Cuban revolution in sustainable agriculture is a possible model that could raise people’s ecological consciousness across the world, transform the way we think about the relationship between people and the environment and between people and people, and perhaps, from that, we can also develop a consciousness around alternative forms of economic and political organization grounded in forms of substantive democracy.

Istvan Meszaros, in The Power of Ideology, reminds us that at this point in human history anything other than global solutions to the crises and challenges we now confront is really unacceptable because our problems on a global scale are so immense and multiple that the elementary conditions for human survival on the planet are seriously in peril. Perhaps the Cuban example, even with all of its conflicts and contradictions, can inspire us so that we can develop a consciousness on a global scale in order for people to better understand Jose Marti’s point of how our “homeland is humanity,” and start to build relations evolving from another of Marti’s maxims: “from the good of all; for the good of all.” Viva la revolucion!

http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/08/cuba-and-the-struggle-for-survival-part-2/

Cuba remains an inspiration because they have accomplished so much under very trying conditions and circumstances, not least of which is the presence of the hostile global behemoth just to the North.

Cuba, as one Cuban scholar pointed out, always “walks on a razor’s edge, and does so in a world that stands on the edge of a precipice.” In other words, Cuba, always struggling to survive, is often forced to pursue policies against their basic commitments, but they must survive, and they are trying to survive as a socialist island in a rising sea of neoliberal abominations.

It's not my intention to rehash drama, but this is tragically topical to our current discussion. Rarely is the rest of the world analyzed in relation to Castro, Lenin, Stalin, etc, even by self proclaimed "communists." I'm surprised some leftist logician hasn't coined a "Communist Vacuum Fallacy", where conclusions are made without any acknowledgement of its relative conditions and outside influences. It's the same for the Soviet Union. Communism is fresh in the grand scheme of civil society, gains cannot be ignored due to learning experience.

"No communist is Marxist enough for you all!"

Then...

"Fidel is a dictator! He does not represent communism to the workers"

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

"You can't ignore allies, even if they don't believe the same as us!"

Then...

"Stalin is a murder! Bureaucrat who manipulated materialism!"

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

"We have to do what's practical" - CPUSA

Then...

"None of these countries were true communism"

Where's the practice here? SteelPirate, if you're reading this, this isn't directed to you.

The whole world wants to kill you, but you're the murderer. R.I.P. Fidel.

Our Right to Be Marxist-Leninists
by Fidel Castro Ruz
The 70th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War will be commemorated the day after tomorrow, May 9. Given the time difference, while I write these lines, the soldiers and officials of the Army of the Russian Federation, full of pride, will be parading through Moscow's Red Square with their characteristic quick, military steps.

Lenin was a brilliant revolutionary strategist who did not hesitate to assume the ideas of Marx and implement them in an immense and only partly industrialized country, whose proletarian party became the most radical and audacious on the planet in the wake of the greatest slaughter that capitalism had caused in the world, where for the first time tanks, automatic weapons, aviation, and poison gases made an appearance in wars, and even a legendary cannon capable of launching a heavy projectile more than 100 kilometers made its presence felt in the bloody conflict.

From that carnage emerged the League of Nations, an institution that should have preserved peace but did not even manage to stop the rapid advance of colonialism in Africa, a great part of Asia, Oceania, the Caribbean, Canada, and a repugnant neo-colonialism in Latin America. Barely 20 years later, another atrocious world war broke out in Europe, the preamble to which was the Spanish Civil War, beginning in 1936.

After the crushing defeat of the Nazis, world nations placed their hopes in the United Nations, which strives to generate cooperation in order to put an end to aggressions and wars, such that countries can preserve peace, development, and the peaceful cooperation of the big and small, rich and poor, States of the world.

Millions of scientists could, among other tasks, increase the chances of the survival of the human species, with billions of people already threatened by food and water shortages within a short period of time. We are already 7.3 billion people on the planet. In 1800 there were only 978 million; this figure rose to 6.07 billion in 2000; and according to conservative estimates by the year 2050 there will be 10 billion.

Of course, scarcely is the arrival to Western Europe of boats full of migrants mentioned, traveling in any object that floats -- a river of African migrants, from the continent colonized by the Europeans over hundreds of years. 23 years ago, in a United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development I stated: "An important biological species is in danger of disappearing given the rapid and progressive destruction of its natural life-sustaining conditions: man." I did not know at that time how close we were to this.

In commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War, I wish to put on record our profound admiration for the heroic Soviet people, who provided humankind an enormous service. Today we are seeing the solid alliance between the people of the Russian Federation and the State with the fastest growing economy in the world: the People's Republic of China; both countries, with their close cooperation, modern science, and powerful armies and brave soldiers constitute a powerful shield of world peace and security, so that the life of our species may be preserved.

Physical and mental health and the spirit of solidarity are norms which must prevail, or the future of humankind, as we know it, will be lost forever. The 27 million Soviets who died in the Great Patriotic War also did so for humanity and the right to think and be socialists, to be Marxist-Leninists, communists, and leave the dark ages behind.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2015/images/fidel.jpg

Fidel Castro Ruz

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2015/castro140515.html
May 7, 2015 10:14 p.m.

They are grave dancing this morning on all MSM channels. It is appalling and expected.

Diane,

Your level of ignorance about Cuba and Fidel and most importantly the historical circumstances and conditions that have impacted both over the last five decades is appalling. Stick to writing about what you know. Your comments here are pure propaganda that are as reactionary and disturbing as anything that comes from the US State Department. Disgusting.

Try EDUCATING yourself- this comment of yours is so ignorant and inaccurate it belongs right next to any of the most right-wing comments one could find about Castro:

"Fidel made Cuba a vassal state of the USSR, persecuted and imprisoned dissidents, rounded up homosexuals and put them in prison camps, prevented freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression, and impoverished Cuba."

Cuba was designated the only sustainable society in the world by the World Wildlife Fund. Cuba has zero child homlessness. Cuba has excellent education and some of the best trained doctors in the world. Cuba exports more doctors to NEEDY places than any other country in the world. Cuba has universal health care. Cuba has virtually zero obesity. Cuba has invaded ZERO countries. I could go on.

Maybe stick your predatory US colonial country when offering any criticisms about Fidel and Cuba. And ALL OF THE ABOVE is with a CRUSHING EMBARGO that has hampered the country for years and constant attack for decades.

Read the following and learn a little- then apologize to your readers for your crass and UN-EDUCATED comments here.

the antithesis of the neoliberal model that has been imposed on the world. One of the serious struggles for Cuba is that Cuba is a tiny island attempting a people-first experiment in politics and economics and it is trying to exist in a rising sea of global neoliberal capitalism whose values are in opposition to the values that Cuba is trying to implement. The Cuban values they are trying to implement, not always successfully, Cuba is not “Utopia,” and in fact, Cuba is not interested in utopia, they are interested, in mobilizing people to create a people-first social order around the values of social justice, critical inquiry, respect for others, a rising standard of living measured not in the accumulation of commodities but in the flourishing of human well-being, full and meaningful employment, substantive forms of equality and freedom, freedom of the sort where people have the knowledge and ability to make meaningful choices that impact their lives, sustainability and ecological rationality, around notions of civic courage and a deep concern for the collective good because they understand that the free and creative development of each is conditioned on and nurtured by the free and creative development of all and the free and creative development of all is conditioned on and nourished by the free and creative development of each.

That is in opposition to the neoliberal values that are rooted in self-interest, profiteering, privatization, hyper-individualism, ruthless competition and rapacious greed. All of this gets back to a comment made earlier in your show about people falling through the cracks in the United States. If you operate a society on those neoliberal values you are going to have large and growing numbers of people sinking through the cracks because there is little sense of the common good and little sense of mutual responsibility.

So, getting back to notions of democracy, a substantive democracy cannot stop at the level of formal electoral procedures, it must develop projects and processes dedicated to the ongoing creation of a good and decent society grounded in promoting inclusive, informed, involved and energized citizens. It must be a society that recognizes and understands the crucial and reciprocal links between social conditions and individual fulfillment. I don’t want to suggest that Cuba has succeeded in all of these domains, and I don’t want to suggest that Cuba is without serious struggles, mistakes and contradictions politically, economically and socially, but as I understand the struggle in Cuba, the development of more substantive forms of democracy, economically, politically and socially, is central to the Cuban project of empowering the citizens.

Integral to such projects and processes is economic democracy. That, arguably, is the most advanced form of democratic unfolding, and it is virtually entirely lacking in the US because the economy is under the control of tyrannical institutions called corporations, institutions over which the public has very little control, especially since the introduction of neoliberalism’s agenda of deregulation, i.e., eliminating the capacity for the public to regulate what corporations do, and privatization, i.e., policies that hand over all public spaces to corporate exploitation, including the space of the public mind. For a compelling discussion of substantive democracy, I would recommend a fairly recent piece by Atilio Boron, called “The Truth About Capitalist Democracy.” It is published in a wonderful Monthly Review Press book titled Telling the Truth, edited by Leo Panitch & Colin Keys. It is part of the ongoing Socialist Register series, always worth reading.

So, in the end, I think one can say that because the Cuban experiment provides a deeper and more expansive notion of democracy through which Cuban citizens can participate more broadly in running and managing their society, the Cuban population is more empowered than the US population.

...

http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/08/cuba-and-the-struggle-for-survival-part-2/

Here is Part One:

Cuba and the Struggle for Survival (Part 1)
by Rick Smith / August 28th, 2008

The following is Part 1 of an edited and enhanced radio interview conducted in August 2008 with Dr. Doug Morris, Eastern New Mexico University Department of Curriculum and Instruction.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/08/cuba-and-the-struggle-for-survival/

Found here:

https://dianeravitch.net/2016/11/26/adios-fidel/comment-page-1/#comment-2620454

Sunday, November 27, 2016
Pablo Neruda- Poem for Fidel Castro (Song of Protest)

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2016/11/pablo-neruda-poem-for-fidel-castro-song.html

Poem by Pablo Neruda- Song of Protest.


Fidel, Fidel, the people are grateful
for words in action and deeds that sing,
that is why I bring from far
a cup of my country’s wine:
it is the blood of a subterranean people
that from the shadows reaches your throat,
they are miners who have lived for centuries
extracting fire from the frozen land.
They go beneath the sea for coal
but on returning they are like ghosts:
they grew accustomed to eternal night,
the working-day light was robbed from them,
nevertheless here is the cup
of so much suffering and distances:
the happiness of imprisoned men
possessed by darkness and illusions
who from the inside of mines perceive
the arrival of spring and its fragrances
because they know that Man is struggling
to reach the amplest clarity.
And Cuba is seen by the Southern miners,
the lonely sons of la pampa,
the shepherds of cold in Patagonia,
the fathers of tin and silver,
the ones who marry cordilleras
extract the copper from Chuquicamata,
men hidden in buses
in populations of pure nostalgia,
women of the fields and workshops,
children who cried away their childhoods:
this is the cup, take it, Fidel.
It is full of so much hope
that upon drinking you will know your victory
is like the aged wine of my country
made not by one man but by many men
and not by one grape but by many plants:
it is not one drop but many rivers:
not one captain but many battles.
And they support you because you represent
the collective honor of our long struggle,
and if Cuba were to fall we would all fall,
and we would come to lift her,
and if she blooms with flowers
she will flourish with our own nectar.
And if they dare touch Cuba’s
forehead, by your hands liberated,
they will find people’s fists,
we will take out our buried weapons:
blood and pride will come to rescue,
to defend our beloved Cuba.
- Pablo Neruda.

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2016/11/pablo-neruda-poem-for-fidel-castro-song.html

Poem by Pablo Neruda- Song of Protest.

Beautiful, very moving.

The world bids farewell to a giant of world history
International media feature the news of Fidel Castro's death

Author: Redacción Internacional | internacionales@granma.cu
november 26, 2016 17:11:20

From all corners of the planet, recognition of the life and work of one of the great leaders of the 20th century and thus far into the 21st - the guerilla in the Sierra Maestra and international statesman who changed forever the history of Latin America and the peoples of the world: Fidel Castro.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was among the first to make a statemt following Fidel's death, late November 25, at 90 years of age, calling for the preservation of his anti-imperialist and emancipatory legacy, writing on his Twitter account, "Sixty years since the Granma yacht 's departure, Comandante Fidel Castro has passed into immortality."

Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, in a telephone contact with teleSUR, said that the best way to honor Fidel is to consolidate the unity of the world's peoples, and never forget his unrelenting resistance to the imperialist model, adding, "Fidel has given us lessons in struggle, perseverance, liberation, and the integration of the world's peoples."

Likewise, Salvadorian President Salvador Sánchez Cerén expressed "profound pain upon hearing of the death of a dear friend and eternal comrade," saying that Fidel would live forever in the hearts of peoples struggling for justice, dignity, and brotherhood.

Enrique Peña Nieto, Mexico's head of state, emphasized the role played by the Comandante in promoting relations between the two countries, based on respect, dialogue and solidarity, while the daily La Jornada, with one of the highest circulations in the country, featured the news of Fidel's death, calling him a "central figure" of the 20th century.

India's Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, sent his condolences to the government and people of Cuba, writing on Twitter, "India mourns the loss of a great friend. May his soul rest in peace."

Sonia Gandhi, leader of the opposition Congress Party in this country, lamented the great loss and emphasized Fidel's struggle for the oppressed of the world, and his role in the Non Aligned Movement.

South African President Jacob Zuma, likewise expressed the pain he felt upon hearing of Fidel's death, "a great leader and revolutionary," saying, that the solidarity of Cuba in the struggle against apartheid would never be forgotten.

The president of the Russian Senate's international relations committee, Konstantin Kosachov, commented that Fidel will always be included in world history, since, with his leadership, Cuba was able to resist external pressure and chart its own course.

Cuban singer songwriter Silvio Rodríguez, on his blog Segunda Cita, sent his condolences to "Fidel's family and the people of Cuba, the world and universe, for the loss of one of the most extraordinary human beings of all times."

Ivan Marquez, head of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP) negotiating team in peace talks with the Colombian government, said that the world had lost "the most admirable revolutionary of the 20th century," adding, "Thank you, Fidel, for your great love of Colombia. May the Peace Accords of Havana be our posthumous tribute."

Several Colombian media outlets interrupted their nighttime programming to broadcast news of the death of the Cuban leader, including RCN, Noticias 24 and Cable Noticias, featuring interviews and pieces on his life and work.

Both the influential magazine Semana and daily El Tiempo featured the news on their webpages.

The French daily Le Monde published a piece recalling the close relations Fidel shared with numerous intellectuals and artists of international renown, including Gabriel García Márquez and Jean-Paul Sartre.

In Ecuador, according to Prensa Latina, the Agencia de Noticias Andes disseminated Raúl Castro's announcement of the Comandante en Jefe's death, while the digital version of the daily El Telégrafo devoted several article on its front page to the leader of the Cuban Revolution.

The Italian news agencies AGI, ANSA, RAI, and important dailies like La Repubblica, Correire della Sera, La Stampa, Il Sole 24 Ore, and Il Messagero, featured the news on their webpages.

http://en.granma.cu/mundo/2016-11-26/the-world-bids-farewell-to-a-giant-of-world-history

Honors to Fidel, prophet of the dawn

Let’s go, you ardent prophet of dawn, along those unmapped paths,

to liberate the green alligator that you hold so dear.

CHE

Let’s go, you ardent prophet of dawn, to build the new world that you dreamed of, spreading humanity among the poor of the earth and sowing solidarity, peace and respect between people in the hearts of all of us.

http://farc-epeace.org/images/porsiemprefidel.jpg

One of the world's most beloved and emblematic leaders, the main protagonist of the twentieth century, has emerged as a strategist with a vision beyond his time, always pointing to the future.

Comandante Fidel Castro began his march towards eternity and we don’t feel grief or mourning, because he leaves our souls full of his example and actions of love for a better world.

As the poets expressed it, only when we give the word to the sea and listen to the testimony of the jungle, can we know the dimension of being, of which the trees know his age and repeat with the waves his name to sing with the wind his history, which is the heartbeat of the salt, the flight of the seagulls, the hours of the malecón, the royal palm, the amber cane, the rainbow of the tocororo bird, the white-blue flag of the ruby ​​in the sky and the memory that rages in the heroic blood of a whole people, when they sing La Bayamesa.

Among so many other things that express his sublime stature as a true revolutionary, we learned from him that every enemy can be defeated; that no weapon, no force is capable of surrendering a people who decide to fight for their rights; that whoever is not able to fight for others will never be able to fight for himself; that ideas don’t need arms, insofar as the great masses are capable of conquering them; that when an energetic people weeps, injustice trembles; that there is no independence and no revolution without socialism and without international solidarity; and that to be internationalist is to pay off our debt to humanity ...

Without any repentance, he challenged the condemnations of the oppressors, facing the trial of history, convinced of his absolution, because he knew of the unobjectionable justice of his struggle for a free country, of which he was sure that he would rather drown in the sea than consent to be anyone’s slave.

In him, Bolivar; in him, Martí; in him, the peoples in struggle, hasta la victoria. That is why Our America, the mestizo America, the mulatto America, the Hispanic America, the African America, will keep, for ever and ever, in the amphora of its breast, his unflinching example, his unspeakable glory and infinite love for the true Fidel, for the man of the imposing beard, for the man of the sugar cane, for the sincere man and eternal guerrilla fighter.

With the combative verb from our souls, every fighter of the FARC, in the name of humble Colombia, which thanks to him, will finally feel the caress of Peace, we say hasta siempre to Fidel; Honor and infinite gratitude to the human being and the comrade; Honor and infinite gratitude to the comandante, to his rifle, his light, and the glittering brilliance of his star.

FARC-EP Central High Command

http://farc-epeace.org/communiques/farc-ep/item/1884-honors-to-fidel,-prophet-of-the-dawn.html

That was a wonderful expression of loss and grief.


That is why Our America, the mestizo America, the mulatto America, the Hispanic America, the African America, will keep, for ever and ever, in the amphora of its breast, his unflinching example

"Our America" stretches from the Arctic Ocean to Terra del Fuego, from Atlantic to Pacific. Folks are going to have to learn to accept this. These are interesting times...

It's not my intention to rehash drama, but this is tragically topical to our current discussion. Rarely is the rest of the world analyzed in relation to Castro, Lenin, Stalin, etc, even by self proclaimed "communists." I'm surprised some leftist logician hasn't coined a "Communist Vacuum Fallacy", where conclusions are made without any acknowledgement of its relative conditions and outside influences. It's the same for the Soviet Union. Communism is fresh in the grand scheme of civil society, gains cannot be ignored due to learning experience.

"No communist is Marxist enough for you all!"

Then...

"Fidel is a dictator! He does not represent communism to the workers"

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

"You can't ignore allies, even if they don't believe the same as us!"

Then...

"Stalin is a murder! Bureaucrat who manipulated materialism!"

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

"We have to do what's practical" - CPUSA

Then...

"None of these countries were true communism"

Where's the practice here? SteelPirate, if you're reading this, this isn't directed to you.

The whole world wants to kill you, but you're the murderer. R.I.P. Fidel.

The Vacuum Effect is only a small taste of what has been lost as we approach the 25th anniversary of "Full Spectrum Dominance". Interestingly, Anaxarchos came to disagree with the idea of FSD instead positing a dormancy that stopped short of hibernation, simply awaiting the right moment to be rekindled (Donbass, KKE..)

In truth, it is the opposite assertion -- the necessity for a full reboot -- that drastically alters the way we would view the world if it is true. It is perhaps more accurate for theory than practice -- but things always seem to run in that direction (out of necessity perhaps since thinking conforms to reality and not the reverse). Clarity emerged from the rotten corpse of Social Democracy rather than from the living corpus of the Second International..and in many ways Christmas 91 marked the beginning of a reprise although gaining a toehold seems harder fought this time (our own bias at work, I think). In many ways, the same scenario played out in the wake of the continental revolutions of '48 in the previous century -- with the clearest heads emerging in the most unexpected of locales (Russia..)

Practice -- organized resistance -- runs in fits and starts, akin to wildfires. 'Statistically' predictable but each flare up appears as a random variable (and not because of incomplete information/inadequate theory eg The July Days as proof). This being the case, it lends itself to semantic misunderstandings (disputes) regarding the definition of "determinism" that at times seem juvenile; at times profound.

Questions, questions -- for each one we pose, we can peel away the surface layer and reveal several more

Why does Marxism matter? Who are our allies? What do we believe and why? What is practical?

Who are we (ideology)? Where do we stand (partisanship)? What is gained by successfully answering these questions? HAVE we successfully answered these questions (and who is the "we" doing the talking)?

No, not rocket science. But the difference is mainly that it is fueled by sinew and sweat rather than sodium perchlorate.

The Vacuum Effect is only a small taste of what has been lost as we approach the 25th anniversary of "Full Spectrum Dominance". Interestingly, Anaxarchos came to disagree with the idea of FSD instead positing a dormancy that stopped short of hibernation, simply awaiting the right moment to be rekindled (Donbass, KKE..)

In truth, it is the opposite assertion -- the necessity for a full reboot -- that drastically alters the way we would view the world if it is true. It is perhaps more accurate for theory than practice -- but things always seem to run in that direction (out of necessity perhaps since thinking conforms to reality and not the reverse). Clarity emerged from the rotten corpse of Social Democracy rather than from the living corpus of the Second International..and in many ways Christmas 91 marked the beginning of a reprise although gaining a toehold seems harder fought this time (our own bias at work, I think). In many ways, the same scenario played out in the wake of the continental revolutions of '48 in the previous century -- with the clearest heads emerging in the most unexpected of locales (Russia..)

Practice -- organized resistance -- runs in fits and starts, akin to wildfires. 'Statistically' predictable but each flare up appears as a random variable (and not because of incomplete information/inadequate theory eg The July Days as proof). This being the case, it lends itself to semantic misunderstandings (disputes) regarding the definition of "determinism" that at times seem juvenile; at times profound.

Questions, questions -- for each one we pose, we can peel away the surface layer and reveal several more

Why does Marxism matter? Who are our allies? What do we believe and why? What is practical?

Who are we (ideology)? Where do we stand (partisanship)? What is gained by successfully answering these questions? HAVE we successfully answered these questions (and who is the "we" doing the talking)?

No, not rocket science. But the difference is mainly that it is fueled by sinew and sweat rather than sodium perchlorate.

You sure got a whacky way of speaking, my friend. That said, your insight is top notch.

You sure got a whacky way of speaking, my friend. That said, your insight is top notch.

Believe it or not (I'm staying agnostic, myself) I'm told I'm autistic.

What we could really use is a foil to bounce our ideas off of and gain an insight into our own practice as it is perceived externally to ourselves. Not quite in the mold of Rakhmetov (he would have to be descended from a Khan in that case) but our protagonist would need a stern constitution -- figuratively of Iron or Steel -- and an adventurous spirit like a Privateer -- the proverbial Cowboy.

Our fictitious Iron Cowboy (too wacky? too obvious?) would be a master interrogator (Torquemada?) and would demand a full account of our beliefs and belief system. Got any candidates in mind to play the role?

Believe it or not (I'm staying agnostic, myself) I'm told I'm autistic.

What we could really use is a foil to bounce our ideas off of and gain an insight into our own practice as it is perceived externally to ourselves. Not quite in the mold of Rakhmetov (he would have to be descended from a Khan in that case) but our protagonist would need a stern constitution -- figuratively of Iron or Steel -- and an adventurous spirit like a Privateer -- the proverbial Cowboy.

Our fictitious Iron Cowboy (too wacky? too obvious?) would be a master interrogator (Torquemada?) and would demand a full account of our beliefs and belief system. Got any candidates in mind to play the role?

Your savantism expresses itself equally through comedy as it does theory.

Homeboy seems to have gone off the reactionary rails altogether but I don't want him gone.

Believe it or not (I'm staying agnostic, myself) I'm told I'm autistic.

What we could really use is a foil to bounce our ideas off of and gain an insight into our own practice as it is perceived externally to ourselves. Not quite in the mold of Rakhmetov (he would have to be descended from a Khan in that case) but our protagonist would need a stern constitution -- figuratively of Iron or Steel -- and an adventurous spirit like a Privateer -- the proverbial Cowboy.

Our fictitious Iron Cowboy (too wacky? too obvious?) would be a master interrogator (Torquemada?) and would demand a full account of our beliefs and belief system. Got any candidates in mind to play the role?

A wacky Torquemada Cow-Boy made of Steel, eh? Yeah, someone springs to mind. Certainly not a Rakhmetov...

A wacky Torquemada Cow-Boy made of Steel, eh? Yeah, someone springs to mind. Certainly not a Rakhmetov...

http://www.iww.org/de/history/library/Ervin/copinyourhead

Authoritarian Leftists: Kill the Cop in Your Head

By Lorenzo Komboa Ervin - Black Autonomy, April 1996.

It's difficult to know where to begin with this open letter to the various European-american leftist (Marxist-Leninist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, in particular) groups within the United States. I have many issues with many groups; some general, some very specific. The way in which this is presented may seem scattered at first, but I encourage all of you to read and consider carefully what I have written in its entirety before you pass any judgements.

It was V.I. Lenin who said, "take from each national culture only its democratic and socialist elements; we take them only and absolutely in opposition to the bourgeois culture and bourgeois nationalism of each nation". It could be argued that Lenin's statement in the current Amerikkkan context is in fact a racialist position; who is he (or the Bolsheviks themselves) to "take" anyone or pass judgement on anyone; particularly since the privileges of having white skin are a predominant factor within the context of amerikkkan-style oppression. This limited privilege in capitalist society is a prime factor in the creation and maintenence of bourgeois ideology in the minds of many whites of various classes in the US and elsewhere on the globe.

When have legitimate struggles or movements for national and class liberation had to "ask permission" from some eurocentric intellectual "authority" who may have seen starvation and brutality, but has never experienced it himself? Where there is repression, there is resistance...period. Self-defense is a basic human right that we as Black people have exercised time and time again, both violent and non-violent; a dialectical and historical reality that has kept many of us alive up to this point.

Assuming that this was not Lenin's intent, and assuming that you all truly uphold worldwide socialism/communism, then the question must be asked: WHY IS IT THAT EACH AND EVERY WHITE DOMINATED/WHITE-LED "VANGUARD" IN THE UNITED STATES HAS IN FACT DONE THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT LENIN PROCLAIMS/RECOMMENDS WHEN IT COMES TO INTERACTING WITH BLACKS AND OTHER PEOPLE OF COLOR?

Have any of you actually sat down and seriously thought about why there are so few of us in your organizations; and at the same time why non-white socialist/communist formations, particularly in the Black community, are so small and isolated? I have a few ideas...



I. A fundamentally incorrect analysis of the role of the white left in the last thirty years of civil rights to Black liberation struggle...

By most accounts, groups such as the Black Panther Party, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, American Indian Movement, and the Puerto Rican Independence Movement "set the standard" for not only communities of color but also for revolutionary elements in the white community.

All of the above groups were ruthlessly crushed; their members imprisoned or killed. Very few white left groups at the time fought back against the onslaught of COINTELPRO by supporting these groups, with the exception of the smaller, armed underground cells. In fact, many groups such as the Progressive Labor Party and the Revolutionary Union (now known as the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA) saw the repression of groups they admired, and at the same time despised, as an opportunity to assert their own version of "vanguard leadership" on our population.

What they failed to recognize (and what many of you generally still fail to recognize) is that "vanguard leadership" is developed, it doesn't just "magically" happen through preachy, dogmatic assertions, nor does it fall from the sky. Instead of working with the smaller autonomous formations, to help facilitate the growth of Black (and white) self-organization (the "vanguard" leadership of the Black masses themselves and all others, nurtured through grassroots social/political alliances rooted in principle), they instead sought to either take them over or divide their memberships against each other until the group or groups were liquidated. These parasitic and paternalistic practices continue to this day.

The only reason any kind of principled unity existed prior to large-scale repression is because Black-led formations had no illusions about white radicals or their politics; and had no problems with kicking the living shit out of them if they started acting stupid. Notice also that the majority of white radicals who were down with real struggle and real organizations, and were actually trusted and respected by our people, are either still active...or still in prison!



II. The white left's concept of "the vanguard party"...

Such arrogance on the part of the white left is part and parcel to your vanguardist ideas and practice. Rather than seeking principled partnerships with non-white persons and groups, you instead seek converts to your party's particular brand of rigid political theology under the guise of "unity". It makes sense that most of you speak of "Black/white unity" and "sharp struggle against racism" in such vague terms, and with such uncertainty in your voices; or with an overexaggerated forcefulness that seems contrived.

Another argument against vanguardist tendencies in individuals or amongst groups is the creation of sectarianism and organizational cultism between groups and within groups. Karl Marx himself fought tirelessly against sectarianism within the working class movement of 19th century Europe. He was also a staunch fighter against those who attempted to push his persona to an almost god-like status, declaring once in frustration "I assure you, sir, I am no Marxist". It could be argued from this viewpoint that the "vanguardist" white left in the US today is generally ,by a definition rooted in the day to day practice of Marx himself, anti-Marx; and by proxy, anti-revolutionary.

Like your average small business, the various self-proclaimed "vanguards" compete against each other as well against the people themselves (both white and non-white); accusing each other of provacteurism, opportunism, and/or possessing "the incorrect line" when in fact most (if not all) are provacateurs, opportunists, and fundementally incorrect.

The nature of capitalist competition demands that such methods and tactics be utilized to the fullest in order to "win" in the business world; the white left has in fact adapted these methods and tactics to their own brand of organizing, actively re-inventing and re-enforcing the very social, political, and economic relations you claim to be against; succeeding in undermining the very basic foundations of your overall theory and all variants of that theory.

Or is this phenomenon part and parcel to your theory? In volume four of the collected works of V.I. Lenin, Lenin himself states up front that "socialism is state-capitalism". Are you all just blindly following a a dated, foreign "blueprint" that is vastly out of context to begin with; with no real understanding of its workings?

At the same time, it could be observed that you folks are merely products of your enviroment; reflective of the alienated and hostile communities and families from which many of you emerge. American society has taught you the tenets of "survival of the fittest" and "rugged individualism", and you swallowed those doctrines like your mother's milk.

Because the white left refuses to combat and reject reactionary tendencies in their (your) own heads and amongst themselves (yourselves), and because they (you) refuse to see how white culture is rooted firmly in capitalism and imperialism; refusing to reject it beyond superficial culture appropriations (i.e.-Native american "dream catchers" hanging from the rear-view mirrors of your vehicles, wearing Addidas or Nikes with fat laces and over-sized Levis jeans or Dickies slacks worn "LA sag" style, crude attempts to "fit-in" by exaggerated, insulting over-use of the latest slang term(s) from "da hood", etc), you in fact re- invent racist and authoritarian social relations as the final product of your so-called "revolutionary theory"; what I call Left-wing white supremacy.

This tragic delemma is compounded by, and finds some of its initial roots in, your generally ahistorical and wishful "analysis" of Black/white relations in the US; and rigid, dogmatic definitions of "scientific socialism" or "revolutionary communism", based in a eurocentric context. Thus, we are expected to embrace these "socialist" values of the settler/conquorer culture, rather than the "traditional amerikkkan values" of your reactionary opponents; as if we do not possess our own "socialist" values, rooted in our own daily and cultural realities! Wasn't the Black Panther Party "socialist"? What about the Underground Railroad; our ancestors (and yes, even some of yours) were practicing "mutual aid" back when most European revolutionary theorists were still talking about it like it was a lofty, far away ideal!

One extreme example of this previously mentioned wishful thinking in place of a true analysis on the historical and current political dynamics particular to this country is an article by Joseph Green entitled "Anarchism and the Market Place, which appeared in the newsletter "Communist Voice" (Vol#1, Issue #4, September 15, 1995).

In it he asserts that anarchism is nothing more than small- scale operations run by individuals that will inevitably lead to the re-introduction of economic exploitation. He also claims that "it fails because its failure to understand the relation of freedom to mass activity mirrors the capitalist ideolgy of each person for their self." He then offers up a vague "plan of action"; that the workers must rely on "class organization and all-round mass struggle". In addition, he argues for the centralization of all means of production.

Clearly, Green's political ideology is in fact a theology. First, anarchism was practiced in mass scale most recently in Spain from 1936-39. By most accounts (including Marxist-Leninist), the Spanish working class organizations such as the CNT (National Confederation of Labor) and the FAI (Federation of Anarchists of Iberia) seized true direct workers power and in fact kept people alive during a massive civil war.

Their main failure was on a military, and partially on an ideological level: (1.) They didn't carry out a protracted fight against the fascist Falange with the attitude of driving them off the face of the planet. (2.) They underestimated the treachery of their Marxist-Leninist "allies" (and even some of their anarchist "allies"), who later sided with the liberal government to destroy the anarchist collectives. Some CNT members even joined the government in the name of a "united front against fascism". And (3.), they hadn't spent enough time really developing their networks outside the country in the event they needed weapons, supplies, or a place to seek refuge quickly.

Besides leaving out those important facts, Green also omits that today the majority of prisoner support groups in the US are anarchist run or influenced. He also leaves out that anarchists are generally the most supportive and involved in grassroots issues such as homelessness, police brutality, Klan/Nazi activity, Native sovereignty issues, [physical] defense of womens health clinics, sexual assault prevention, animal rights, enviromentalism, and free speech issues.

Green later attacks "supporters of capitalist realism on one hand and anarchist dreamers on the other". What he fails to understand is that the movement will be influenced mostly by those who do practical work around day to day struggles, not by those who spout empty rhetoric with no basis in reality because they themselves (like Green) are fundementally incapable of practicing what they preach. Any theory which cannot, at the very least, be demonstrated in miniature scale (with the current reality of the economically, socially, and militarily imposed limitations of capitalist/white supremacist society taken in to consideration) in daily life is not even worth serious discussion because it is rigid dogma of the worst kind.

Even if he could "show and prove", his proposed system is doomed to repeat the cannibalistic practices of Josef Stalin or Pol Pot. While state planning can accelerate economic growth no one from Lenin, to Mao, to Green himself has truly dealt with the power relationship between the working class and the middle-class "revolutionaries" who seize state power "on the behalf" of the latter. How can one use the organizing methods of the European bourgeoisie, "[hierarchial] party building" and "seizing state power" and not expect this method of organizing people to not take on the reactionary characteristics of what it supposedly seeks to eliminate? Then there's the question of asserting ones authoritarian will upon others (the usual recruitment tactics of the white left attemping to attract Black members).

At one point in the article Green claims that anarchistic social relations take on the oppressive characteristics of the capitalist ideology their rooted in. Really? What about the capitalist characteristics of know-it-all ahistorical white "radicals" who can just as effectively assert capitalistic, oppressive social relations when utilizing a top-down party structure (especially when it's utilized against minority populations)? What about the re-assertion of patriarchy (or actual physical and mental abuse) in interpersonal relationships; especially when an organizational structure allows for, and in fact rewards, oppressive social relationships?

What is the qualitative difference between a party bureaucrat who uses his position to steal from the people (in addition to living a neo-bourgeois lifestyle; privilege derived from one's official position and justified by other party members who do the same. And, potentially, derived from the color of his skin in the amerikkkan context) and a collective member who steals from the local community? One major difference is that the bureaucrat can only be removed by the party, the people (once again) have no real voice in the matter (unless the people themselves take up arms and dislodge the bureaucrat and his party); the collective member can recieve a swift punishment rooted in the true working class traditions, culture, and values of the working class themselves, rather than that which is interpreted for them by so- called "professional revolutionaries" with no real ties to that particular community. This is a very important, yet very basic, concept for the white left to consider when working with non- white workers (who, by the way, are the true "vanguard" in the US; Black workers in particular. Check the your history, especially the last thirty years of it.); i.e.- direct community control.

This demand has become more central over the last thirty years as we have seen the creation of a Black elite of liberal and conservative (negrosie) puppets for the white power structure to speak through to the people, the few who were allowed to succeed because they took up the ideology of the oppressor. But, they too have become increasingly powerless as the shift to the right in the various branches of the state and federal government has quickly, and easily, "checked" what little political power they had. Also, we do not have direct control over neighborhood institutions as capitalists, let alone as workers; at least white workers have a means of production they could potentially seize. Small "mom and pop" restaurants and stores or federally funded health clinics and social services in the 'hood hardly count as "Black capitalist" enterprises, nor are any of these things particularly "liberating" in and of themselves.

But white radicals, the white left of the US in particular, have a hard time dealing with the reality that Black people have always managed to survive, despite the worst or best intentions of the majority population. We will continue to survive without you and can make our revolution without you (or against you) if necessary; don't tell us about "protracted struggle", the daily lives of non-white workers are testimony to the true meaning of protracted struggle, both in the US and globally. Your inability or unwillingness to accept the fact that our struggle is parallel to yours, but at the same time very specific, and will be finished successfully when we as a people, as working-class Blacks on the North American continent, decide that we have achieved full freedom (as defined by our history, our culture, our needs, our desires, our personal experiences, and our political idea(s)) is by far the primary reason why the white left is so weak in this country.

In addition, this sinking garbage scow of american leftism is dragging other liberating political vessels down with it, particularly the smaller, anti-authoritarian factions within the white settler nation itself and the few [non-dogmatic and non- ritualistic] individuals within todays Marxist-Leninist parties who sincerly wish to get away from the old, tired historical revisionism of their particular "revolutionary" party.

This seemingly "fixed position", along with many other fixed positions in their "thought", help to reveal the white left's profound isolation and alienation from the Black community as a whole and its activists. Yet, many of them would continue to wholeheartedly, and retardedly, assert that they're part of the community simply because they live in a Black neighborhood or their party headquarters is located there.

The white left's isolation and alienation was revealed even more profoundly in the criticisms of the Million Man March on Washington. In the end, the majority of the white leftist critics wound up tailing the most backward elements of the Republican Party; some going as far as to echo the very same words of Senate majority leader Bob Dole, who commented on the day after the march that " You can't seperate the message from the messenger." Others parroted the words of House majority leader Newt Gingrich, who had the nerve to ask "where did our leadership go wrong?"

Since when were we expected to follow the "leadership" of white amerikkka; the right, left, or center without some type of brutal cohersion? Where is the advantage for us in "following" any of them anywhere? What have any of them done for us lately? Where is the "better" leadership example of any of the hierarchical political tendencies (of any class or ideology) in the US and who do they benefit exclusively and explicitly? None of you were particularly interested in us before we rebelled violently in 1992, why the sudden interest? What do you want from us this time?

Few, if any, of the major pro-revolution left-wing newspapers in the US gave an accurate account of the march. Many of them claimed that only the Black petit-bourgeosie were in attendence. All of them claimed that women were "forbidden" to be there, despite the widely reported fact that our sisters were there in large numbers.

"MIM Notes" (and the Maoist Internationalist Movement itself) to their credit recognize that white workers are NOT the "vanguard" class: yet because they themselves are so profoundly alienated from the Black community on this side of the prison walls they had to rely on information from mainstream press accounts courtesy of the Washington Post. And rightfully alienated they are; who in their right mind actually believes that a small, "secret" cult of white campus radicals can (or should) "lead" the masses of non-white people to their/our freedom? Whatever those people are smoking, I don't want any! I do have to say, however, that MIM is indeed the least dogma addicted of the entire white left millieu that I've encountered; but dogma addicted nonetheless.

I helped organize in the Seattle area for the Million Man March. The strong, Black women I met had every intention of going. None of the men even considered stopping them, let alone suggesting that they not go. Sure, the NOI passed on Minister Farrakhan's message that it was a "men only" march, but it was barely discussed and generally ignored.

The Million Man March local organizing committees (l.o.c.'s) gave the various Black left factions a forum to present ideas and concepts to entire sections of our population who were not familiar with "Marxism", "anarchism", "Kwame Nkrumah", "George Jackson", "The Ten-Point Program", "class struggle", etc.

It also afforded us the opportunity to begin engaging the some of the members of the local NOI chapter in class-based ideological struggle along with participating community people. Of course, it was impossible for the white left to know any of this; more proof of their profound isolation and alienation. At the time, despite our own minor ideological differences, we agreed on one point: it was none of your business or the business of the rest of the white population. When we organize amongst our own, we consider it a "family matter". When we have conflicts, that is also a "family matter". Again, it is none of your business unless we tell you differently. How would you like it if we butted in on a heated family argument you were having with a loved one and started telling you what to think and what to do?

This brings me to two issues that have bothered me since January, 1996. Both comments were made to me by a member of Radical Women at the International Socialist Organization's conference at the University of Washington. The first statement was: "I don't recognize Black people as a 'nation' like I do Native people."

My first thought was "who the fuck are you to pass judgement upon a general self-definition that is rooted in our collective suffering throughout the history of this country?"

She might as well join up with the right-wing Holocaust revisionists; for this is precisely what she is practicing, the denial of the Black holocaust from 1555 to the present (along a parallel denial, by proxy, of the genocide against other non- white nations within the US). Our nationalism emerged as a defense against [your] white racism. The difference between revolutionary Black nationalists (like Huey P. Newton and the Black Panther Party) and cultural nationalists (like Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam) is that we see our nationalism as a specific tool to defend ourselves from groups and individuals like this ignorant person, not as an exclusive or single means for liberation.

We recognize that we will have to attack bourgeois elements amongst our people just as vigorously as we fight against white supremacists ("left", "center", or "right"). The difference is that our bourgeosie (what I refer to as the "negrosie") is only powerful within the community; they have no power against the white power structure without us, nor do they have power generally without the blessing of the white power structure itself. Our task, then, is to unite them with us against a common enemy while at the same time explicitly undermining (and eventually eliminating) their inherantly reactionary influence.

The second stupidity to pass her lips concerned our support of Black-owned businesses. I pointed out to her that if she had in fact studied her Marxism-Leninism, she would see that their existence goes hand-in-glove with Marx's theory that revolution could only ensue once capitalism was fully developed. She came back with the criticism, "Well, you'll be waiting a long time for that to happen".

Once again, had she actually studied Marxism-Leninism she would know that Lenin and the Bolsheviks also had to deal with this same question. Russia's economy was predominantly agricultural, and its bourgeois class was small. They decided to go with the mood and sentiments of the peasantry and industrial workers at that particular moment in history;..seize the means of production and distribution anyway!

Who says we wouldn't do the same? The participants of the LA rebellion (and others), despite their lack of training in "radical 'left-wing' political theory" (besides being predominantly Black, Latino, or poor white trash in Amerikkka), got it half right; they seized the means of distribution, distributed the products of their [collective] labor, and then burned the facilities to the ground. Yes, there were many problems with the events of 1992, but they did show our potential for future progress.

Black autonomists ultimatly reject vanguardism because as the white left [as well as elements of the Black revolutionary movement] has demonstrated, it errodes and eventually destroys the fragile ties that hold together the necessary principled partnerships between groups and individuals that are needed to accomplish the numerous tasks associated with fighting back successfully and building a strong, diverse, and viable revolutionary movement.

The majority of the white left is largely disliked, disrespected, and not trusted by our people because they fail miserably on this point. How can you claim to be a "socialist" when you are in fact anti-social? How do you all distinguish yourselves from the majority of your people in concrete, practical, and principled terms?



III. Zero (0) support of non-white left factions by the white left.

I've always found this particularly disturbing; you all want our help, but do not want to help us. You want to march shoulder to shoulder with us against the government and its supporters, but do not want us to have a solid political or material foundation of our own to not only win the fight against the white supremacist state but to also re-build our communities on our own behalf in our own likeness(es).

Let white Marxists provide unconditional (no strings attached) material support for non-white factions whose ideology runs parallel to theirs, and let white anarchist factions provide unconditional (again, no strings attached) material support for factions in communities of color who have parallel ideologies and goals. Obviously, the one "string" that can never be avoided is that of harsh economic reality; if you don't have the funds, you can't do it. That's fair and logical, but if you're paying these exorbitant amounts for projects and events that amount to little more than ideological masturbation and organizational cultism while we do practical work out of pocket or on a tiny budget amongst our own, it seems to me that a healthy dose of criticism/self-criticism and reassessment of priorities is in order on the part of you "professional revolutionaries" of the white left.

If the white left "vanguards" are unwilling to materially support practical work by non-white revolutionary factions, then you have no business showing your faces in our neighborhoods. If you "marxist missionaries" insist on coming into our neighborhoods preaching the "gospel" of Marx, Lenin, Mao, etc, the least you could do is "pay" us for our trouble. You certainly haven't offered us much else that's useful.

To their credit, the white anarchists and anti-authoritarian leftists have been generally supportive of the Black struggle by comparison; Black Autonomy and related projects in particular. Matter of fact, back in October of 1994 in an act of mutual aid and solidarity the Philadelphia branch of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) printed the very first issue of Black Autonomy (1,000 copies) for FREE. One of their members actually got a little upset when I asked how much we owed them for the print job. In return (and in line with our class interests), we allied ourselves with the Philly branch and others in a struggle within the IWW against the more conservative "armchair revolutionary/historical society" elements within its national administrative body.

Former political prisoner, SNCC member, Black Panther, and Black autonomist (anarchist) Lorenzo Komboa Ervin credits the hard work of anarchist groups in Europe and non-vanguardist Marxist and anarchist factions in the US for assisting him in a successful campaign for early release from prison after 13 years of incarceration.

In no way do we expect you or anyone else to bankroll us; what I am offering is one suggestion to those of you who sincerly want to help; and a challenge to those who in fact seek to "play god" with our lives while spouting empty, meaningless rhetoric about "freedom", "justice", "class struggle", and "solidarity". To those people I ask: Do you have ideas, or do ideas have you? Actually, a better question might be: do you think at all?



IV. Bourgeois pseudo-analysis of race and class.

It only makes sense that the white left's analysis of race and class in amerikkka would be so erroneous when you're so quick to jump up and pass judgement on everyone else about this or that, but deathly afraid of real self-criticism at the individual or collective level; opting instead to use tool(s) of self- criticism as a means to reaffirm old, tired ideas that were barely thought out to begin with or by dodging real self-criticism altogether by dogmatically accusing your critics of "red- baiting". Clearly, it is you who "red-bait" yourselves; as the old saying goes, "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones!" Action talks, bullshit walks!

Some of the more backward sections of the white left still push that old tired line "gay, straight, Black, white, same struggle-same fight!" Nothing can be further from the truth. Sure, we are all faced with the same "main enemy": the racist, authoritarian state and its supporters; but unlike white males (straight or gay) and with some minor parallels to the experiences of white women, our oppression begins at birth. This is a commonality that we share with Native people, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, and Asians.

As we grow up, we go from being "cute" in the eyes of the larger society, to being considered "dangerous" by the time we're teenagers. As this point is driven home to us day in and day out in various social settings and circumstances some of us decide, in frustration to give the white folks what they want to believe; we become predatory. This dynamic is played out in ghettos, barrios, chinatowns, and reservations across the country. Even those of us who choose not to engage in criminal activity, or aren't forced into it, have to live under this stigma. In addition, we as individuals are still viewed as "objects" and our community as a "monolith".

We then enter the work force...that is, if there are any jobs available. It is there that we learn that our people and other non-whites are "last hired, first fired", that our white co-workers are generally afraid of us or view as "competition", and that management is watching us even more closely than other workers, while at the same time fueling petty squabbles and competition between us and other non-white workers. Those of us who are fortunate enough to land a union job soon find out that the unions are soft on racism in the workplace. This only makes sense as we learn later on that unions in the US are running dogs of capitalism and apologists for management, despite their "militant" rhetoric.

Most unionized workers are white, reflective of the majority of unionized labor in the US; who constitute a mere 13% of the total labor force. This is why it is silly for the white left to prattle on and on about the labor "movement" and about how so many of our people are joining unions. That's no consolation to us when Black unemployment hovers at 35% nationally; many of those brothers and sisters living in places were "permenent unemployment" is the rule rather than the exception, and many more who find work at non-union "dead end" service industry jobs. One out of three of our people is caught up somewhere within the US criminal "justice" system: in jail, in prison, on parole, on work-release, awaiting trial, etc as a direct result.

In addition, many white workers are supportive of racist Republican politicians, such as presidential candidate Pat Buchannan, who promises to protect their jobs at the expense of non-white workers and immigrants. What is the white left or the union movement doing about all of that?

It shouldn't be suprising that the white left still preaches a largely economist viewpoint when it comes to workers generally, and workers of color in particular. This view is further evidence of not only your own deviation from Marx, but also from Lenin, by your own varied (yet similar) definitions.

Lenin recognized why the majority of Russian revolutionaries of his time put forward an economist position: "In Russia,...the yoke of autocracy appears at first glance to obliterate all distinction between the Social Democrats organization and workers' association, since all workers associations and all study circles are prohibited; and since the principle manifestation and weapon of the workers' economic struggle, the strike, is regarded as a criminal (and sometimes even as a political) offense."

In this country, the distinction between the trade unions and revolutionary organizations is abundantly clear (even if some groups like the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) still fail to make the distinction themselves) and the primary contradiction within the working class is that of racial stratification as a class weapon of the bourgeoisie and capitalists against the working class as a whole.

Yet, the white Left (along with the rest of the white working class) fails to see its collaborationist role in this process. And this goes right back to what I said earlier in this writing about the need for a serious historical and cultural critique amongst all white people (and not just the settler nation's left-wing factions) that goes beyond superficial culture appropriations or lofty, dogmatic proclaimations of how committed you and your party is to "racial equality". To even consider oneself "white" or to call oneself "white" is an argument FOR race and class oppression; look at the history of the US and see who first errected these terms "white" and "Black", and why they were created in the first place.

I remember last summer, around the fourth of July, I had a member of the local SWP try to tell me that the American War of Independence was "progressive". Progressive for whom? Tell us the truth, who were the primary beneficiaries of the American Revolution? You know the answer, we all do; only a total, unrepentant reactionary would lie to the people, especially on this point.

Howard Zinn, in his work "A People's History of the United States", points out how early 20th century historian Charles Beard found that of the fifty-five men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draw up the US Constitution "a majority of them were lawyers by profession, that most were men of wealth, in land, in slaves, manufacturing, or shipping; that half of them had money loaned out at interest, and that forty of the fifty- five held government bonds, according to records of the [US] Treasury Department. Thus, Beard found that most of the makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds.

Four groups, Beard noted, were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property. And so the Constitution did not reflect the interests of those groups." (Zinn, pg.90)

Come to terms with your white skin privilege (and the ideology and attitude(s) this privilege breeds) and then figure out how to combat that dynamic as part of your fight against the state and its supporters. Your continued backwardness is a sad commentary when we uncover historical evidence which shows that even before the turn of the century some of your own ancestors within the white working class were begining to take the first small steps towards a greater understanding of their social role as the white servants of capital. A white shoemaker in 1848 wrote:

"...we are nothing but a standing army that keeps three million of our bretheren in bondage...Living under the shade of Bunker Hill monument, demanding in the name of humanity, our right, and withholding those rights from others because their skin is black! Is it any wonder that God in his righteous anger has punished us by forcing us to drink the bitter cup of degradation." (Zinn, pg.222)

We can even look to the historical evidence of Lenin's time. Prior to the publishing of Lenin's "On Imperialism", W.E.B. DuBois wrote an article for the May, 1915 edition of the Atlantic Monthly titled "The African Roots of War" in which he vividly describes how both rich and poor whites benefit from the super- exploitation of non-white people:

"Yes, the average citizen of England, France, Germany, the United States, had a higher standard of living than before. But: 'Whence comes this new wealth?'...It comes primarily from the darker nations of the world-Asia and Africa, South and Central America, the West Indies, and the islands of the South Seas. It is no longer simply the merchant prince, or the aristocratic monopoly, or even the employing class that is exploiting the world: it is the nation, a new democratic nation composed of united capital and labor." (Zinn)

Yet, the self-titled "anti-racists" of the left continue on with their infantile fixation on the Klan, Nazis, and right-wing militias. Groups that they say they are against, but in fact demonstrate a tolerance for in practice. Standing around chanting empty slogans in front of a line of police seperating demonstrators from the nazis in a "peaceful demonstration" is contradiction in its purest form; both the police and the fascists must be mercilessly destroyed! As the Spanish anarchist Buenventura Durruti proclaimed back in 1936 "Fascism is not to be debated, it is to be smashed!" There is no room for compromise or dialogue, except for asking them for a last meal request and choice of execution method before we pass sentence; and even that is arbitrary!

True, tactical considerations must be examined, but if we can't get at them then and there, there is no "rule" that says we can't follow them and hit them when they least expect it; except for the "rule" of the wanna-be rulers of the Marxist-Leninist white left "vanguard(s)" who only see the fascists as competition in their struggle to see which set of "empire builders" will lord over us; the "good" whites who regulate us to the amerikkkan left plantation of "the glorious workers state", or the "bad" whites who work us as slaves until half-dead and then laugh as our worn out carcasses are thrown into ovens, cut up for "scientific purposes", or hung from lamp posts and trees. You people have yet to show me the qualitative difference(s) between a Klan/Nazi- style white supremacist dictatorship and your concept of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the context of this particular country and its notorious history. So far, all I have seen from you all is arrogance in coalitions, petty games of political one-upmanship, and ideological/tactical rigidity.

Let's pretend for a minute that one of the various wanna-be vanguards actually seizes political power. In everyone of your programs, from the program of the RCP, USA to even smaller, lesser known groups there is usually a line somewhere in there about your particular party holding the key levers of state power within a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Have any of you actually considered what that sounds like to a community without real power? Does this mean that we as Black people are going to have fight and die a second time under your dictatorship in order to have equal access to employment, housing, schools, colleges, public office, party status, our own personal lives generally?

Look at our history; over one hundred years after the Emancipation Proclaimation (the 1960's) we were still dying for the right to vote, for the right to protest peacefully, for the right to live in peace and prosperity within the context of white domination and capitalism. Today, after all of that, it is clear that the masses of our people are still largely powerless; we stayed powerless even as public schools were being desegregated and more of our elites were being elected to Congress and other positions. The same racist, authoritarian state that stripped us of our humanity was now asserting itself as our first line of defense of those hard-won concessions in the form of federal troops and FBI "observers" (who watched as we were beaten, raped, and/or killed) sent to enforce The Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

As we have seen since that time, what the white power structure grants, it can (and will) take away; we can point to recent US Supreme Court decisions around voter redistricting as one part of our evidence. We can also look to the problem of mail and publication censorship in the US prison system (state and federal) that has come back to haunt us since the landmark 1960's first amendment legal challenge to the state of New York that was won by political prisoner and Black/Puerto Rican anarchist Martin Sostre. And then there's the attacks on a prisoners' right to sue a prison official, employee, or institution being made by the House and Senate. Give us one good reason to believe that you people will be any different than these previous and current "benevolent" leaders and political institutions if by some fluke or miracle you folks stumble into state power?

No "guarantees" againt counter-revolution or revisionism within your "revolutionary" party/government you say? There are two: the guns, ammunition, organization, solidarity, political consciousness, and continuous vigilance of the masses of non- white people and the truly sympathetic, conscious anti-authoritarian few amongst your population; or a successful grassroots- based revolution that is rooted in anti-authoritarian political ideas that are culturally relevant to each ethnicity of the poor and working class population in the US. Judging by the general attitudes and theories expressed by your members and leadership, we can be rest assured that it is virtually guaranteed that the spirit of 'Jim Crow' can and will flourish within a white-led Marxist-Leninist "proletarian dictatorship" in the US. It's clear to me why you all ramble on and on about the revolutions of China, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, etc; they provide convienient cover for you all (read: escapism) to avoid a serious examination of the faults in your current analysis as well as in the historical analysis of the last thirty years of struggle in the US.

These are the only conclusions that can be drawn when you all are so obviously hostile to the idea of doing the hard work of confronting your own individual racist and reactionary tendencies. When your own fellow white activists attempted to put together an "Anti-Racism Workshop" for members of the Seattle Mumia Defense Committee, many of you pledged your support (in the form of the usual dogmatic, vague, and arguably baseless rhetorical proclaimations of "solidarity" and "commitment to racial equality") and then proceeded to not show up. Only the two initial organizers within the SMDC and two coalition members (neither affiliated with any political party) were there. Make no mistake, I have no illusions about white people confronting their own racism; but I do support their honest attempts at doing so. Here we have a situation in which an ideological leap amongst the white left in Seattle may have been initiated; yet, the all- knowing, all-seeing "revolutionary vanguard(s)" of the white left were too busy spending that particular weekend picking the lent out of their belly buttons. Are we saving our belly-button lent for the potential shortages of food that occur during and shortly after the revolution [is corrupted by the mis-leadership of your particular rigid, dogmatic, authoritarian party]?



V. The bottom line is this: Self-determination!

For most white leftists, this means that we as Black people are demanding our own seperate nation-state. Some of our revolutionary factions do advocate such a position. Black Autonomists, however, reject nation-statism [For more on that, refer to page 15 of any copy of Black Autonomy newspaper].

Regardless of whether or not the Black masses opt for a seperate homeland on this continent or in Africa, we will be respected as subjects of history and not as objects that the state, its supporters, or the white left decides what to do with.

The answer to "the Black question" is simple: It is not a question; we are people, you will deal with us as such or we will fight you and the rest of the white settler nation...by any and all means necessary! We will not be cowed or dominated by anyone ever again!

Too many times in the course of American (and world) history have our people fought and died for the dream of true freedom, only to have it turn into the nightmare of continued oppression. If the end result of a working-class revolution in the United States is the continued domination of non-white people by white "revolutionary leaders" and a Left-wing [white supremacist] government, then we will make another revolution until any and all perpetrators and supporters of that type of social-political relationship are defeated or dead! Any and all means are completely justifiable in order to prevent the defeat of our revolution and the re-introduction of white supremacy. We will not put up with another 400+ years of oppression; and I'm sure our Native and Hispanic brothers and sisters won't tolerate another 500+ years of the same ol' shit.

Ultimatly, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"; that's the main reason I decided to publish this, as yet another humble contribution to the self-education of our people. The second reason is to, hopefully, inspire the white left to re- examine your current practices and beliefs as part of your process of self-education; assuming that you all in fact practice self-education.

Reject the traditions of your ancestors and learn from their mistakes; or reject your potential allies in communities of color. The choice is yours...

"It is a commentary on the fundementally racist nature of this society that the concept of group strength for black people must be articulated, not to mention defended. No other group would submit to being led by others. Italians do not run the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. Irish do not chair Chistopher Columbus Societies. Yet when black people call for black-run and all-black organizations, they are immediatly classed in a catagory with the Ku Klux Klan." -Kwame Toure (Stokely Carmichael), Black Power; Vintage Press, 1965.

For Further Reading:

"Black Autonomy, A Newspaper of Anarchism and Black Revolution" Vol.#1, issues #1-#5; Vol.#2, issues #1-#3. 1994-1996.

Bookchin, Murray "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" Ramparts Press, 1971.

Ervin, Lorenzo Komboa "Anarchism and the Black Revolution and Other Essays" Monkeywrench Press, 1994

Jackson, Greg "Mythology of A White-Led 'Vanguard': A Critical Look at the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA" Black Autonomy staff, 1996.

Mohammed, Kimathi "Organization and Spontaneity: The Theory of the Vanguard Party and its Application to the Black Movement in the US Today" Marcus Garvey Institute, 1974.

Sakai, J. "Settlers: Mythology of the White Proletariat"

Zhenhua, Zhai "Red Flower of China" Soho Press, 1992.

Zinn, Howard "A People's History of the United States" Harper- Perrenial, Revised 1995.

Pamphlet produced by the staff of Black Autonomy, A Newspaper of Anarchism and Black Revolution. First printing, April 1996. Feel free to copy and distribute; just give us our props.

http://www.iww.org/de/history/librar.../copinyourhead

Authoritarian Leftists: Kill the Cop in Your Head

By Lorenzo Komboa Ervin - Black Autonomy, April 1996.

The relationship of the above to the on-going discussion is tenuous at best.

Ervin admitted that he had a bunch of axes to grind, some very specific, and though he promised clarity he produced an incoherent, broad brush smear. The incoherence derives from the crude merging of two separate issues, the relationship of socialist organizations to black people in the USA and the anarchist critique of communism.

Of the former there is much to be said, much relevant criticism, though anchoring this on the behavior of a few marginal sects is disingenuous. There has been no effective Communist Party for half a century, in the 1st half of the 20th century CPUSA was truly a vanguard of civil rights. Shit, they supported the 'Black Belt' concept 80 years but that is conveniently unmentioned. Yes, white folks got a way to go in shedding the straight jacket of ruling class ideas, but if you're a Marxists ya got no other choice.

I got no time for the anarchist critique, it is the whine of immature petty booj idealism. To relentlessly drone on about 'authoritarianism ' displays an inability to comprehend class relations, is clueless as to how one class supersedes another. To dismiss the necessity of the vanguard party and the dictatorship of the proletariat likewise displays a childish preference for wishful thinking over hard reality.

Gotta wonder what SP and his buddy Ervin got to say about Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution.

You knew this one was coming. Either I'm reading this wrong or these are some fuckin' simpletons. Were the Vietnamese under brutal assault for years by the imperial slaughterhouse also immersed in the "cult of guerillism?"

<i>The political legacy of Fidel Castro
28 November 2016

The announcement Friday night of the death of Fidel Castro, one of the major figures of the 20th century, has provoked a broad range of public reactions reflecting the bitter controversies over his contradictory historical legacy.

His death at 90 came nearly a decade after he surrendered the reins of unchallenged power he exercised over Cuba’s political life. For nearly half a century he was “president for life,” first secretary of the ruling Communist Party and commander-in-chief of the Cuban military, with much of this authority passing dynastically into the hands of his younger brother, Raul, who is now 85.

His rule outlasted that of ten US presidents, from Eisenhower to George W. Bush, all of whom were committed to the overthrow of his regime, including by means of the abortive CIA-organized Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, literally hundreds of assassination attempts, and the longest economic blockade in world history.

The longevity of his political career is in many ways astonishing. No doubt, there were elements of the Latin American caudillo in his rule and he could be ruthless in relation to those seen as political rivals and opponents. At the same time, he possessed an undeniable personal charisma and a degree of humanism that attracted support from both the oppressed masses of Cuba and wider layers of intellectuals and radicalized youth internationally.

The reaction of the US media to Castro’s death has been predictable. Editorial denunciations of the “brutal dictator” have been accompanied by revolting coverage giving greater air time to a few hundred right-wing Cuban exiles dancing in the streets of Miami’s Little Havana than to the somber and very real mourning among broad layers of the population in Cuba itself.

On the island, ten years after relinquishing power, Castro has maintained a significant, albeit diminished, popular base, reflecting support for the undeniable improvements in social conditions for the country’s most impoverished layers that were wrought by the revolution he led in 1959.

The indices of these changes come into clear focus when one compares conditions in Cuba to those prevailing in the neighboring Dominican Republic, which has roughly the same size population and gross domestic product. The murder rate in Cuba is less than one quarter that in the Dominican Republic; life expectancy is six years higher (79 vs. 73), and the Cuban infant mortality rate is roughly one-sixth the Dominican. Cuba’s literacy levels and infant mortality rates, it should be added, are also superior to those in the United States.

The commentary in the US media centering on denunciations of Castro for political repression deserves to be placed in historical context. After all, the United States has over the course of a century supported countless dictatorships responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Latin America alone. Castro and Castroism were ultimately the product of this bitter and bloody history.

Castro’s own political evolution was shaped by US imperialism’s decades-long plunder and oppression following the island’s transformation as a result of the 1898 Spanish-American war from a colony of Spain into a semi-colony of Washington. Under the so-called Platt Amendment, the United States guaranteed itself the “right” to intervene in Cuban affairs as it saw fit, and seized Guantanamo Bay to serve as its military base.

The US-backed Batista dictatorship

Before the revolution, Washington’s man in Havana was Fulgencio Batista, who headed a ferocious dictatorship that ruled in the interests of foreign corporations, the country’s native oligarchy and the mafia, which turned the country into a center of gambling and prostitution. Torture was routine and John F. Kennedy himself commented that the regime was responsible for the political murders of at least 20,000 Cubans.

As vicious as this regime was, it was by no means unique in the region. During the same period, Washington supported similar mass crimes carried out by Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Duvalier in Haiti and Somoza in Nicaragua.

Those who attempted to alter the existing order by democratic means were disposed of with violence, as seen in the CIA-organized overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954. The result was a growth of seething popular hatred for the United States throughout the hemisphere.

Born into a Spanish landowning family, Castro developed politically within the hothouse environment of student nationalist politics at Havana University. Reportedly, as a youth he was an admirer of Spanish fascist Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera and the Italian duce Benito Mussolini.

Among his politically formative experiences was a 1948 trip as a student to Bogota, Colombia, where the US had convened an inter-American congress that was to found the Organization of American States to assert US hegemony over the region. During the visit, the assassination of Liberal Party candidate Jorge Gaitan led to the mass uprising known as the Bogatazo, in which much of the Colombian capital was destroyed and up to 3,000 were killed.

Castro himself acknowledged that he was also significantly influenced by the politics of Juan Peron, the military officer who came to power in Argentina, admiring him for his populism, anti-Americanism and social assistance programs for the poor.

Still in his twenties, Castro began his struggle against the US-backed dictatorship of Batista as a member of the Ortodoxo Party, a nationalist and anti-communist political tendency rooted in the Cuban petty-bourgeoisie. After running as an Ortodoxo candidate for the Cuban legislature in 1952, Castro turned to armed action a year later, leading an ill-fated assault on the Moncada army barracks in which all 200 insurgents were either killed or captured.

Following a brief jail sentence and exile, he returned to Cuba at the end of 1956 with a relative handful of armed supporters who suffered overwhelming losses in initial engagements with government troops. Yet within barely two years, power fell into the hands of his guerrilla July 26 Movement, under conditions where both the Cuban bourgeoisie and Washington had lost confidence in Batista’s ability to rule the country.

There existed broad international sympathy for Castro, whose uprising was seen as a struggle for democracy. Among those expressing support for the new regime was American author Ernest Hemingway, who described himself as “delighted” with the overthrow of Batista.

Initially, Castro denied he had any sympathy for communism, insisted that his government would protect foreign capital and welcome new private investment, and sought to reach an accommodation with US imperialism.

However, as the masses of Cuban workers and peasants were demanding results from the Castro revolution, Washington made it clear that it would tolerate not even the most modest social reforms in the territory 90 miles from US shores. The expectations within US ruling circles was that after brief celebrations of the fall of Batista, the new government would get back to business as usual. They were horrified that Castro was actually serious about changing social conditions on the island and raising the living standard of its impoverished masses. They met any attempt at altering the existing order with intransigence.

In response to limited land reform, Washington sought to strangle the Cuban economy, cutting Cuba’s sugar export quota and then denying the island nation oil.

Castro responded with nationalizations, first of US property, then of Cuban-owned enterprises, and turned to the Soviet bureaucracy for assistance. He simultaneously turned to the discredited Cuban Stalinist Popular Socialist Party, which had supported Batista and opposed Castro’s guerrilla movement. The Stalinists provided him with the political apparatus that he lacked.

Castro was representative of a broader bourgeois-nationalist and anti-imperialist movement that swept the colonial and oppressed countries in the post-World War II period, giving rise to figures like Ben Bella in Algeria, Nasser in Egypt, Nkrumah in Ghana and Lumumba in the Congo, among others. Like Castro, many of them attempted to exploit the Cold War conflict between Washington and Moscow to secure their own interests.

No doubt, there was an opportunistic element in Castro’s self-proclamation as a “Marxist-Leninist” and his turn to the Soviet Union. However, it is also the case that in 1960, the October Revolution that had transformed Russia 43 years earlier exerted a massive influence internationally, even though the Soviet bureaucracy had long since exterminated the revolution’s leaders and severed all ties to genuine Marxism.

While the rising expectations of the Cuban masses and the obstinate reaction of US imperialism served to push Castro to the left, he was in no sense a Marxist. While sincere in his original intentions to implement significant reforms of Cuban society, his political orientation was always of a pragmatic character.

Ultimately, Castro went the furthest in striking a Faustian bargain with Soviet Stalinism, which provided massive aid and subsidized trade in return for exploiting Cuba as a bargaining chip in its quest for “peaceful coexistence” with US imperialism.

With the Stalinist bureaucracy’s final betrayal, the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, Cuba was thrown into a desperate economic and social crisis which the Castro government was able to offset only through an ever-widening opening to foreign capitalist investment, as well as major subsidies from Venezuela, whose own economic crisis is now closing off that source of aid as well.

Rapprochement with Washington

These are the conditions that laid the groundwork for a rapprochement between Washington and Cuba, with the reopening of the US embassy in Havana and Obama’s visit to the country last March. For its part, US capitalism is determined to exploit Cuban cheap labor and potentially lucrative markets and ward off the growing influence in the country of its Chinese and European rivals.

The ruling strata in Cuba see the influx of US capital as a means of salvaging their rule while pursuing a course similar to that of China. The Cuban elite hopes to secure its own privileges and power at the expense of the Cuban working class under conditions where social inequality on the island is rapidly deepening.

No doubt all of this troubled Castro in the last decade of his life. During this period, he continued to comment regularly in the Cuban media through a column known as “Reflections.” These writings provided little in the way of theoretical insight and reflected the thinking of a sincere petty-bourgeois radical.

To his credit, until his death he continued to despise everything that US imperialism stood for. He vigorously attacked the hypocrisy of Barack Obama and his combination of “human rights” rhetoric and imperialist wars and drone assassination programs.

In the aftermath of Obama’s visit to Cuba, Castro wrote one of his last columns, bitterly denouncing the US president’s speech in Havana. He declared: “... we are capable of producing the food and material riches we need with the efforts and intelligence of our people. We do not need the empire to give us anything.”

The reality, however, is that the Obama visit and the move to “normalize” relations with US imperialism signaled that Castro’s revolution, like every other bourgeois nationalist movement and national liberation struggle led by middle-class forces, had reached its ultimate dead end, having failed to resolve the historic problems stemming from imperialist oppression of Cuba and moving toward a restoration of the neocolonialist relations that it had previously opposed.

Only a cynic could deny the elements of heroism and tragedy in the life of Castro and, above all, the protracted struggle of the Cuban people.

However, Castro’s legacy cannot be evaluated solely through the prism of Cuba, but must take into account the impact of his politics internationally and, above all, in Latin America.

Here, the most catastrophic role was played by left nationalists in Latin America as well as petty-bourgeois radicals in Europe and North America in promoting Castro’s coming to power at the head of a small guerrilla army as the opening of a new path to socialism, requiring neither the conscious and independent political intervention of the working class nor the building of revolutionary Marxist parties. The myths surrounding Castro’s revolution, and, in particular, the retrograde theories of guerrillaism propagated by his erstwhile political ally Che Guevara, were promoted as the model for revolutions throughout the hemisphere.

The role of Pabloite revisionism

Among the most prominent proponents of this false perspective was the Pabloite revisionist tendency that emerged within the Fourth International under the leadership of Ernest Mandel in Europe and Joseph Hansen in the US, subsequently joined by Nahuel Moreno in Argentina. They insisted that Castro’s coming to power had proven that armed guerrillas led by the petty-bourgeoisie and based on the peasantry could become “natural Marxists,” compelled by objective events to carry out the socialist revolution, with the working class reduced to the role of a passive bystander.

They further concluded that Castro’s nationalizations created a “workers state” in Cuba, despite the absence of any organs of workers’ power.

Long before the Cuban Revolution, Leon Trotsky had explicitly rejected the facile identification of nationalizations undertaken by petty-bourgeois forces with the socialist revolution. The Transitional Program, the founding document of the Fourth International, written in 1938, declared that “one cannot categorically deny in advance the theoretical possibility that, under the influence of completely exceptional circumstances (war, defeat, financial crash, mass revolutionary pressure, etc.) the petty-bourgeois parties including the Stalinists may go further than they themselves wish along the road to a break with the bourgeoisie.” It distinguished such an episode, however, from a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat.

In response to the expropriations carried out by the Kremlin regime in the course of its invasion of Poland (in alliance with Hitler) in 1939, Trotsky wrote: “The primary political criterion for us is not the transformation of property in this or another area, however important these may be in themselves, but rather the change in the consciousness and organization of the world proletariat, the raising of their capacity for defending former conquests and accomplishing new ones.”

The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) fought intransigently against the Pabloite perspective, insisting that Castroism represented not some new road to socialism, but rather only one of the more radical variants of the bourgeois nationalist movements that had come to power through much of the former colonial world. It warned that the Pabloite glorification of Castroism represented a repudiation of the entire historical and theoretical conception of the socialist revolution going back to Marx, and laid the basis for the liquidation of the revolutionary cadre assembled by the Trotskyist movement internationally into the camp of bourgeois nationalism and Stalinism.

While waging a principled defense of Cuba against imperialist aggression, the ICFI rooted its analysis of Castroism within a broader assessment on the role of bourgeois nationalism in the epoch of imperialism.

Defending Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution, it wrote in 1961: “It is not the job of Trotskyists to boost the role of such nationalist leaders. They can command the support of the masses only because of the betrayal of leadership by Social-Democracy and particularly Stalinism, and in this way they become buffers between imperialism and the mass of workers and peasants. The possibility of economic aid from the Soviet Union often enables them to strike a harder bargain with the imperialists, even enables more radical elements among the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leaders to attack imperialist holdings and gain further support from the masses. But, for us, in every case the vital question is one of the working class in these countries gaining political independence through a Marxist party, leading the poor peasantry to the building of Soviets, and recognizing the necessary connections with the international socialist revolution. In no case, in our opinion, should Trotskyists substitute for that the hope that the nationalist leadership should become socialists. The emancipation of the working class is the task of the workers themselves.”

These warnings were tragically vindicated in Latin America where the theories promoted by the Pabloites helped divert a whole layer of radicalized youth and young workers away from the struggle to mobilize the working class against capitalism and into suicidal armed struggles that claimed thousands of lives, served to disorient the workers’ movement and helped pave the way to fascist-military dictatorships.

In the first instance, these theories claimed the life of Guevara himself in Bolivia. Ignoring the militant struggles of the miners and the rest of the Bolivian working class, he vainly sought to recruit a guerrilla army from among the most backward and oppressed sections of the peasantry, ending up isolated and starving before being hunted down and executed by the CIA and the Bolivian military in October 1967.

Guevara’s fate was a tragic anticipation of the disastrous consequences Castroism and Pabloite revisionism would have throughout the hemisphere. Similarly, in Argentina, the cult of guerrillaism served to blunt and disorient the revolutionary working class movement that had erupted with the mass strikes of the Cordobazo of 1969.

Castro himself, acting both as a client of the Soviet bloc and a practitioner of realpolitik in the attempt to secure the stability of his own regime, sought to forge ties to the same Latin American bourgeois governments that those who emulated him were attempting to overthrow. Thus, in 1971 he toured Chile, extolling the “parliamentary road to socialism” in that country, even as the fascists and the military were preparing to crush the working class. He hailed military regimes in Peru and Ecuador as anti-imperialist and even embraced the corrupt apparatus of the ruling PRI in Mexico after it had overseen the massacre of students in 1968.

The overall impact of Castro’s policies as well as those of the political tendencies who glorified him was to hold back the socialist revolution throughout the hemisphere.
Now, the imperialist powers in general, and the US in particular, are evaluating to what extent the death of Castro can be used to advance their interests in Cuba and beyond.
President Barack Obama issued a hypocritical statement declaring, “History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him,” and assuring that ”the Cuban people must know that they have a friend and partner in the United States of America.”

For his part, President-elect Trump issued a statement celebrating “the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades.” There is growing speculation over whether Trump will carry through on his threats to rescind measures enacted by Obama meant to facilitate the penetration of Cuba by US banks and corporations.

While the representatives of imperialism seek to exploit Castro’s death to advance the cause of reaction, for a new generation of workers and youth the study of the historical experience of Castroism and the far-sighted critique developed by the International Committee of the Fourth International remains a vital task in preparing the working class for coming mass revolutionary struggles and building the parties that will lead them.</i>

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/11/28/pers-n28.html

You knew this one was coming. Either I'm reading this wrong or these are some fuckin' simpletons. Were the Vietnamese under brutal assault for years by the imperial slaughterhouse also immersed in the "cult of guerillism?"

<i>The political legacy of Fidel Castro
28 November 2016

The announcement Friday night of the death of Fidel Castro, one of the major figures of the 20th century, has provoked a broad range of public reactions reflecting the bitter controversies over his contradictory historical legacy.

His death at 90 came nearly a decade after he surrendered the reins of unchallenged power he exercised over Cuba’s political life. For nearly half a century he was “president for life,” first secretary of the ruling Communist Party and commander-in-chief of the Cuban military, with much of this authority passing dynastically into the hands of his younger brother, Raul, who is now 85.

His rule outlasted that of ten US presidents, from Eisenhower to George W. Bush, all of whom were committed to the overthrow of his regime, including by means of the abortive CIA-organized Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, literally hundreds of assassination attempts, and the longest economic blockade in world history.

The longevity of his political career is in many ways astonishing. No doubt, there were elements of the Latin American caudillo in his rule and he could be ruthless in relation to those seen as political rivals and opponents. At the same time, he possessed an undeniable personal charisma and a degree of humanism that attracted support from both the oppressed masses of Cuba and wider layers of intellectuals and radicalized youth internationally.

The reaction of the US media to Castro’s death has been predictable. Editorial denunciations of the “brutal dictator” have been accompanied by revolting coverage giving greater air time to a few hundred right-wing Cuban exiles dancing in the streets of Miami’s Little Havana than to the somber and very real mourning among broad layers of the population in Cuba itself.

On the island, ten years after relinquishing power, Castro has maintained a significant, albeit diminished, popular base, reflecting support for the undeniable improvements in social conditions for the country’s most impoverished layers that were wrought by the revolution he led in 1959.

The indices of these changes come into clear focus when one compares conditions in Cuba to those prevailing in the neighboring Dominican Republic, which has roughly the same size population and gross domestic product. The murder rate in Cuba is less than one quarter that in the Dominican Republic; life expectancy is six years higher (79 vs. 73), and the Cuban infant mortality rate is roughly one-sixth the Dominican. Cuba’s literacy levels and infant mortality rates, it should be added, are also superior to those in the United States.

The commentary in the US media centering on denunciations of Castro for political repression deserves to be placed in historical context. After all, the United States has over the course of a century supported countless dictatorships responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Latin America alone. Castro and Castroism were ultimately the product of this bitter and bloody history.

Castro’s own political evolution was shaped by US imperialism’s decades-long plunder and oppression following the island’s transformation as a result of the 1898 Spanish-American war from a colony of Spain into a semi-colony of Washington. Under the so-called Platt Amendment, the United States guaranteed itself the “right” to intervene in Cuban affairs as it saw fit, and seized Guantanamo Bay to serve as its military base.

The US-backed Batista dictatorship

Before the revolution, Washington’s man in Havana was Fulgencio Batista, who headed a ferocious dictatorship that ruled in the interests of foreign corporations, the country’s native oligarchy and the mafia, which turned the country into a center of gambling and prostitution. Torture was routine and John F. Kennedy himself commented that the regime was responsible for the political murders of at least 20,000 Cubans.

As vicious as this regime was, it was by no means unique in the region. During the same period, Washington supported similar mass crimes carried out by Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Duvalier in Haiti and Somoza in Nicaragua.

Those who attempted to alter the existing order by democratic means were disposed of with violence, as seen in the CIA-organized overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954. The result was a growth of seething popular hatred for the United States throughout the hemisphere.

Born into a Spanish landowning family, Castro developed politically within the hothouse environment of student nationalist politics at Havana University. Reportedly, as a youth he was an admirer of Spanish fascist Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera and the Italian duce Benito Mussolini.

Among his politically formative experiences was a 1948 trip as a student to Bogota, Colombia, where the US had convened an inter-American congress that was to found the Organization of American States to assert US hegemony over the region. During the visit, the assassination of Liberal Party candidate Jorge Gaitan led to the mass uprising known as the Bogatazo, in which much of the Colombian capital was destroyed and up to 3,000 were killed.

Castro himself acknowledged that he was also significantly influenced by the politics of Juan Peron, the military officer who came to power in Argentina, admiring him for his populism, anti-Americanism and social assistance programs for the poor.

Still in his twenties, Castro began his struggle against the US-backed dictatorship of Batista as a member of the Ortodoxo Party, a nationalist and anti-communist political tendency rooted in the Cuban petty-bourgeoisie. After running as an Ortodoxo candidate for the Cuban legislature in 1952, Castro turned to armed action a year later, leading an ill-fated assault on the Moncada army barracks in which all 200 insurgents were either killed or captured.

Following a brief jail sentence and exile, he returned to Cuba at the end of 1956 with a relative handful of armed supporters who suffered overwhelming losses in initial engagements with government troops. Yet within barely two years, power fell into the hands of his guerrilla July 26 Movement, under conditions where both the Cuban bourgeoisie and Washington had lost confidence in Batista’s ability to rule the country.

There existed broad international sympathy for Castro, whose uprising was seen as a struggle for democracy. Among those expressing support for the new regime was American author Ernest Hemingway, who described himself as “delighted” with the overthrow of Batista.

Initially, Castro denied he had any sympathy for communism, insisted that his government would protect foreign capital and welcome new private investment, and sought to reach an accommodation with US imperialism.

However, as the masses of Cuban workers and peasants were demanding results from the Castro revolution, Washington made it clear that it would tolerate not even the most modest social reforms in the territory 90 miles from US shores. The expectations within US ruling circles was that after brief celebrations of the fall of Batista, the new government would get back to business as usual. They were horrified that Castro was actually serious about changing social conditions on the island and raising the living standard of its impoverished masses. They met any attempt at altering the existing order with intransigence.

In response to limited land reform, Washington sought to strangle the Cuban economy, cutting Cuba’s sugar export quota and then denying the island nation oil.

Castro responded with nationalizations, first of US property, then of Cuban-owned enterprises, and turned to the Soviet bureaucracy for assistance. He simultaneously turned to the discredited Cuban Stalinist Popular Socialist Party, which had supported Batista and opposed Castro’s guerrilla movement. The Stalinists provided him with the political apparatus that he lacked.

Castro was representative of a broader bourgeois-nationalist and anti-imperialist movement that swept the colonial and oppressed countries in the post-World War II period, giving rise to figures like Ben Bella in Algeria, Nasser in Egypt, Nkrumah in Ghana and Lumumba in the Congo, among others. Like Castro, many of them attempted to exploit the Cold War conflict between Washington and Moscow to secure their own interests.

No doubt, there was an opportunistic element in Castro’s self-proclamation as a “Marxist-Leninist” and his turn to the Soviet Union. However, it is also the case that in 1960, the October Revolution that had transformed Russia 43 years earlier exerted a massive influence internationally, even though the Soviet bureaucracy had long since exterminated the revolution’s leaders and severed all ties to genuine Marxism.

While the rising expectations of the Cuban masses and the obstinate reaction of US imperialism served to push Castro to the left, he was in no sense a Marxist. While sincere in his original intentions to implement significant reforms of Cuban society, his political orientation was always of a pragmatic character.

Ultimately, Castro went the furthest in striking a Faustian bargain with Soviet Stalinism, which provided massive aid and subsidized trade in return for exploiting Cuba as a bargaining chip in its quest for “peaceful coexistence” with US imperialism.

With the Stalinist bureaucracy’s final betrayal, the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, Cuba was thrown into a desperate economic and social crisis which the Castro government was able to offset only through an ever-widening opening to foreign capitalist investment, as well as major subsidies from Venezuela, whose own economic crisis is now closing off that source of aid as well.

Rapprochement with Washington

These are the conditions that laid the groundwork for a rapprochement between Washington and Cuba, with the reopening of the US embassy in Havana and Obama’s visit to the country last March. For its part, US capitalism is determined to exploit Cuban cheap labor and potentially lucrative markets and ward off the growing influence in the country of its Chinese and European rivals.

The ruling strata in Cuba see the influx of US capital as a means of salvaging their rule while pursuing a course similar to that of China. The Cuban elite hopes to secure its own privileges and power at the expense of the Cuban working class under conditions where social inequality on the island is rapidly deepening.

No doubt all of this troubled Castro in the last decade of his life. During this period, he continued to comment regularly in the Cuban media through a column known as “Reflections.” These writings provided little in the way of theoretical insight and reflected the thinking of a sincere petty-bourgeois radical.

To his credit, until his death he continued to despise everything that US imperialism stood for. He vigorously attacked the hypocrisy of Barack Obama and his combination of “human rights” rhetoric and imperialist wars and drone assassination programs.

In the aftermath of Obama’s visit to Cuba, Castro wrote one of his last columns, bitterly denouncing the US president’s speech in Havana. He declared: “... we are capable of producing the food and material riches we need with the efforts and intelligence of our people. We do not need the empire to give us anything.”

The reality, however, is that the Obama visit and the move to “normalize” relations with US imperialism signaled that Castro’s revolution, like every other bourgeois nationalist movement and national liberation struggle led by middle-class forces, had reached its ultimate dead end, having failed to resolve the historic problems stemming from imperialist oppression of Cuba and moving toward a restoration of the neocolonialist relations that it had previously opposed.

Only a cynic could deny the elements of heroism and tragedy in the life of Castro and, above all, the protracted struggle of the Cuban people.

However, Castro’s legacy cannot be evaluated solely through the prism of Cuba, but must take into account the impact of his politics internationally and, above all, in Latin America.

Here, the most catastrophic role was played by left nationalists in Latin America as well as petty-bourgeois radicals in Europe and North America in promoting Castro’s coming to power at the head of a small guerrilla army as the opening of a new path to socialism, requiring neither the conscious and independent political intervention of the working class nor the building of revolutionary Marxist parties. The myths surrounding Castro’s revolution, and, in particular, the retrograde theories of guerrillaism propagated by his erstwhile political ally Che Guevara, were promoted as the model for revolutions throughout the hemisphere.

The role of Pabloite revisionism

Among the most prominent proponents of this false perspective was the Pabloite revisionist tendency that emerged within the Fourth International under the leadership of Ernest Mandel in Europe and Joseph Hansen in the US, subsequently joined by Nahuel Moreno in Argentina. They insisted that Castro’s coming to power had proven that armed guerrillas led by the petty-bourgeoisie and based on the peasantry could become “natural Marxists,” compelled by objective events to carry out the socialist revolution, with the working class reduced to the role of a passive bystander.

They further concluded that Castro’s nationalizations created a “workers state” in Cuba, despite the absence of any organs of workers’ power.

Long before the Cuban Revolution, Leon Trotsky had explicitly rejected the facile identification of nationalizations undertaken by petty-bourgeois forces with the socialist revolution. The Transitional Program, the founding document of the Fourth International, written in 1938, declared that “one cannot categorically deny in advance the theoretical possibility that, under the influence of completely exceptional circumstances (war, defeat, financial crash, mass revolutionary pressure, etc.) the petty-bourgeois parties including the Stalinists may go further than they themselves wish along the road to a break with the bourgeoisie.” It distinguished such an episode, however, from a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat.

In response to the expropriations carried out by the Kremlin regime in the course of its invasion of Poland (in alliance with Hitler) in 1939, Trotsky wrote: “The primary political criterion for us is not the transformation of property in this or another area, however important these may be in themselves, but rather the change in the consciousness and organization of the world proletariat, the raising of their capacity for defending former conquests and accomplishing new ones.”

The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) fought intransigently against the Pabloite perspective, insisting that Castroism represented not some new road to socialism, but rather only one of the more radical variants of the bourgeois nationalist movements that had come to power through much of the former colonial world. It warned that the Pabloite glorification of Castroism represented a repudiation of the entire historical and theoretical conception of the socialist revolution going back to Marx, and laid the basis for the liquidation of the revolutionary cadre assembled by the Trotskyist movement internationally into the camp of bourgeois nationalism and Stalinism.

While waging a principled defense of Cuba against imperialist aggression, the ICFI rooted its analysis of Castroism within a broader assessment on the role of bourgeois nationalism in the epoch of imperialism.

Defending Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution, it wrote in 1961: “It is not the job of Trotskyists to boost the role of such nationalist leaders. They can command the support of the masses only because of the betrayal of leadership by Social-Democracy and particularly Stalinism, and in this way they become buffers between imperialism and the mass of workers and peasants. The possibility of economic aid from the Soviet Union often enables them to strike a harder bargain with the imperialists, even enables more radical elements among the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leaders to attack imperialist holdings and gain further support from the masses. But, for us, in every case the vital question is one of the working class in these countries gaining political independence through a Marxist party, leading the poor peasantry to the building of Soviets, and recognizing the necessary connections with the international socialist revolution. In no case, in our opinion, should Trotskyists substitute for that the hope that the nationalist leadership should become socialists. The emancipation of the working class is the task of the workers themselves.”

These warnings were tragically vindicated in Latin America where the theories promoted by the Pabloites helped divert a whole layer of radicalized youth and young workers away from the struggle to mobilize the working class against capitalism and into suicidal armed struggles that claimed thousands of lives, served to disorient the workers’ movement and helped pave the way to fascist-military dictatorships.

In the first instance, these theories claimed the life of Guevara himself in Bolivia. Ignoring the militant struggles of the miners and the rest of the Bolivian working class, he vainly sought to recruit a guerrilla army from among the most backward and oppressed sections of the peasantry, ending up isolated and starving before being hunted down and executed by the CIA and the Bolivian military in October 1967.

Guevara’s fate was a tragic anticipation of the disastrous consequences Castroism and Pabloite revisionism would have throughout the hemisphere. Similarly, in Argentina, the cult of guerrillaism served to blunt and disorient the revolutionary working class movement that had erupted with the mass strikes of the Cordobazo of 1969.

Castro himself, acting both as a client of the Soviet bloc and a practitioner of realpolitik in the attempt to secure the stability of his own regime, sought to forge ties to the same Latin American bourgeois governments that those who emulated him were attempting to overthrow. Thus, in 1971 he toured Chile, extolling the “parliamentary road to socialism” in that country, even as the fascists and the military were preparing to crush the working class. He hailed military regimes in Peru and Ecuador as anti-imperialist and even embraced the corrupt apparatus of the ruling PRI in Mexico after it had overseen the massacre of students in 1968.

The overall impact of Castro’s policies as well as those of the political tendencies who glorified him was to hold back the socialist revolution throughout the hemisphere.
Now, the imperialist powers in general, and the US in particular, are evaluating to what extent the death of Castro can be used to advance their interests in Cuba and beyond.
President Barack Obama issued a hypocritical statement declaring, “History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him,” and assuring that ”the Cuban people must know that they have a friend and partner in the United States of America.”

For his part, President-elect Trump issued a statement celebrating “the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades.” There is growing speculation over whether Trump will carry through on his threats to rescind measures enacted by Obama meant to facilitate the penetration of Cuba by US banks and corporations.

While the representatives of imperialism seek to exploit Castro’s death to advance the cause of reaction, for a new generation of workers and youth the study of the historical experience of Castroism and the far-sighted critique developed by the International Committee of the Fourth International remains a vital task in preparing the working class for coming mass revolutionary struggles and building the parties that will lead them.</i>

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/11/28/pers-n28.html

You knew this one was coming. Either I'm reading this wrong or these are some fuckin' simpletons. Were the Vietnamese under brutal assault for years by the imperial slaughterhouse also immersed in the "cult of guerillism?"

Shit, you would expect this from the Trots. Every communist revolution is "anti-working class", every communist leader is a "dictator and strong-man", all communist movements are "deformed" or "nationalist" or some such bullshit. Why shouldn't the Trots and those who agree with them join hands with the MSM and grave dance? It's what they do...

in his own words...


http://youtu.be/67ZWBl-66H8

in his own words...


http://youtu.be/67ZWBl-66H8

Viva Fidel!

http://www.iww.org/de/history/librar.../copinyourhead

Authoritarian Leftists: Kill the Cop in Your Head

By Lorenzo Komboa Ervin - Black Autonomy, April 1996.

On Authority

Written: 1872;
Published: 1874 in the Italian, Almanacco Republicano;
Source: Marx-Engels Reader, New York: W. W. Norton and Co., second edition, 1978 (first edition, 1972), pp 730-733.;
Translated: Robert C. Tucker;
Transcribed: by Mike Lepore.

A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned. This summary mode of procedure is being abused to such an extent that it has become necessary to look into the matter somewhat more closely.

Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear.

On examining the economic, industrial and agricultural conditions which form the basis of present-day bourgeois society, we find that they tend more and more to replace isolated action by combined action of individuals. Modern industry, with its big factories and mills, where hundreds of workers supervise complicated machines driven by steam, has superseded the small workshops of the separate producers; the carriages and wagons of the highways have become substituted by railway trains, just as the small schooners and sailing feluccas have been by steam-boats. Even agriculture falls increasingly under the dominion of the machine and of steam, which slowly but relentlessly put in the place of the small proprietors big capitalists, who with the aid of hired workers cultivate vast stretches of land.

Everywhere combined action, the complication of processes dependent upon each other, displaces independent action by individuals. But whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation; now, is it possible to have organisation without authority?

Supposing a social revolution dethroned the capitalists, who now exercise their authority over the production and circulation of wealth. Supposing, to adopt entirely the point of view of the anti-authoritarians, that the land and the instruments of labour had become the collective property of the workers who use them. Will authority have disappeared, or will it only have changed its form? Let us see.

Let us take by way if example a cotton spinning mill. The cotton must pass through at least six successive operations before it is reduced to the state of thread, and these operations take place for the most part in different rooms. Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way. The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. At least with regard to the hours of work one may write upon the portals of these factories: Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate! [Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy behind!]

If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.

Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished?

But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.

When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.

We have thus seen that, on the one hand, a certain authority, no matter how delegated, and, on the other hand, a certain subordination, are things which, independently of all social organisation, are imposed upon us together with the material conditions under which we produce and make products circulate.

We have seen, besides, that the material conditions of production and circulation inevitably develop with large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture, and increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority. Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society. If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other; but they are blind to all facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the world.

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

In case it isn't clear, this is from Engels.

In case it isn't clear, this is from Engels.

That was clear by the end of the second paragraph. Great post.

"Authority" isn't the problem, it's who controls the authority - that's the problem. "Bureaucracy" is not a problem - it is the ends of bureaucracy that's the problem. Authority and bureaucracy are just social tools, and in the hands of the working class, really good tools.

That was clear by the end of the second paragraph. Great post.

"Authority" isn't the problem, it's who controls the authority - that's the problem. "Bureaucracy" is not a problem - it is the ends of bureaucracy that's the problem. Authority and bureaucracy are just social tools, and in the hands of the working class, really good tools.

Back in the day Anax once said he was an authoritarian and I was very puzzled, especially so as I then claimed to be an anarchist. Nowadays, just a hair wiser, I look forward to the day when the working class are the authoritarians. The blanket rejection of authority is a juvenile trait, the whine of the frustrated teenager. It is associated with capitalist consumer culture.(Have it YOUR way!)

I look forward to the day when the working class are the authoritarians. The blanket rejection of authority is a juvenile trait, the whine of the frustrated teenager. It is associated with capitalist consumer culture.(Have it YOUR way!)

Agree 100%

That was clear by the end of the second paragraph. Great post.

"Authority" isn't the problem, it's who controls the authority - that's the problem. "Bureaucracy" is not a problem - it is the ends of bureaucracy that's the problem. Authority and bureaucracy are just social tools, and in the hands of the working class, really good tools.

Nothing is in the hands of the working class with top down state socialism under autocratic rule. To view this through a subjective lens - rather than the historical realities on the ground - is the thought process of a gullible house slave of the Soviet variety.

On Authority

Written: 1872;
Published: 1874 in the Italian, Almanacco Republicano;
Source: Marx-Engels Reader, New York: W. W. Norton and Co., second edition, 1978 (first edition, 1972), pp 730-733.;
Translated: Robert C. Tucker;
Transcribed: by Mike Lepore.

A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned. This summary mode of procedure is being abused to such an extent that it has become necessary to look into the matter somewhat more closely.

Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear.

On examining the economic, industrial and agricultural conditions which form the basis of present-day bourgeois society, we find that they tend more and more to replace isolated action by combined action of individuals. Modern industry, with its big factories and mills, where hundreds of workers supervise complicated machines driven by steam, has superseded the small workshops of the separate producers; the carriages and wagons of the highways have become substituted by railway trains, just as the small schooners and sailing feluccas have been by steam-boats. Even agriculture falls increasingly under the dominion of the machine and of steam, which slowly but relentlessly put in the place of the small proprietors big capitalists, who with the aid of hired workers cultivate vast stretches of land.

Everywhere combined action, the complication of processes dependent upon each other, displaces independent action by individuals. But whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation; now, is it possible to have organisation without authority?

Supposing a social revolution dethroned the capitalists, who now exercise their authority over the production and circulation of wealth. Supposing, to adopt entirely the point of view of the anti-authoritarians, that the land and the instruments of labour had become the collective property of the workers who use them. Will authority have disappeared, or will it only have changed its form? Let us see.

Let us take by way if example a cotton spinning mill. The cotton must pass through at least six successive operations before it is reduced to the state of thread, and these operations take place for the most part in different rooms. Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way. The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. At least with regard to the hours of work one may write upon the portals of these factories: Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate! [Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy behind!]

If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.

Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished?

But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.

When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.

We have thus seen that, on the one hand, a certain authority, no matter how delegated, and, on the other hand, a certain subordination, are things which, independently of all social organisation, are imposed upon us together with the material conditions under which we produce and make products circulate.

We have seen, besides, that the material conditions of production and circulation inevitably develop with large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture, and increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority. Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society. If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other; but they are blind to all facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the world.

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

In case it isn't clear, this is from Engels.


"Against this transformation of the state and the organs of the state from servants of society into masters of society – an inevitable transformation in all previous states – the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts – administrative, judicial, and educational – by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also added in profusion."

"This shattering of the former state power and its replacement by a new and really democratic state is described in detail in the third section of The Civil War. But it was necessary to dwell briefly here once more on some of its features, because in Germany particularly the superstitious belief in the state has been carried over from philosophy into the general consciousness of the bourgeoisie and even to many workers. According to the philosophical notion, “the state is the realization of the idea” or the Kingdom of God on earth, translated into philosophical terms, the sphere in which eternal truth and justice is or should be realized. And from this follows a superstitious reverence for the state and everything connected with it, which takes roots the more readily as people from their childhood are accustomed to imagine that the affairs and interests common to the whole of society could not be looked after otherwise than as they have been looked after in the past, that is, through the state and its well-paid officials. And people think they have taken quite an extraordinary bold step forward when they have rid themselves of belief in hereditary monarchy and swear by the democratic republic. In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at the earliest possible moment, until such time as a new generation, reared in new and free social conditions, will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap."

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat."

-- Frederick Engels

Nothing is in the hands of the working class with top down state socialism under autocratic rule. To view this through a subjective lens - rather than the historical realities on the ground - is the thought process of a gullible house slave of the Soviet variety.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Whew!

On Authority

Written: 1872;
Published: 1874 in the Italian, Almanacco Republicano;
Source: Marx-Engels Reader, New York: W. W. Norton and Co., second edition, 1978 (first edition, 1972), pp 730-733.;
Translated: Robert C. Tucker;
Transcribed: by Mike Lepore.

A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned. This summary mode of procedure is being abused to such an extent that it has become necessary to look into the matter somewhat more closely.

Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear.

On examining the economic, industrial and agricultural conditions which form the basis of present-day bourgeois society, we find that they tend more and more to replace isolated action by combined action of individuals. Modern industry, with its big factories and mills, where hundreds of workers supervise complicated machines driven by steam, has superseded the small workshops of the separate producers; the carriages and wagons of the highways have become substituted by railway trains, just as the small schooners and sailing feluccas have been by steam-boats. Even agriculture falls increasingly under the dominion of the machine and of steam, which slowly but relentlessly put in the place of the small proprietors big capitalists, who with the aid of hired workers cultivate vast stretches of land.

Everywhere combined action, the complication of processes dependent upon each other, displaces independent action by individuals. But whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation; now, is it possible to have organisation without authority?

Supposing a social revolution dethroned the capitalists, who now exercise their authority over the production and circulation of wealth. Supposing, to adopt entirely the point of view of the anti-authoritarians, that the land and the instruments of labour had become the collective property of the workers who use them. Will authority have disappeared, or will it only have changed its form? Let us see.

Let us take by way if example a cotton spinning mill. The cotton must pass through at least six successive operations before it is reduced to the state of thread, and these operations take place for the most part in different rooms. Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way. The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. At least with regard to the hours of work one may write upon the portals of these factories: Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate! [Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy behind!]

If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.

Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished?

But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.

When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.

We have thus seen that, on the one hand, a certain authority, no matter how delegated, and, on the other hand, a certain subordination, are things which, independently of all social organisation, are imposed upon us together with the material conditions under which we produce and make products circulate.

We have seen, besides, that the material conditions of production and circulation inevitably develop with large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture, and increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority. Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society. If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other; but they are blind to all facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the world.

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

In case it isn't clear, this is from Engels.

You know, he doesn't seem to understand it, but our tinparrot posted a "rebuttal" to your post that actually reinforced your post. When the proletarians take over a state government and its apparatus they take over the authority and the bureaucracy in order to exert control over other the enemy class. It makes no difference that the takeover was voted on democratically - that's what the Party of the Working Class does, decide what is to be done. Again, BP, great post.

Fidel Castro’s Legacy and the Hypocrisy of His Detractors
worker | November 29, 2016 | 8:22 am | Fidel Castro
16:53 29.11.2016(updated 16:57 29.11.2016)

John Wight110260Fidel Castro’s death, at 90, has sparked a fierce debate in the West over his legacy. I specifically mention the West as elsewhere there is no debate: Castro is lauded as one of history’s great emancipators, a man who led a revolution that succeeded in throwing off the yoke of US imperialism. But in the West the liberal commentariat has united as one in denouncing Castro as an evil tyrant and torturer who ruled Cuba for over five decades with an iron fist, quashing the human rights of the Cuban people, who in the wake of his death can now look forward to the future safe in the knowledge that freedom and democracy beckons. When we talk about Castro’s critics, it is worth pointing out that we are talking here people who live in societies where poverty has been unofficially criminalized and the poor demonized, despised, and abandoned to a fate of destitution and despair. We are talking, in the main, the kind of men and women who walk or drive past the ever-growing army of homeless who colonize the streets of towns and cities throughout the West, casualties of a neoliberal economic system that is the real tyrant in our world, without batting an eyelid. In other words, we are talking people whose condemnation of Fidel Castro is suffused with hypocrisy, the kind that is common among those who have imbibed the received truths of empire. The most fundamental of those truths is that the West has been divinely ordained with the task of colonizing a Third World — culturally, economically, and geopolitically — that consists of peoples of lower cultures, civilizations and human worth. The metric by which Castro’s legacy should be judged is the transformation of Cuba as a result of the revolution he led and inspired. And in this regard one salient fact shines forth more than any other — namely that the only place in the world where you will find homeless Cuban children today is Miami. Let us take a moment to examine in detail the legacy of the “tyrant” Fidel Castro: Cuba is today the only country in the Americas where child malnourishment does not exit (UNICEF). Cuba has the lowest child mortality rate in the Americas (UNICEF). 130,000 students have graduated from medical school in Cuba since 1961 Cuba has eliminated homelessness (Knoema) 54% of Cuba’s national budget is used for social services. Cuba has the best education system in Latin America Cuba has sent hundreds of doctors and nurses on medical missions across the Third World Cuba was the first country to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV (World Health Organization) If only the Haitian people or the people of the Dominican Republic had such a tyrant ruling their countries. If only the poor in the US and UK had such a tyrant at the head of their respective governments. When it comes to the accusation that homosexuals were persecuted in Cuba after the revolution, there is no doubt that LGBT rights were non-existent in Cuba in the sixties and for most of the seventies, just as they were non existent throughout much of the world. Homosexuality, for example, was decriminalized in Cuba in 1979, which compares favorably to Scotland and Northern Ireland in the UK, where it was decriminalized in 1980 and 1982 respectively. Moreover, same-sex sexual activity was only made legal across the entire United States in 2003. It is also worth bearing in mind that homosexuality today is criminalized in Saudi Arabia — a close UK and US ally and a society in which women are treated as chattel and people are routinely beheaded — where it is punishable by death. The fact is that the existence of homophobia in Cuba predated Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution by around five centuries. It was entrenched as part of the cultural values of Cuban society, indeed the cultural values throughout the Americas, courtesy of the Catholic Church. Fidel Castro was a product of those values and to his credit later renounced them, awakening to the justice of LGBT rights. Today his own niece, Mariela Castro, plays an active role in the Cuban LGBT community, leading the country’s annual gay pride parade in Havana last year. As for torture, meanwhile, the only place on the island of Cuba where this can be found is at the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The key point to be borne in mind when it comes to Cuba and its state of development is that countries and societies do not exist on blank sheets of paper. In the Third World their development cannot be divorced from a real life struggle against the huge obstacles placed in their way by histories of colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism, responsible for retarding their progress in service to the exploitation of their human and natural resources. The legitimacy of the Cuban Revolution lies in its survival in the face of the aforementioned US blockade, designed to starve the country to its knees for daring to refuse to be slaves of global capital. To understand what that would look like all we need do is cast our eyes over to the aforementioned Haiti or Dominican Republic, countries of comparable size located in the same region. Compared to them Cuba stands as a beacon of dignity, social and economic justice, and sustainable development. Is Castro’s Death the Death of US and Cuba Normalization? The lack of political rights in Cuba throughout Castro’s lifetime is directly attributable to the US embargo and threat of invasion and subversion by the most destructive superpower the world has ever known, whose record in destroying Third World countries is inarguable. Numerous acts of US-sponsored terrorism have been committed against Cuba and the Cuban people over the years, yet the lack of invective being directed at Washington stands in contrast to the amount unleashed against Castro and his legacy. Funny that. Fidel Castro was no dictator. On the contrary, he dedicated his life to resisting Washington’s dictatorship of the Third World. As a result of the Cuban Revolution the right to be homeless, illiterate, and to go without healthcare no longer exists in Cuba. In their place have come the most fundamental human rights of all — the right to be educated, to healthcare that is free at the point of need, and the right to live with dignity and pride in being the citizen of a small island that has stood over decades as a beacon of justice in an ocean of injustice. This, in truth, is the reason ‘they’ despise him. And this, in truth, is why millions of Cubans will come out and pay tribute to his life and legacy on the day of his funeral. For them he will forever be ‘El Comandante’. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

http://houstoncommunistparty.com/fidel-castros-legacy-and-the-hypocrisy-of-his-detractors/

the only place in the world where you will find homeless Cuban children today is Miami.

That says it all.

You know, he doesn't seem to understand it, but our tinparrot posted a "rebuttal" to your post that actually reinforced your post. When the proletarians take over a state government and its apparatus they take over the authority and the bureaucracy in order to exert control over other the enemy class. It makes no difference that the takeover was voted on democratically - that's what the Party of the Working Class does, decide what is to be done. Again, BP, great post.

LOL..the Paris Commune revolutionaries had no "party" - as you use the term in reference to vandguardist autocrats and in defense of Stalin, Lenin, and the Bolsheviks (as "representatives of the working class") confused grasshopper - to take over the state apparatus. Now you can argue the point that they should have had one... but that is not MY point. My point is no vanguard party is needed for a working class revolution to take place nor is it needed to defend a working class revolution. The "dictatorship" of the working class is a far different beast than the dictatorship of an autocratic vanguard running the show with ZERO input from the working class or the "peasants" in the trenches.

"I never had much faith in leaders. I am willing to be charged with almost anything, rather than to be charged with being a leader. I am suspicious of leaders, and especially of the intellectual variety. Give me the rank and file every day in the week. I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out."

--Eugene Debs

Perhaps you put yourself on a mantle above the "idiot and uneducated workers who you must mold" Dhalgren ? You imagine yourself part of an elitist intellectual vanguard that will lead the charge ? An autocrat is necessary to "defend the revolution" perpetually I'm sure from your perch of "advanced class consciousness" ... because "them dumb motherfucking workers ain't up to the task and need to be led by some fucked up vanguard until they become perfected socialist specimens isn't that right Dhalgren ? You ought to build a fucking alter and offer up perpetual prayer to the gods of Lenin, Stalin, and autocratic rule because it sounds more like a fucking religion every day than it does left wing working class politics. Fuck the capitalist bosses and fuck the "socialist" bosses and fuck any house slave who buys into autocratic rule.

Fidel Castro’s Legacy and the Hypocrisy of His Detractors
worker | November 29, 2016 | 8:22 am | Fidel Castro
16:53 29.11.2016(updated 16:57 29.11.2016)

John Wight110260Fidel Castro’s death, at 90, has sparked a fierce debate in the West over his legacy. I specifically mention the West as elsewhere there is no debate: Castro is lauded as one of history’s great emancipators, a man who led a revolution that succeeded in throwing off the yoke of US imperialism. But in the West the liberal commentariat has united as one in denouncing Castro as an evil tyrant and torturer who ruled Cuba for over five decades with an iron fist, quashing the human rights of the Cuban people, who in the wake of his death can now look forward to the future safe in the knowledge that freedom and democracy beckons. When we talk about Castro’s critics, it is worth pointing out that we are talking here people who live in societies where poverty has been unofficially criminalized and the poor demonized, despised, and abandoned to a fate of destitution and despair. We are talking, in the main, the kind of men and women who walk or drive past the ever-growing army of homeless who colonize the streets of towns and cities throughout the West, casualties of a neoliberal economic system that is the real tyrant in our world, without batting an eyelid. In other words, we are talking people whose condemnation of Fidel Castro is suffused with hypocrisy, the kind that is common among those who have imbibed the received truths of empire. The most fundamental of those truths is that the West has been divinely ordained with the task of colonizing a Third World — culturally, economically, and geopolitically — that consists of peoples of lower cultures, civilizations and human worth. The metric by which Castro’s legacy should be judged is the transformation of Cuba as a result of the revolution he led and inspired. And in this regard one salient fact shines forth more than any other — namely that the only place in the world where you will find homeless Cuban children today is Miami. Let us take a moment to examine in detail the legacy of the “tyrant” Fidel Castro: Cuba is today the only country in the Americas where child malnourishment does not exit (UNICEF). Cuba has the lowest child mortality rate in the Americas (UNICEF). 130,000 students have graduated from medical school in Cuba since 1961 Cuba has eliminated homelessness (Knoema) 54% of Cuba’s national budget is used for social services. Cuba has the best education system in Latin America Cuba has sent hundreds of doctors and nurses on medical missions across the Third World Cuba was the first country to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV (World Health Organization) If only the Haitian people or the people of the Dominican Republic had such a tyrant ruling their countries. If only the poor in the US and UK had such a tyrant at the head of their respective governments. When it comes to the accusation that homosexuals were persecuted in Cuba after the revolution, there is no doubt that LGBT rights were non-existent in Cuba in the sixties and for most of the seventies, just as they were non existent throughout much of the world. Homosexuality, for example, was decriminalized in Cuba in 1979, which compares favorably to Scotland and Northern Ireland in the UK, where it was decriminalized in 1980 and 1982 respectively. Moreover, same-sex sexual activity was only made legal across the entire United States in 2003. It is also worth bearing in mind that homosexuality today is criminalized in Saudi Arabia — a close UK and US ally and a society in which women are treated as chattel and people are routinely beheaded — where it is punishable by death. The fact is that the existence of homophobia in Cuba predated Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution by around five centuries. It was entrenched as part of the cultural values of Cuban society, indeed the cultural values throughout the Americas, courtesy of the Catholic Church. Fidel Castro was a product of those values and to his credit later renounced them, awakening to the justice of LGBT rights. Today his own niece, Mariela Castro, plays an active role in the Cuban LGBT community, leading the country’s annual gay pride parade in Havana last year. As for torture, meanwhile, the only place on the island of Cuba where this can be found is at the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The key point to be borne in mind when it comes to Cuba and its state of development is that countries and societies do not exist on blank sheets of paper. In the Third World their development cannot be divorced from a real life struggle against the huge obstacles placed in their way by histories of colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism, responsible for retarding their progress in service to the exploitation of their human and natural resources. The legitimacy of the Cuban Revolution lies in its survival in the face of the aforementioned US blockade, designed to starve the country to its knees for daring to refuse to be slaves of global capital. To understand what that would look like all we need do is cast our eyes over to the aforementioned Haiti or Dominican Republic, countries of comparable size located in the same region. Compared to them Cuba stands as a beacon of dignity, social and economic justice, and sustainable development. Is Castro’s Death the Death of US and Cuba Normalization? The lack of political rights in Cuba throughout Castro’s lifetime is directly attributable to the US embargo and threat of invasion and subversion by the most destructive superpower the world has ever known, whose record in destroying Third World countries is inarguable. Numerous acts of US-sponsored terrorism have been committed against Cuba and the Cuban people over the years, yet the lack of invective being directed at Washington stands in contrast to the amount unleashed against Castro and his legacy. Funny that. Fidel Castro was no dictator. On the contrary, he dedicated his life to resisting Washington’s dictatorship of the Third World. As a result of the Cuban Revolution the right to be homeless, illiterate, and to go without healthcare no longer exists in Cuba. In their place have come the most fundamental human rights of all — the right to be educated, to healthcare that is free at the point of need, and the right to live with dignity and pride in being the citizen of a small island that has stood over decades as a beacon of justice in an ocean of injustice. This, in truth, is the reason ‘they’ despise him. And this, in truth, is why millions of Cubans will come out and pay tribute to his life and legacy on the day of his funeral. For them he will forever be ‘El Comandante’. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

http://houstoncommunistparty.com/fidel-castros-legacy-and-the-hypocrisy-of-his-detractors/

In truth...a lot of liberals take a shine to Castro and always have. They love the idea of a top town controlled welfare state of distributed crumbs masquerading as working class power... rather than the workers and "peasants" actually controlling their own destiny at every point of production and distribution of resources and the means of life.

That says it all.

Yep

In truth...a lot of liberals take a shine to Castro and always have.

Not the liberals I know and confront. Not the liberals on the interwebs I have been noticing over the last few days.

The liberal narrative I have been hearing has mostly to do with the possibilities of tourism to Cuba now that Fidel has passed and the "hope" for (liberal) democracy in Cuba.

In truth...a lot of liberals take a shine to Castro and always have. They love the idea of a top town controlled welfare state of distributed crumbs masquerading as working class power... rather than the workers and "peasants" actually controlling their own destiny at every point of production and distribution of resources and the means of life.

Well then, I suppose that the hundreds of thousands thronging the streets in Cuba are dupes at best...you really got a lot of gall. You gonna tell me about the billions that Fidel stole from the Cuban people too?

Do you understand that your accusations against real, existing socialism are the same that capitalists make?

Or that your unicorns & rainbows ideas about politics have never accomplished squat, are born of petty booj idealism, while communism has has provided a better life for hundreds of million?

What I'd like to know is, as you claim to have followed this site for years and presumably know what our opinions are, why are you trolling this place?

Edit: 3 million Cubans, about 25% of the population, and that's just today.

Do you understand that your accusations against real, existing socialism are the same that capitalists make?

His disdain for theory has him trapped viewing socialist organization through the lens of capitalist logic.

ahem...

CH. 14) WORKERS’ DEMOCRACY IN CUBA
DAVID FELDMAN MAY 29, 2008 2084

http://liberationschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/4b1.jpg
Celebration of the 50th anniversary of the launch of the Cuban revolution, the attack on the Moncada Barracks, Santiago de Cuba, July 26, 2003 Photo: Gloria La Riva

In the United States, politicians of all stripes, along with the big-business media, routinely portray Cuba as an oppressive dictatorship. Cuban leader Fidel Castro is said to decide everything in society, supported by a police state where free political expression and participation amongst the Cuban working class is brutally repressed.

Of course, like so many of the stories aired by the mouthpieces of capitalism, it is a lie. But it is a lie with a very clear purpose.

By promoting this lie about Cuba’s socialist system, the U.S. ruling class perpetuates a pretext for the 50-year blockade and aggression against the island country. It also aims to discredit socialism as an ideology—and at the same time cover up the inherent flaws in the U.S. political system. The objective is to demoralize the U.S. working class with the idea that there is no alternative to capitalism, and that the rule of corporations and the few individuals who own them is the normal order of society.

Despite the persistent propaganda against Cuba over the past five decades, the Cuban Revolution remains an example of working-class democracy. This fact lies at the root of U.S. government opposition to Cuba: The Cuban Revolution represents genuine workers’ democracy and the true rule of the majority.

A history of phony elections

Since the U.S. government promotes schemes like the 1992 “Cuban Democracy Act,” it is worth reviewing the kind of “democracy” the imperialists might have in mind for Cuba.

After the U.S. government declared war on Spain and frustrated the Cuban people’s independence struggle in 1898, Washington dominated Cuban politics for the next 60 years.

The U.S. military occupied Cuba from 1898 until 1902. The 1901 Platt Amendment, which rendered the Caribbean island a neo-colony, gave the U.S. government the right to intervene militarily in Cuban affairs at any time.

Before U.S. troops left, Washington left behind a “democratic” political system that would ensure that the masses of Cuba would have no say in their country’s affairs. Voting was restricted to Cubans who met one of three criteria: the ability to read and write, real or personal property worth $250, or honorable service in the Liberation Army. Women were not permitted to vote. These restrictions ended up excluding two-thirds of all men as well. The restrictions on suffrage reduced the number of potential voters to 105,000—only 5 percent of the Cuban population.

When those restrictions were not enough to stifle any independent direction, other measures were employed. Such was the case with Ramón Grau San Martín, who assumed office in 1933 after a revolutionary struggle overthrew the dictatorship of Gerardo Machado. Through the political influence of his interior minister, anti-imperialist fighter Antonio Guiteras, the Grau government passed labor laws limiting the workday to eight hours and required 50 percent of all employees in Cuban industry and commerce to be Cubans. He declared a land reform at a time when 60 percent of Cuba’s sugar industry was U.S.-owned. Women were granted the right to vote.

The new government lasted only 100 days before U.S. maneuvering spelled its doom. U.S. ambassador Sumner Welles requested military intervention, and U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt ordered warships to Cuba, putting the U.S. Marines on alert. Elements in the Cuban military led by U.S.-backed army Chief of Staff Fulgencio Batista forced Grau to step down.

For the next 25 years, various men served as president, but the real power was Batista—and behind him, U.S. imperialism. Batista’s regime was brutal and corrupt.

Workers’ democracy

When Batista and his band of torturers fled Cuba on Jan. 1, 1959, the old capitalist state was dismantled and a new state was built that empowered Cuba’s workers and peasants. Long before the new government structure—popularly known as “people’s power”—was formalized in 1976, workers’ democracy was exercised on a daily basis.

The social process that unfolded in the decades after the 1959 revolution touched every aspect of life for Cubans of all social classes. For the first time in their history, Cuban workers and peasants had the right to a job, food, health care and education. These rights were not just on paper—they were the real foundation for the new social system. The reign of U.S. capital in Cuba was over; a state to defend the interests of the Cuban working people was born.

On April 16, 1961, in his speech announcing the socialist character of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro said:

What we have, obviously, is not the democracy of the exploiters. Do the exploiters have rights in Cuba? No [Shouts of “no.”] Do the foreign monopolies have rights in Cuba? No! [Shouts of “no.”] And the estate owners? [Shouts of “no.”] No, and do they have a right to govern the country? [Shouts of “no.”] Do they have a right to make the laws of the republic? [Shouts of “no.”] … Now we are speaking of another democracy, the democracy of the people, of the workers, of the peasants, of the humble men and women [applause], the democracy of the majority of the nation, of those who were exploited, of those who had no rights in the past. And this is the true democracy, the revolutionary democracy of the people, the democracy of the humble, by the humble and for the humble [applause].1

This is the setting for Cuba’s democratic system today. Unlike bourgeois democracy as it is practiced in the capitalist countries, Cuban democracy is not designed to maintain the rule of the few over the many. On the contrary, it is designed to allow the Cuban people not only to make decisions in a participative way, but to carry out these decisions and defend their social gains collectively.

Cuba’s political system

Cuban democracy has many aspects that go far beyond elections. Cubans participate in mass organizations that make and carry out policy. They take part in neighborhood planning. Major national decisions and debates are carried out in every workplace and neighborhood.

Elections are but one part of this multi-faceted system. In the October 2007 elections for the National and Municipal Assemblies of People’s Power, 95 percent of all Cubans took part in the voting—compared to the less than 50 percent who take part in U.S. presidential elections. As laid out in the 1976 Constitution, after two years of residence on the island, all persons 16 and older have the right to vote.

Candidates to the Municipal Assembly are nominated in public by neighborhood committees, student unions, farmers’ organizations and trade unions. Over 15,000 candidates are elected to make up 169 Municipal Assemblies of People’s Power.

At the local level, voters can nominate two to eight candidates at public meetings. They are elected if they receive 50 percent of the votes of all the people registered to vote in their district. Delegates are elected directly by the voters.

No candidates receive financial benefit from their positions. The candidates spend no money to promote their campaigns. A simple one-page biography is available for voters to inform them on the backgrounds of the candidates. Voters have access to candidates to discuss any issues they please.

The Municipal Assembly decides which candidates will become deputies to the National Assembly of People’s Power and which will become delegates to the Provincial Assembly.

Up to half the members of the National Assembly can be delegates elected at the municipal level. The other half consists of representatives of labor, farmers’, women’s and student organizations. All candidates at the national and provincial level are elected by direct, secret, voluntary vote.

The National Assembly can amend the constitution and create plans regarding the economy and foreign affairs. A series of special commissions reports to the National Assembly on issues like transportation, food production, construction, health and defense. The National Assembly also chooses the Council of State, the president, vice-president, members of the Supreme Court and the attorney general.

Women make up 43 percent of the National Assembly, ranking Cuba third in the world in female participation in government.

Members from all professions and sectors of Cuban society are represented in the National Assembly. Even though members of the Cuban Communist Party make up a majority of the National Assembly, membership in the party is not required. One-third of all members of the assembly are not members of the CCP.

The 1994 workers’ parliaments

Constant consultation with the people on key decisions in society has been fundamental to Cuba’s democracy, especially in the most difficult and challenging time of its history, known as the “Special Period in Peacetime.” In the four years after the Soviet Union, its main trading partner, suddenly canceled all trade with Cuba in 1989, Cuba’s economic production dropped 34.5 percent. Tremendous shortages in food, fuel and all goods resulted. The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.

Per capita caloric intake fell from 2,500 calories daily to about 1,500. The U.S. government took advantage of the crisis to pass the “Torricelli Law” and other legislation that severely tightened the blockade.

In the midst of the economic crisis, Cuba revised its electoral system in 1993. The National and Provincial Assemblies would be directly elected by the people, where previously national and provincial delegates to those assemblies were selected by the Municipal Assemblies.

Even after the 1993 elections, it was decided that a full consultation with the workers and mass organizations was needed as the country struggled to survive the economic crisis of the “Special Period.” It was clear to the revolution’s leadership that, in the face of such tremendous sacrifice on the part of the whole population, the people should have the fullest input on the economic proposals. These harsh measures, which included foreign joint ventures, self-employment and an end to factory subsidies, would mean layoffs. Farmers’ markets with unrestricted pricing would mean price hikes for basic food goods. The objective of these measures was to stimulate production through foreign investments, and to encourage individual incentive because the state could no longer provide full employment.

The newly elected National Assembly suspended its session to bring the proposed economic changes to the people.

In this unprecedented process, called “workers’ parliaments,” more than 80,000 workplace and mass-organization meetings were held between January and March 1994 involving 3,000,000 workers. They discussed at length every aspect of the proposals.

By the end of 2004, the Cuban economy had recovered to the point that the “Special Period” was deemed over. The government implemented a process to carefully roll back the emergency economic reforms. In particular, economic improvement has allowed for a re-prioritization of socialist economic planning. The combination of revolutionary leadership and real democracy guided the Cuban economy through an intense crisis. Now the Cuban people could focus on the socialist principle of economic equality.

Transition amid threats

Conference of students and union leaders to oppose the Free Trade of the Americas Act, Havana, Cuba, January 26, 2004 Photo: Niurka Barroso
Conference of students and union leaders to oppose the Free Trade of the Americas Act, Havana, Cuba, January 26, 2004
Photo: Niurka Barroso
Cuba’s revered leader, Fidel Castro, retired from his government positions in February 2008. Fidel’s brother, Raul Castro, was elected president on Feb. 24 by the National Assembly. Raul, who was also a commander in the July 26 Movement, has tremendous revolutionary credentials with the Cuban people.

Clearly, the Cuban Communist Party is preparing for a significant transition of power to the generation that grew up in post-revolution Cuba. They are doing so despite growing aggression from U.S. imperialism, which is trying to create a situation of chaos in order to overturn Cuban socialism.

In May 2004, before Fidel’s illness, the U.S. State Department laid out a detailed blueprint for what it envisions as a “free Cuba.” The 485-page document, a report from the so-called “Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba,” also spelled out a number of measures meant to tighten the economic blockade of the island. Many of those measures, like tightened restrictions on travel and remittances and increased radio and television propaganda, have been in place over the last four years.

The commission report, followed up with a second report in 2006, spells out a plan to increase pressure for a counterrevolution in Cuba along with U.S. government plans for setting up a new government in the wake of a counterrevolution.

If the pre-revolution history of U.S. influence in Cuba is any gauge, a restored capitalist “democracy”—enforced by bayonets and tanks—would destroy everything the Cuban people have fought for. It would resemble the “democracy” of today’s Iraq.

The Cuban people are preparing to defend against a U.S.-backed effort to overturn their revolution.

http://liberationschool.org/ch-14-workers-democracy-in-cuba/

bolding added.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cyc2FnaWEAA37_F.jpg

with these two last post, I think our little "asset" is done.

His disdain for theory has him trapped viewing socialist organization through the lens of capitalist logic.

Theory and history.

Admittedly, coulda been me 10 years ago, sans the spittle(mostly), but I had a great teacher & comrades.

with these two last post, I think our little "asset" is done.

Clarify?

Theory and history.

Admittedly, coulda been me 10 years ago, sans the spittle(mostly), but I had a great teacher & comrades.

And you were willing and eager to learn. If you won't learn, you have nowhere to go.

Theory and history.

Admittedly, coulda been me 10 years ago, sans the spittle(mostly), but I had a great teacher & comrades.

Folks should keep that in mind here.

As for Fidel Castro I state the obvious- he was a great man. I'm not a believer in "the great man" and not sure if I have openly said this about someone of such historical significance. But here I believe that simple thing needs to be said and defended.

Folks should keep that in mind here.

I'm with ya. "Takes two to tango." - Freddy "Two Leftist Feet" Engles

Well then, I suppose that the hundreds of thousands thronging the streets in Cuba are dupes at best...you really got a lot of gall. You gonna tell me about the billions that Fidel stole from the Cuban people too?

Do you understand that your accusations against real, existing socialism are the same that capitalists make?

Or that your unicorns & rainbows ideas about politics have never accomplished squat, are born of petty booj idealism, while communism has has provided a better life for hundreds of million?

What I'd like to know is, as you claim to have followed this site for years and presumably know what our opinions are, why are you trolling this place?

Edit: 3 million Cubans, about 25% of the population, and that's just today.


"Existing socialism" are meaningless buzzwords of ZERO relevance when nothing resembling working class power has been realized. Your illusions are just that. Illusions bordering on delusion. You lie down with and roll in the shit of ruling class dogs you eventually wake up with ruling class fleas. That is the case with every instance of autocratic top down "existing socialism"... past and present. Fuck Batista and fuck Castro.

Your claims of trolling are laughable BP.

Let me remind you BP...

"If the term "left" has any meaning other than a purely relative one, it is as that group of political ideas, parties, movements, and organizations which believes that politics is driven less by ideas than by interests and that those interests are based on economic class. Radical republicans (Civil War variety), revolutionary democrats, social democrats (including even a sizable chunk of the British Labor Party and the German SDs of today), socialists, utopian socialists, agrarian socialists, communists, anarchists, anarco-syndicalists, and nihilists - if these do not agree on anything else, they agree on the centrality of social classes even before they divide on what to do about them."

--Anaxarchos


You're more than welcome to close off your site to the Marxist/Leninist strain only but it ain't gonna due you any good to close yourselves off from criticism of your failures. Marx and Engels are fine agitation tools for the working class in understanding the oppressive relationship between labor and the bosses under capitalist social relations. Humping Stalin, Lenin, Castro ect... and top down state "socialism" under autocratic rule is a dead-end of proportions that can never be understated. Sooner or later you're gonna have to admit to yourself that something is wrong with your methods and message (of top down autocratic rule) when it is utterly rejected by the near entirety of the working class around the globe. Beating a dead horse indeed. There are other paths to working class power and emancipation after a social revolution than the path of Lenin/Stalin/Castro ect (which was in ZERO way representative of working class power) that you imagine the only one possible. That is all this is about.

ahem...

CH. 14) WORKERS’ DEMOCRACY IN CUBA
DAVID FELDMAN MAY 29, 2008 2084

http://liberationschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/4b1.jpg
Celebration of the 50th anniversary of the launch of the Cuban revolution, the attack on the Moncada Barracks, Santiago de Cuba, July 26, 2003 Photo: Gloria La Riva

In the United States, politicians of all stripes, along with the big-business media, routinely portray Cuba as an oppressive dictatorship. Cuban leader Fidel Castro is said to decide everything in society, supported by a police state where free political expression and participation amongst the Cuban working class is brutally repressed.

Of course, like so many of the stories aired by the mouthpieces of capitalism, it is a lie. But it is a lie with a very clear purpose.

By promoting this lie about Cuba’s socialist system, the U.S. ruling class perpetuates a pretext for the 50-year blockade and aggression against the island country. It also aims to discredit socialism as an ideology—and at the same time cover up the inherent flaws in the U.S. political system. The objective is to demoralize the U.S. working class with the idea that there is no alternative to capitalism, and that the rule of corporations and the few individuals who own them is the normal order of society.

Despite the persistent propaganda against Cuba over the past five decades, the Cuban Revolution remains an example of working-class democracy. This fact lies at the root of U.S. government opposition to Cuba: The Cuban Revolution represents genuine workers’ democracy and the true rule of the majority.

A history of phony elections

Since the U.S. government promotes schemes like the 1992 “Cuban Democracy Act,” it is worth reviewing the kind of “democracy” the imperialists might have in mind for Cuba.

After the U.S. government declared war on Spain and frustrated the Cuban people’s independence struggle in 1898, Washington dominated Cuban politics for the next 60 years.

The U.S. military occupied Cuba from 1898 until 1902. The 1901 Platt Amendment, which rendered the Caribbean island a neo-colony, gave the U.S. government the right to intervene militarily in Cuban affairs at any time.

Before U.S. troops left, Washington left behind a “democratic” political system that would ensure that the masses of Cuba would have no say in their country’s affairs. Voting was restricted to Cubans who met one of three criteria: the ability to read and write, real or personal property worth $250, or honorable service in the Liberation Army. Women were not permitted to vote. These restrictions ended up excluding two-thirds of all men as well. The restrictions on suffrage reduced the number of potential voters to 105,000—only 5 percent of the Cuban population.

When those restrictions were not enough to stifle any independent direction, other measures were employed. Such was the case with Ramón Grau San Martín, who assumed office in 1933 after a revolutionary struggle overthrew the dictatorship of Gerardo Machado. Through the political influence of his interior minister, anti-imperialist fighter Antonio Guiteras, the Grau government passed labor laws limiting the workday to eight hours and required 50 percent of all employees in Cuban industry and commerce to be Cubans. He declared a land reform at a time when 60 percent of Cuba’s sugar industry was U.S.-owned. Women were granted the right to vote.

The new government lasted only 100 days before U.S. maneuvering spelled its doom. U.S. ambassador Sumner Welles requested military intervention, and U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt ordered warships to Cuba, putting the U.S. Marines on alert. Elements in the Cuban military led by U.S.-backed army Chief of Staff Fulgencio Batista forced Grau to step down.

For the next 25 years, various men served as president, but the real power was Batista—and behind him, U.S. imperialism. Batista’s regime was brutal and corrupt.

Workers’ democracy

When Batista and his band of torturers fled Cuba on Jan. 1, 1959, the old capitalist state was dismantled and a new state was built that empowered Cuba’s workers and peasants. Long before the new government structure—popularly known as “people’s power”—was formalized in 1976, workers’ democracy was exercised on a daily basis.

The social process that unfolded in the decades after the 1959 revolution touched every aspect of life for Cubans of all social classes. For the first time in their history, Cuban workers and peasants had the right to a job, food, health care and education. These rights were not just on paper—they were the real foundation for the new social system. The reign of U.S. capital in Cuba was over; a state to defend the interests of the Cuban working people was born.

On April 16, 1961, in his speech announcing the socialist character of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro said:

What we have, obviously, is not the democracy of the exploiters. Do the exploiters have rights in Cuba? No [Shouts of “no.”] Do the foreign monopolies have rights in Cuba? No! [Shouts of “no.”] And the estate owners? [Shouts of “no.”] No, and do they have a right to govern the country? [Shouts of “no.”] Do they have a right to make the laws of the republic? [Shouts of “no.”] … Now we are speaking of another democracy, the democracy of the people, of the workers, of the peasants, of the humble men and women [applause], the democracy of the majority of the nation, of those who were exploited, of those who had no rights in the past. And this is the true democracy, the revolutionary democracy of the people, the democracy of the humble, by the humble and for the humble [applause].1

This is the setting for Cuba’s democratic system today. Unlike bourgeois democracy as it is practiced in the capitalist countries, Cuban democracy is not designed to maintain the rule of the few over the many. On the contrary, it is designed to allow the Cuban people not only to make decisions in a participative way, but to carry out these decisions and defend their social gains collectively.

Cuba’s political system

Cuban democracy has many aspects that go far beyond elections. Cubans participate in mass organizations that make and carry out policy. They take part in neighborhood planning. Major national decisions and debates are carried out in every workplace and neighborhood.

Elections are but one part of this multi-faceted system. In the October 2007 elections for the National and Municipal Assemblies of People’s Power, 95 percent of all Cubans took part in the voting—compared to the less than 50 percent who take part in U.S. presidential elections. As laid out in the 1976 Constitution, after two years of residence on the island, all persons 16 and older have the right to vote.

Candidates to the Municipal Assembly are nominated in public by neighborhood committees, student unions, farmers’ organizations and trade unions. Over 15,000 candidates are elected to make up 169 Municipal Assemblies of People’s Power.

At the local level, voters can nominate two to eight candidates at public meetings. They are elected if they receive 50 percent of the votes of all the people registered to vote in their district. Delegates are elected directly by the voters.

No candidates receive financial benefit from their positions. The candidates spend no money to promote their campaigns. A simple one-page biography is available for voters to inform them on the backgrounds of the candidates. Voters have access to candidates to discuss any issues they please.

The Municipal Assembly decides which candidates will become deputies to the National Assembly of People’s Power and which will become delegates to the Provincial Assembly.

Up to half the members of the National Assembly can be delegates elected at the municipal level. The other half consists of representatives of labor, farmers’, women’s and student organizations. All candidates at the national and provincial level are elected by direct, secret, voluntary vote.

The National Assembly can amend the constitution and create plans regarding the economy and foreign affairs. A series of special commissions reports to the National Assembly on issues like transportation, food production, construction, health and defense. The National Assembly also chooses the Council of State, the president, vice-president, members of the Supreme Court and the attorney general.

Women make up 43 percent of the National Assembly, ranking Cuba third in the world in female participation in government.

Members from all professions and sectors of Cuban society are represented in the National Assembly. Even though members of the Cuban Communist Party make up a majority of the National Assembly, membership in the party is not required. One-third of all members of the assembly are not members of the CCP.

The 1994 workers’ parliaments

Constant consultation with the people on key decisions in society has been fundamental to Cuba’s democracy, especially in the most difficult and challenging time of its history, known as the “Special Period in Peacetime.” In the four years after the Soviet Union, its main trading partner, suddenly canceled all trade with Cuba in 1989, Cuba’s economic production dropped 34.5 percent. Tremendous shortages in food, fuel and all goods resulted. The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.

Per capita caloric intake fell from 2,500 calories daily to about 1,500. The U.S. government took advantage of the crisis to pass the “Torricelli Law” and other legislation that severely tightened the blockade.

In the midst of the economic crisis, Cuba revised its electoral system in 1993. The National and Provincial Assemblies would be directly elected by the people, where previously national and provincial delegates to those assemblies were selected by the Municipal Assemblies.

Even after the 1993 elections, it was decided that a full consultation with the workers and mass organizations was needed as the country struggled to survive the economic crisis of the “Special Period.” It was clear to the revolution’s leadership that, in the face of such tremendous sacrifice on the part of the whole population, the people should have the fullest input on the economic proposals. These harsh measures, which included foreign joint ventures, self-employment and an end to factory subsidies, would mean layoffs. Farmers’ markets with unrestricted pricing would mean price hikes for basic food goods. The objective of these measures was to stimulate production through foreign investments, and to encourage individual incentive because the state could no longer provide full employment.

The newly elected National Assembly suspended its session to bring the proposed economic changes to the people.

In this unprecedented process, called “workers’ parliaments,” more than 80,000 workplace and mass-organization meetings were held between January and March 1994 involving 3,000,000 workers. They discussed at length every aspect of the proposals.

By the end of 2004, the Cuban economy had recovered to the point that the “Special Period” was deemed over. The government implemented a process to carefully roll back the emergency economic reforms. In particular, economic improvement has allowed for a re-prioritization of socialist economic planning. The combination of revolutionary leadership and real democracy guided the Cuban economy through an intense crisis. Now the Cuban people could focus on the socialist principle of economic equality.

Transition amid threats

Conference of students and union leaders to oppose the Free Trade of the Americas Act, Havana, Cuba, January 26, 2004 Photo: Niurka Barroso
Conference of students and union leaders to oppose the Free Trade of the Americas Act, Havana, Cuba, January 26, 2004
Photo: Niurka Barroso
Cuba’s revered leader, Fidel Castro, retired from his government positions in February 2008. Fidel’s brother, Raul Castro, was elected president on Feb. 24 by the National Assembly. Raul, who was also a commander in the July 26 Movement, has tremendous revolutionary credentials with the Cuban people.

Clearly, the Cuban Communist Party is preparing for a significant transition of power to the generation that grew up in post-revolution Cuba. They are doing so despite growing aggression from U.S. imperialism, which is trying to create a situation of chaos in order to overturn Cuban socialism.

In May 2004, before Fidel’s illness, the U.S. State Department laid out a detailed blueprint for what it envisions as a “free Cuba.” The 485-page document, a report from the so-called “Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba,” also spelled out a number of measures meant to tighten the economic blockade of the island. Many of those measures, like tightened restrictions on travel and remittances and increased radio and television propaganda, have been in place over the last four years.

The commission report, followed up with a second report in 2006, spells out a plan to increase pressure for a counterrevolution in Cuba along with U.S. government plans for setting up a new government in the wake of a counterrevolution.

If the pre-revolution history of U.S. influence in Cuba is any gauge, a restored capitalist “democracy”—enforced by bayonets and tanks—would destroy everything the Cuban people have fought for. It would resemble the “democracy” of today’s Iraq.

The Cuban people are preparing to defend against a U.S.-backed effort to overturn their revolution.

http://liberationschool.org/ch-14-workers-democracy-in-cuba/

bolding added.

Keep beating that horse BP with articles that reinforce your subjective interpretation of the facts on the ground. You're on the level of Leave Brittany Alone!!! The facts and the reality provide a mixed bag at best in which most leftists (except those blinded by their own bitter sectarianism and blind faith in the dead ideology of top down autocratic rule as the way forward for the working class) clearly understand.

His disdain for theory has him trapped viewing socialist organization through the lens of capitalist logic.

Here's some deep theory...blue collar theory...

When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run,
There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun;
Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one,
But the union makes us strong.

Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
For the union makes us strong.

Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite,
Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might?
Is there anything left to us but to organize and fight?
For the union makes us strong.

Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
For the union makes us strong.

It is we who plowed the prairies; built the cities where they trade;
Dug the mines and built the workshops, endless miles of railroad laid;
Now we stand outcast and starving midst the wonders we have made;
But the union makes us strong.

Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
For the union makes us strong.


All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.
It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.
While the union makes us strong.

Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
For the union makes us strong.


They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.
We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn
That the union makes us strong.

Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
For the union makes us strong.

In our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold,
Greater than the might of armies, multiplied a thousand-fold.
We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old.For the union makes us strong.

Folks should keep that in mind here.

As for Fidel Castro I state the obvious- he was a great man. I'm not a believer in "the great man" and not sure if I have openly said this about someone of such historical significance. But here I believe that simple thing needs to be said and defended.


A fine revolutionary no doubt. Beyond that... a useless token of blind faith for those more interested in advancing their own dead-end ideology that actual working class power. Drop the pretensions Chlams... it will free up a whole new chapter in the struggle. I know you're more of an Anarchist/eco-socialist/luddite who despises autocratic rule as the way forward.

Keep beating that horse BP with articles that reinforce your subjective interpretation of the facts on the ground. You're on the level of Leave Brittany Alone!!! The facts and the reality provide a mixed bag at best in which most leftists (except those blinded by their own bitter sectarianism and blind faith in the dead ideology of top down autocratic rule as the way forward for the working class) clearly understand.

Please do relate who these"most leftists"are that you speak of.

Again, if you are so vehemently anti-Marxist why did you come around here making nice? And what was the purpose of your snitching on Allen? Apparently it was not concern for our reputation. Given your current behavior I suspect that you were disappointed in the results of your snitchery, that we didn't get all 'authoritarian' on him. And so we must endure your incoherent blather, PlanB I guess, flailing on about 'authority' as though anyone takes your juvenilia seriously. I think you're just trolling here, which is fine for a diversion, don't let it go to your head though.But who are these leftist you speak of? They say you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.

Please do relate who these"most leftists"are that you speak of.

Again, if you are so vehemently anti-Marxist why did you come around here making nice? And what was the purpose of your snitching on Allen? Apparently it was not concern for our reputation. Given your current behavior I suspect that you were disappointed in the results of your snitchery, that we didn't get all 'authoritarian' on him. And so we must endure your incoherent blather, PlanB I guess, flailing on about 'authority' as though anyone takes your juvenilia seriously. I think you're just trolling here, which is fine for a diversion, don't let it go to your head though.But who are these leftist you speak of? They say you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.

Give him a toy drum or a tin horn and let him play as he wants - as long as he doesn't get under foot. I think ignoring him works fairly well.

They say you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.

My guess is he's typing on his iPhone while squatting with his local anarchists.

:D:D:D Kidding.

I know you're more of an Anarchist/eco-socialist/luddite who despises autocratic rule as the way forward.

Don't need you or KOBH to tell me who I am or what I stand for. I'm clear as a bell on this. There are no pretensions here. If you haven't figured that one out you've learned nothing.

My guess is he's typing on his iPhone while squatting with his local anarchists.

:D:D:D Kidding.

The Pirate most assuredly don't own no iPhones... but if the working class is gonna labor to make em... everyone should have access to one don't you think ?

The Pirate most assuredly don't own no iPhones... but if the working class is gonna labor to make em... everyone should have access to one don't you think ?

Who cares whether everyone gets one or not

Who cares whether everyone gets one or not

All this shit has gone way past stupid and a waste.

Don't need you or KOBH to tell me who I am or what I stand for. I'm clear as a bell on this. There are no pretensions here. If you haven't figured that one out you've learned nothing.


You're a fierce social critic Chlams but you ain't no Leninist/Stalinist. I consider your diversity in such matters and the fact that you're not a plus for the working class. I was paying you compliment. Take it as you wish. Since when are you an advocate for autocratic state power as the bottom line ?

And you were willing and eager to learn. If you won't learn, you have nowhere to go.

The final word on learning.... the only true way forward... Bolshevism and autocratic top down socialism !!!!

All this shit has gone way past stupid and a waste.

I was about to say that I didn't think so, but a quick Google search lead me to this quote from one bronze buccaneer.


Replacing one form of oppression with another is still oppression. The last week or so I've shed every last shred of common purpose or solidarity with anything in regards to political or revolutionary vanguardism... past, present, or future and gone back to the anarchist and syndicalist roots in which I came from. I feel liberated to have the ball and chain - of having to defend this oppressive and dictatorial vanguard crap passing as "liberation of the oppressed" - lifted from my shoulders. To paraphrase... If this is Marxism then I am not a Marxist...If this Socialism then I am not a Socialist...If this is Communism then I am not a Communist. That goes for Castro, that goes for Lenin, that goes for Stalin, that goes for North Korea or anything else claiming to be "existing socialism" that relies on top down vanguard rule. I will make no bones about this going forward.

I have made enemies of those I once considered allies already and will be labeled a "traitor to the cause" going forward. I do not care... because the bottom line of power to control our own destiny in the hands of the oppressed and exploited workers and struggling has not been realized under these top down illusions of "socialism"

In short, you were right and he's trolling. I thought he was confused but now it's clear he knows what he's doing.

Please do relate who these"most leftists"are that you speak of.

Again, if you are so vehemently anti-Marxist why did you come around here making nice? And what was the purpose of your snitching on Allen? Apparently it was not concern for our reputation. Given your current behavior I suspect that you were disappointed in the results of your snitchery, that we didn't get all 'authoritarian' on him. And so we must endure your incoherent blather, PlanB I guess, flailing on about 'authority' as though anyone takes your juvenilia seriously. I think you're just trolling here, which is fine for a diversion, don't let it go to your head though.But who are these leftist you speak of? They say you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.

Not vehemently anti-Marx at all. That is a caricature you have created that only exists in your mind. I am vehemently anti-vanguard and anti-state "socialism" under autocrat rule. Beyond that... you should certainly know of the criticisms of Castro's Cuba not being a true representative of anything resembling working class power from a dozen different strains of the anti-capitalist left. Do you homework BP.

As for "snitching" on Allen. Please BP. Do you take me for such a fucking fool and an idiot that I would believe that you and others here had no idea that Allen was posting at both places ? You were all at DU and Elm Tree when Allen was posting as Ardent15. There was never any fucking secret that Ardent15 and YoungDem were Allen over here. You know the old Lenin thing BP. The best way to control the opposition is to lead it. That can work in a dozen "mysterious ways" but I still let it fucking go as whatever. I still don't know what the fuck to make of it but I guess I'll take Allen's word for it because of this below and my own disillusionment right now with the stringent faith in Marxism/Leninism that you take as the only true path. I wouldn't quite put it in the terms Allen did but he had some points and his fucking doubts on the path were legitimate then and they are legitimate now.

http://www.thebellforum.com/showthread.php?t=9879

Allen...

I've had enough

Here’s the truth: Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same coin, the coin of materialism. There is no recognition of the transcendent-both see humans simply as pieces of meat to be molded into whichever dogma they see fit. There is no recognition of the soul.

Also, in both ideologies, there is no sense of BALANCE. Both are inevitably totalitarian. Furthermore, Communists don’t explain how the fuck the proletariat is supposed to be somehow more benevolent when they have power.

There is a fine line between having strong convictions and giving in to dogma. Communism is just one example of a failed dogma. Capitalism is another. So is being a Republican, or Democrat, or whatever the fuck “party” you choose.

With that, I’m leaving this place. I don’t have anything personal against any of you. Mike, you’ve been a great friend. The rest of you, take care.

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

I took your path BP. I bought into all of it and pissed off every other possible anti-capitalist ally on the way. No more. You're leading people into a dead-end and a black hole of which there is nothing but despair and hate for anything outside of your own fucked up ideals of the true path forward. The few of you drove everybody away that I once read here and you're still doing it. I bought your one true path shit hook, line, and sinker and for what BP ? Treat labor and human rights activists like Starry as the enemy because hey man "she's reactionary CPUSA" and "the booj enemy" because she actually gives a shit about people and doesn't want her world blown to fucking pieces while waiting for the one true vanguard to arise. In fucking reality she probably understands Lenin better than you. Lenin had no fucking problem advocating working within the bourgeois electoral arena as a means to an end. I don't know what to tell you BP. Yeah...we ain't getting anywhere without class but we can't forget about the fucking suffering in the meantime and it's real BP. I'm not a fucking robot BP that can put all that aside and no I've never been a good Marxist or a materialist. I don't think it's needed to stand with labor over capital and the working class over the owners.

See ya around

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.monasteryicons.com/images/large/inri-crucifix-205.jpg

just do us a favor and don't come back in three days

I was about to say that I didn't think so, but a quick Google search lead me to this quote from one bronze buccaneer.



In short, you were right and he's trolling. I thought he was confused but now it's clear he knows what he's doing.


The confusion belonged to you and your inquisition of trolling is a laughable exercise in your own ignorance and blind faith as a house slave of the bosses and your ideological masters...the "bronze buccaneer" always reserved the option to smash any vanguard and state to pieces that does not answer to the workers directly. There has never been any bones about that and if you read further from which you found this illuminating tidbit you would know that. The "bronze buccaneer" never claimed to be a Marxist or a materialist and has stated as such on many occasions. The difference between the "bronze buccaneer" and yourself is that the "bronze buccaneer" never threw Marxists or Communists of any stripe under the bus as you and your new found posse seem want to do to anyone who doesn't tow your vanguardist line.

See ya around

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.monasteryicons.com/images/large/inri-crucifix-205.jpg

just do us a favor and don't come back in three days


I think Chlams might have had you pegged right Kid. You ain't never done a fucking thing but talk. A master of word-salad and the intellectual navel-gaze. You thought you were a prick in discussions ? You don't measure up. Where I come from you woulda got your ass kicked a long time ago and you most assuredly wouldn't have been back for more. Get out from in front of the mirror Kid and take off the I'm with Lenin T-Shirt... it will do you a world of good. And let me say this. Go fuck yourself for the way you locked out TA here.

the way you locked out TA here.

He's not locked out afaik. There have been reports of a few problems recently but this is the first I'm hearing of it. Blindpig is our point man on trouble accessing the site..

He's not locked out afaik. There have been reports of a few problems recently but this is the first I'm hearing of it. Blindpig is our point man on trouble accessing the site..[/COLOR]

TA has not been 'locked out', no members have been denied access for years. There has been a problem with choppedliver's account which I have not been able to resolve, might be on her end, help welcomed. I'll look to see if there anything going on with TA's account.

Replacing one form of oppression with another is still oppression. The last week or so I've shed every last shred of common purpose or solidarity with anything in regards to political or revolutionary vanguardism... past, present, or future and gone back to the anarchist and syndicalist roots in which I came from. I feel liberated to have the ball and chain - of having to defend this oppressive and dictatorial vanguard crap passing as "liberation of the oppressed" - lifted from my shoulders. To paraphrase... If this is Marxism then I am not a Marxist...If this Socialism then I am not a Socialist...If this is Communism then I am not a Communist. That goes for Castro, that goes for Lenin, that goes for Stalin, that goes for North Korea or anything else claiming to be "existing socialism" that relies on top down vanguard rule. I will make no bones about this going forward.

I have made enemies of those I once considered allies already and will be labeled a "traitor to the cause" going forward. I do not care... because the bottom line of power to control our own destiny in the hands of the oppressed and exploited workers and struggling has not been realized under these top down illusions of "socialism"

Not materialism, not serious, idealist.

What works and what doesn't?

Not materialism, not serious, idealist.

What works and what doesn't?

As with most anti-materialists, anti-socialists, anti-communists it all boils down to the "personal".

No one here, as far as I know, has talked in any serious way about what a revolutionary organization in the US would look like - ain't there yet. There is a general consensus, I think, that some form of working class organization is needed. Anax used to say something along the lines of, 'you mean organizing the eight of us?' Which meant, of course, we ain't there yet. We have to hone our materialist chops, we have to attain to a better grasp of criticism and analyses, we have to be able to better understand what the fuck is actually going on, before we can even approach organization.

Right now, if you talk "organization" you wind up talking social democrats or CPUSA or some stripe of Trot or other, which is what our ferrous parrot was squawking about, whether he knew it or not (prolly did). It isn't so much that we (as in the 4 or 5 of us here) advocate for one thing or the other, it is that we oppose anything that is not evidently conducive to advancing working class power. That sticks in the craw of all of the "go along to get along" crowd. These folks think that there is actually an avenue to working power that does not involve real (historical) revolutionary struggle.

Think about this for just a moment. Without any authoritative structures (not saying what kind - doesn't seem to matter), without any working class established hierarchy, the only way capitalist power could be crushed would be if ALL the working class of ALL the world rose up at the same time and spontaneously defeated ALL the bourgeoisie of the ENTIRE world all at once. This is just stupid. This is worse than idealism, it is collusion, whether knowingly or not. For the proletariat to accept this concept (?) as viable is to defeat the proletariat at the outset. And I am beginning to think our ferrous parrot in fully conscious of this. I have no idea about what is going on with TA or anybody else. As far as I am concerned everyone is welcome here, who genuinely wants to discuss and learn about materialism and Marx and socialism and capitalism and current events/conditions - all of it. It doesn't mean that we all have to agree on anything or that if "we" are like "this" "they" won't like "us" - no one should care about that, right now. You tell the truth, you honestly explore conditions and you let the chips fall. Sorry for the sermon.

I have just one question (maybe two) that maybe some one can answer: why does anyone care about having an "authority", if that authority stems form your own class? Why is it problematic having a "supervisor" or "superior officer" if that person is of the same class and is working for the same thing as you? I honestly do not understand this.

TA has not been 'locked out', no members have been denied access for years. There has been a problem with choppedliver's account which I have not been able to resolve, might be on her end, help welcomed. I'll look to see if there anything going on with TA's account.

I assumed as much but was covering all the bases. The PMs are probably flying fast and furious unbeknownst to us..

I assumed as much but was covering all the bases. The PMs are probably flying fast and furious unbeknownst to us..

Wow, our little site sure is a bother to folks...

I assumed as much but was covering all the bases. The PMs are probably flying fast and furious unbeknownst to us..

I tried signing up under a different handle, originally. When blindpig gave me access I was receiving 404 errors; those errors didn't happen on this account. Odd. I thought that particular error was on my end, but it didn't matter what computer I used. I'm not sure if other people are having similar issues, but if they're reading and want to participate then I'd keep trying.

TA has not been 'locked out', no members have been denied access for years. There has been a problem with choppedliver's account which I have not been able to resolve, might be on her end, help welcomed. I'll look to see if there anything going on with TA's account.

Not really my business BP. I've always been an outsider here looking in as a reader. TA simply mentioned that there was power struggle here on direction a few years ago and he was locked out as administration. I didn't say he was locked out of the forum. TA has always been a staunch ally despite any differences me and him might have on tactics and ideology. He's pissed on his treatment here and I can't say as I blame him if this inquisition on which side I'm on is any indication. I will defend that cat under all circumstances. Sure, I'm a belligerent asshole but TA surely isn't despite any disagreements you all had on direction. That's about all I'm gonna say because it really is none of my damn business.

As with most anti-materialists, anti-socialists, anti-communists it all boils down to the "personal".

No one here, as far as I know, has talked in any serious way about what a revolutionary organization in the US would look like - ain't there yet. There is a general consensus, I think, that some form of working class organization is needed. Anax used to say something along the lines of, 'you mean organizing the eight of us?' Which meant, of course, we ain't there yet. We have to hone our materialist chops, we have to attain to a better grasp of criticism and analyses, we have to be able to better understand what the fuck is actually going on, before we can even approach organization.

Right now, if you talk "organization" you wind up talking social democrats or CPUSA or some stripe of Trot or other, which is what our ferrous parrot was squawking about, whether he knew it or not (prolly did). It isn't so much that we (as in the 4 or 5 of us here) advocate for one thing or the other, it is that we oppose anything that is not evidently conducive to advancing working class power. That sticks in the craw of all of the "go along to get along" crowd. These folks think that there is actually an avenue to working power that does not involve real (historical) revolutionary struggle.

Think about this for just a moment. Without any authoritative structures (not saying what kind - doesn't seem to matter), without any working class established hierarchy, the only way capitalist power could be crushed would be if ALL the working class of ALL the world rose up at the same time and spontaneously defeated ALL the bourgeoisie of the ENTIRE world all at once. This is just stupid. This is worse than idealism, it is collusion, whether knowingly or not. For the proletariat to accept this concept (?) as viable is to defeat the proletariat at the outset. And I am beginning to think our ferrous parrot in fully conscious of this. I have no idea about what is going on with TA or anybody else. As far as I am concerned everyone is welcome here, who genuinely wants to discuss and learn about materialism and Marx and socialism and capitalism and current events/conditions - all of it. It doesn't mean that we all have to agree on anything or that if "we" are like "this" "they" won't like "us" - no one should care about that, right now. You tell the truth, you honestly explore conditions and you let the chips fall. Sorry for the sermon.

I have just one question (maybe two) that maybe some one can answer: why does anyone care about having an "authority", if that authority stems form your own class? Why is it problematic having a "supervisor" or "superior officer" if that person is of the same class and is working for the same thing as you? I honestly do not understand this.

There is a gulf of difference between leadership within a working class movement and autocratic rule that stands above the movement itself with no input from the movement itself. Now...you can argue that's not the case in the above but that argument is up for serious critique and the historical realities on the ground are not in favor of your interpretation.

As with most anti-materialists, anti-socialists, anti-communists it all boils down to the "personal".

No one here, as far as I know, has talked in any serious way about what a revolutionary organization in the US would look like - ain't there yet. There is a general consensus, I think, that some form of working class organization is needed. Anax used to say something along the lines of, 'you mean organizing the eight of us?' Which meant, of course, we ain't there yet. We have to hone our materialist chops, we have to attain to a better grasp of criticism and analyses, we have to be able to better understand what the fuck is actually going on, before we can even approach organization.

Right now, if you talk "organization" you wind up talking social democrats or CPUSA or some stripe of Trot or other, which is what our ferrous parrot was squawking about, whether he knew it or not (prolly did). It isn't so much that we (as in the 4 or 5 of us here) advocate for one thing or the other, it is that we oppose anything that is not evidently conducive to advancing working class power. That sticks in the craw of all of the "go along to get along" crowd. These folks think that there is actually an avenue to working power that does not involve real (historical) revolutionary struggle.

Think about this for just a moment. Without any authoritative structures (not saying what kind - doesn't seem to matter), without any working class established hierarchy, the only way capitalist power could be crushed would be if ALL the working class of ALL the world rose up at the same time and spontaneously defeated ALL the bourgeoisie of the ENTIRE world all at once. This is just stupid. This is worse than idealism, it is collusion, whether knowingly or not. For the proletariat to accept this concept (?) as viable is to defeat the proletariat at the outset. And I am beginning to think our ferrous parrot in fully conscious of this. I have no idea about what is going on with TA or anybody else. As far as I am concerned everyone is welcome here, who genuinely wants to discuss and learn about materialism and Marx and socialism and capitalism and current events/conditions - all of it. It doesn't mean that we all have to agree on anything or that if "we" are like "this" "they" won't like "us" - no one should care about that, right now. You tell the truth, you honestly explore conditions and you let the chips fall. Sorry for the sermon.

I have just one question (maybe two) that maybe some one can answer: why does anyone care about having an "authority", if that authority stems form your own class? Why is it problematic having a "supervisor" or "superior officer" if that person is of the same class and is working for the same thing as you? I honestly do not understand this.

Was Joe Ettor and the IWW the class enemy Dhalgren ? Do you have any idea how many members of the IWW were put to the wall and exterminated by the Soviet Union "vanguard of the workers" as "counter-revolutionaries." Do you have any idea how many other strains of leftists were put to the wall and exterminated by the Soviet Union as "class traitors" and "counter-revolutionaries ?" These are the kinds of simple questions you need to ask yourself as you continue down the rabbit hole of these ridiculous rants that have very little connection to what is being said. Maybe the stench of that doesn't even enter your nostrils but I assure you it does mine.

https://iww.org/history/library/Ettor/industrial_unionism

Rising out of conditions that have long become unsupportable, that were never intended should benefit but the few, conditions that are a living outrage on the lives of the working class of the nation; Industrial Unionism, the One Big Union, of all the workers of all trades and all industries; striving energetically and with devoted enthusiasm for the one burning ideal and hope of the world's toilers Solidarity to the end of accomplishing final and complete industrial emancipation, is no longer a mere plan or scheme to foist upon the wage workers of the land.

Witness France, very recently and most successfully the efforts and triumph in England. Hear the echo and rumbling. The masters at home will soon have to deal with it much as they may dislike to or pretend and prate that the “American wage workers are too level-headed and steady to run off at a tangent like the hordes of Europe.”

It is now a living force, a movement aiming at certain immediate objects and imbued with definite and lofty principles, applying up-to-date tactics that mean ultimate success. Not seeking to live on the tradition, history and glory of a past, but is a determined and enthusiastic effort on the part of conscious workers to live and struggle for better working conditions now and never lose sight of the main object—Emancipation.

Hitherto the effort has been ignored, laughed at even by men and women that pre-tended very noisily to know the aims and hopes of labor. This element has arrogated to itself the right to program the workers' activities. But in spite of opposition, open and secret, by self-appointed guardians and enemies, the ideas and the movement is reaching a point that compels attention particularly from the enemy. It has come on the floor for discussion and all amendments offered, side-stepping done, calumny, efforts to postpone and conciliate, will neither adjourn nor abate the discussion.

It is said that our ideas are impractical. That is true. From the standpoint of old institutions, interests and their beneficiaries; the new is always impractical.

We also hear it said that our efforts are dangerous. Yes, gentle reader, our ideas, our principles and object are certainly dangerous and menacing, applied by a united working class would shake society and certainly those who are now on top sumptuously feeding upon the good things they have not produced would feel the shock.

OUR PRINCIPLES—OUR AIMS.

“The working class and the employing have nothing in common.”

That is more and more forcibly and eloquently being brought home to our class. Whatever failure the agitator may make in impressing the toilers of the conflict of interests between employers and employees, is most eloquently and convincingly impressed now as in the past, by the policemen's clubs, the whip and the mace of State troopers, militiamen's bayonets, soldiers' machine guns, jails, bull pens and scaffold, and such other “civilized weapons and methods” that capitalism needs to impress on the slaves the sanctity of property rights and “freedom to labor.”

Certainly there can be no common interests between those who own the tools, the machines, factories, mines, mills and land, with the workers who do all of the producing. One class does all the work, produces all, suffers all the hardships necessary to accomplish the task. The other class owns, but does not know, nor cares to know, how to produce wealth, yet persists by rights that it labels “legal” and otherwise to live upon what it does not produce.

“There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of working people, and the few who make up the employing class have all the good things of life.”

One class works long hours under conditions generally and necessarily established by and suitable to the masters of industry, receives low wages, so that there may be high dividends and profits for the masters. For it must be borne in mind longer hours mean greater wealth produced, low wages mean greater profits for the capitalists. Shorter hours mean less production by each worker or group of workers, therefore the expense to the masters is greater to produce a certain amount of wealth. High wages, shorter hours, better shop conditions that will protect life and limb are objected to by the capitalist for a thousand and one “reasons,” but really because it all means greater cost—thus less dividends—resulting in less palaces, less automobiles, less silk dresses for their wives and daughters.

To the working class, shorter hours means less exertion of energy, longer lives, more workers employed, less competition for jobs, higher wages, more bread, better houses, happier lives.

Members of the upper class are known for eating too much. Members of the laboring class die for want of enough to eat.

Who can be so stupid or knavish as to talk of peace between these two classes?

And yet there are some, quite a few, who do so, particularly after a feast at a Civic Federation meeting.

"Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production and abolish the wage system.”

We can just about hear a chorus of well kept and well fed ones, “All this is wrong,” “You will thus overthrow all established usages, laws, customs and institutions.”

But the conscious worker who knows what springs guide the minds and mouths of the maintained ones shout, “Hosanna! That is right! More power to you!”

“These are ideas subversive to our civilization, they strike at the very roots of things, they endanger the rights of private property upon which our Republic is based,” hints the owner of industries, the exploiter and despoiler of labor.

“Against all laws, constitution, precedents and authority, it's a conspiracy; yes, sedition, treason,” says the man in legal vesture.

“Free lovers and enemies of institutions long established and respected,” thunders the moralist who may be drawing his rents from gay houses.

“They would destroy our union and en-danger the amicable relations now existing between employers and employees,” croaks the “labor leader” of the craft union.

“For the interest of civilization, that society may be saved and in line with our duties, the place for folks holding such dangerous notions is the jail,” cry the police.

“Lynch them,” shouts the whole motley crew who benefit greatly from the present economic arrangement.

“Amen,” sanctimoniously grumbles the black-robed hypocrite who alleges to be the minister of God and a follower of the Lowly Nazarene.

And thus society is defended, saved and blessed.

This motley crew would be indeed ungrateful if they would not offer their defense and hosannas to a society that is so generous to them as to feed and clothe them with the best and yet require no labor from them.

As long as one class performs no function in production only as parasites and social sponges, is too lazy and impotent to work, but lives and riots in plenty—and our class, the wealth producers—produce all, makes all, digs all the coal; in a word, makes life worth while and brings into being by its labor and travail all that life necessitates, and yet lives in want, is paid wages which at best and highest only represents a part of the entire product; a struggle is inevitable.

Those who are serious and who respect themselves and their education will not dispute that labor with its hands and brains produces all wealth. We industrial unionists hold, and every day experiences tend eloquently to prove and convince all that our contention is correct.

In the ratio as capitalists grow stronger and more secure in their ownership of industry, more and more parasitical in production; they also grow arrogant with the feeling and satiety of power; they become tyrannical in their conduct towards the workers; just in that ratio the laboring class develops, in power by virtue of the great numbers assembled together in various industries, in consciousness by the experiences and lessons it receives in its daily struggle for more bread and greater economic rights. Its vision extends further than mere shorter hours, higher wages and matters of that nature.

It acquires class feelings, class knowledge and conceptions with a realization that, struggle as it may, gain as many victories as possible; the age-long class conflict can only come to an end when “the workers of the world organize as a class,” change society from the very basis through the medium and power of their industrial organization and keep on producing wealth, not as hitherto, only for the partial benefit of the producers, but on the principle that “Labor is the producer of all social wealth, therefore, to the producers belongs the full product of their efforts.”

Unquestionably from the standpoint of the coupon clippers and their retainers, anything the workers do that either tends to merely obtain more bread or any efforts that tend to unsaddle the masters altogether is considered wrong, ethically, legally, religiously and by every other measurement.

From the standpoint of the masters those who aid, abet and sanctify their right to plunder the workers are considered paragons of virtue and good citizenship.

A scab who works while men and women are struggling for humane conditions is hailed as a true type of “an American hero.” Those who willingly work for low wages, satisfied to work long hours under miserable conditions, never even whimper, refuse to band with their fellows in a common effort to better things, are styled “The independent American citizen who refuses to allow the pernicious doctrines of labor agitators to sway them from their patriotic duties,” etc. The judges, the procurators of the State, the police and soldiers, who shoot, club and imprison in the interest of capitalist property and social interests are hailed as the “Saviors of Society.” Those who, under the cloak of religion and alleged loyalty of the Nazarene, offer prayers to the rich and command the poor to be satisfied with their lot on earth, who apologize and offer extenuations for child labor in the mines and factories—are set up as the very pillars and columns of Order, Law and Religion.

But if history teaches right, we know this much—right and wrong are relative terms —and it all resolves into a question of Power. Cold, unsentimental Power. From the standpoint of accepted law, morals, religion, etc., the capitalists are considered right and justified in their control and ownership of industries and exploitation of labor because they have the means to hire, and have organized a gang that skulks under the name of “Law, Order and Authority,” that is well paid and well kept to interpret and execute laws in favor of the paymasters of course.

Our country has been ravaged and stolen by industrial pirates and yet, learned judges have decreed that it was “legal.” Attorneys and politicians have written lengthy briefs and argued long and eloquently, preachers have spoken wise sermons; in short, whatever the king has done, the courtiers have most humbly considered right and the guards and men-at-arms been ready to see that the slaves did not rebel against it all.

Prepared to carry out the capitalists' every will, this kept-crew is well paid, entrenched and armed, and while it hides under the silk skirts of Mesdames “Law and Order,” is as desperate and brutal a crew as ever scuttled a ship or quartered a man.

Yet with this alone Capitalism could not live.

It is the false conception and consciousness of the vast majority of the workers who hold up the hands of the master class, and in their ignorance look upon the rich as the symbols of all that is virtuous, noble and wise, while if they were conscious of the facts they would look upon private property of socially necessary things as the great social crime and the owners and upholders as so many social criminals, that makes it possible for it to live.

New conceptions of Right and Wrong must generate and permeate the workers. We must look on conduct and actions that advance the social and economic position of the working class as Right, ethically, legally, religiously, socially and by every other measurement. That conduct and those actions which aid, helps to maintain and gives comfort to the capitalist class, we must consider as Wrong by every standard.

The wage system implies the existence of two economic classes. Under it the workers suffer, it means no end of strife, therefore from the standpoint of the workers it is Wrong and it is Right to get together as a class and abolish the wage system, and in its place erect the Co-operative Common-wealth, the Rule of the Proletariat.

"We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever-growing power of the employing class.”

Because they may have some skill and look upon it as so much property, some workers in the past have organized into trade unions; that is, a union for each separate trade. This system of unionism is typified by the American Federation of Labor. It is an organization of one separate union for each trade, although trades may be employed in the same factory or industry.

It is a “unionism” that may have been good enough in its day, when learning a trade was necessary and the vast majority of the workers were required to be crafts-men. The trade unions were useful in their day, same as the ox cart was useful and most essential; yes, of utmost utility in transportation, but it had to make way for something more efficient.

With the ever greater development of machinery and concentration of industries, trade lines are erased, the workers more and more are reduced to one common level of labor and servitude.

The capitalists—not because of any spirit or feeling of Solidarity, but in the struggle among themselves for the products they steal from labor have been driven to concentrate their economic power into huge industries, and in turn the small citizen alliance has made way for the One Manufacturers' Association or Employers' Association. They have done away with the trade lines. Their associations are not composed of employers exploiting the workers of one trade, but covers the exploitation of workers of every trade in the industry. So that the “trade union” has become obsolete and now only manages to live on the recollections and bonds of age and traditions.

"The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars.”

With the pernicious system of each trade organizing and looking out for itself, signing contracts and agreements with the employers that bind the workers of a certain craft for a definite and long term of years to work certain hours under certain conditions for certain wages without taking into account and consideration the rest of the workers in the same establishment or industry, workers are divided and defeated.

Experience and history for the past few years abound with instances where workers organized into trade unions in spite of themselves, helped the employers defeat other workers, organized as well as unorganized, skilled as well as unskilled. Cases are too numerous to mention where we have witnessed one set of “union men” scab on another set of workers, also unionists, who were struggling for better conditions. Yes, we call it scabbing, union workers remained at work alongside of strikebreakers, aided, abetted and gave comfort, even to the hauling and furnishing food to scabs in strike-bound places.

We call such conduct by its proper name, hideous as it may sound, the “pure and simple” trade union “leaders” call it “non-interference” or “trade autonomy.”

"Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the workers have interests in common with their employers.”

Trade unions invariably are pledged to the program of the “co-operation of the classes” and prate of the community and identity of interests between laborers and capitalists. The leaders are always talking of the “brotherhood of capital and labor.”

Out of such dangerous teachings comes the justification and the annual feasts, the Civic Federation dinners at the Waldorf Astoria (New York City), where captains of industry, men like Andrew Carnegie, August Belmont and a host of other labor exploiters, whose opposition to the efforts and hopes of labor is well known and has been marked in historical instances, meet in jolly and sumptuous feast with Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, John Tobin of the Boot and Shoe Workers, John Golden of the United Textile Workers, and so on ad infinitum et nauseam.

They gather presumably to “discuss and help to solve the labor problems” but in fact to partake of the flesh pots they have stripped from labor, to pull the wool over the eyes of the wage workers so that the chains of wage labor may be linked ever more secure on the limbs of our class, that our hopes and ideals may be dragged in the mire and capitalists given assurance of a long day more of safe and contented slavery on the part of the wealth producers.

And now when the history and objects of the Civic Federation have become notorious and its evil practices and outrages are evoking from the many times defeated and betrayed workers curses and protests that reach to the heavens, a second edition of the Civic Federation has been organized under the name of the “Militia of Christ.” Conceived in the sacristy, born on the floor of the St. Louis, Mo. (1910) convention of the American Federation of Labor, held at baptism by preachers and labor leaders, it is a new conjure to keep the workers in a mental stupor and economic slavery.

“These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any industry or in all industries, if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an in-jury to one an injury to all.”

The Industrial Workers of the World is the “organization formed in such a way.” The I. W. W. does not organize by trades, but by industries. All the workers in any plant, factory, mine, mill or any given industry in a given locality organize in one Local Industrial Union. All the local industrial unions of a given general industry are banded together in the National Industrial Union. The National Industrial Unions are banded again stronger in the Industrial Department and then all Departments, six in all, are brought under one head, the General Administration of the I. W. W. One Big Union of all workers, welded together in such a manner that, imbued with the war cry “an injury to one is an injury to all,” all its members can act together in fighting the common enemy.

Industrial Unionists disdain to lower the history and ideals of the working class by entering into contracts or agreements with employers whereby the conditions that are generally forced by the stronger economic power are made a basis for any stated period.

The workers in order to uphold what they are able to wrest from employers must be ever alert and ready with weapons that spell Solidarity and if they wish to advance further, their union must be an army ready to move on short notice and take quick decisions, otherwise it is lost. To be able to do these things it must be free not only in limbs but mentally. Contracts and agreements tend to foist a false feeling of security on the worker and on the day of need—defeat looms up because of the false security—lack of preparations.

"Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wages for a fair day's work' we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wage system.'"

As we have stated before there is no gain-saying that Labor produces all wealth. Capitalism is based on the robbery of the workers. Those who own industries but do not work in them, pay wages to the workers and keep profits to themselves. But both, profit and wages, are only the product of Labor. Wages are part of the total product paid to labor. Profit, generally the biggest part, capitalists appropriate to themselves and call it their “legal share.”

Industrial Unionists know nothing of “legal share” nor of “reasonable profits,” as all wealth, however little, acquired with-out labor is robbery. Industrial Unionists know no bargain to life. To talk of a “fair day's work” is to talk of the pack horse with a fair load on his back; to talk of a “fair day's wage” is to talk of a reasonably filled nose bag for the horse that has done the packing.

“Fair day's work and fair day's wages” imply a question of right and wrong. How-ever, this is a class society composed and divided in robbers and robbed and each class has its own notion of right and wrong, fair and unfair. At any rate, if labor produces all wealth—what else is a fair day's work except the one the workers will legislate in their union hall stating how many hours to work and that fair payment will be the en-tire products to the producers?

Let a sordid and conservative world talk itself out of its senses and be exploited to the marrow by capitalists. Let the paraders keep on their banner the motto of the middle ages guilds “a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.”

We workers of the twentieth century will march steady with heads erect, our hearts beating in unison and resolved with our aim fixed on the new society and on our standard unfurled to the free breeze, we have in-scribed the rallying cry and glowing hope of the world's workers, “LABOR IS ENTITLED TO ALL IT PRODUCES.”

"It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for the every day struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been over-thrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.”

Such are “dangerous” notions to capitalism. The Industrial Workers of the World propagates these very ideas, it has and will continue—of this we feel sure and satisfied—to meet with the opposition of the employing class. It is to be expected. Such a course on their part but proves the correctness of our principles.

The employers well realize that once the workers begin to seriously organize as a class, with class hopes and ideals, and look out for themselves as a class, with interests distinct and opposed to all other classes, that once the spirit of solidarity takes firm hold in the hearts and minds of the workers, their (capitalists) occupation as parasites will be gone. The danger and fear of having to go to work to live is an ever recurring night-mare that occurs to them ever in their hours of great revelry and riot. They would if reduced to extremes, be willing to make any concession always with the feeling that they can successfully juggle matters so as to keep in the saddle. Therefore is accounted their readiness to look with favor to movements that do not aim at changing the economic relations between wage workers and capitalists.

Compromise for pelf and power has been the one great weapon of the capitalists even in their own day of struggle against the then economic and ruling class. It is a weapon and a means whereby they seduce the rebellious spirit of the workers. A time serving policy. They have cause to fear and dread at the rule of labor.

But you, fellow workers in labor, comrades in suffering, what have you to fear from such program?

You, the hundreds of thousands, aye the millions, who have no shops, no mines, no mills, no land, no home!

You, whose constant companion is want and poverty, whose lot is long hours of hard work for meagre pay, who have only your labor power — yourselves — to sell to a master — in the labor market that is ever crowded — as the only means of making a living.

You, a member of the working class, that produces annually an average of $2,400.00 worth of wealth and receives less than $450.00 in wages.

You workers, whose sisters, wives and mothers have been driven out of the homes into mills and factories to compete with you and bring your wages down.

You, whose children have been driven out of the playground and kidnapped from the schoolhouse and strapped to the machine in the mills and shops, that their young lives, their very laughter and joy denied, may be rolled and coined into so many dollars for the pleasure and satisfaction of a few Industrial Herods.

You, of the wage working class, of whom it was required that in one year over forty thousand workers — men, women and children — should be killed in the industries of this nation, burned to death as in the Triangle fire of New York City, their lives snuffed out in coal mine explosions and in a thousand various ways.

The blood of these workers, it seems, was needed to grease and spur the machines in the mills of our masters. Their lives sacrificed all because human beings are cheaper than the application of safety appliances which cost money and would reduce profits; and, since the great God to whom capitalists offer their prayers is PROFIT, human life is destroyed and workshops are turned into so many charnel houses.

So we ask you who, when you are no longer able to live, you ask for more pay and are forced to strike and in reply to your petitions and pleading for more bread receive bayonet thrusts, rifle shots, etc., “What have you, any of you, to lose by opposing the present economic system, banding yourselves with us in one common bond of Solidarity and devotion as industrial unionists to the end of bettering our every-day conditions in the factories, mines and mills?”

What have any of us to lose if we band together in ONE BIG UNION to the end and by it as a medium transform the present system of industrial despotism and economic inequality into one of Industrial Freedom and Equality?

We would lose our chains, our miseries, but gain the world for all the workers, a world fit for men and women to live their lives in freedom of love and labor.

Our opponents may say that this would be “expropriation,” but we will let the poet reply for us :
The Cry of Toil

We have fed you all for a thousand years,
And you hail us till unfed,
Though there's never a dollar of all your wealth
But marks the worker's dead.
We have yielded our best to give you rest,
And you lie on a crimson wool.
For if blood be the price of all your wealth,
Good God, we ha' paid it in full!

There's never a mine blown skyward now
But we're buried alive for you.
There's never a wreck drifts shoreward now
But we are its ghastly crew.
Go reckon our dead by the forges red
And the factories where we spin.
If blood be the price of your accursed wealth,
Good God, we ha' paid it in!

We have fed you all for a thousand years,
For that was our doom, you know,
From the days when you chained us in your fields
To the strike of a week ago,
You ha' eaten our lives and our babes and wives,
And we're told it's your legal share,
But if the blood be the price of your lawful wealth,
Good God, we ha' bought it fair!

Industrial Unionism bids all workers rally to its standard. To all sons and daughters of toil who yearn for a better day we appeal for Solidarity.

Let a sordid crowd of kept men and women imbued with sordid ideals oppose this new redeeming movement of labor—it is bound to succeed in spite of all opposition, whether it be that which show its hideous form in the uniform of the hired and armed Hessians with rifle in hand, or it intrigues and conjures under the cloak of Law, Authority, Order, Religion, et al., or even under the greasy smile and brass face of the "labor leader.” This is the movement of the common workers and will triumph. It has received its baptism of fire in a dozen hard-fought battles from one end of this broad land to the other. It knows no retreat, this intrepid army, heretofore fighting against great odds, that at all times tested the capacity and devotion of its members, has been ignored and made small of.

But in spite of all opposition it has not shirked a battle yet, and will keep up its determination never to stop until the oriflamme of labor shall float over a world of free work shops where freemen and women will in love and freedom produce wealth for their own benefit as Workers.

Oh, Workers! Band together.
Organize! Organize Right!
Organize your Power!
Organize for Victory!

Speed the day of labor emancipation. Industrial Freedom, Labor, Liberty, Love and Happiness for all who toil.

we oppose anything that is not evidently conducive to advancing working class power.

Actually, that is not a very big deal at the moment. For the moment, the development of class consciousness in the US admits all kinds. That changes when the organizational cohesion exists to centralize resistance around CLASS and not every loopy idea under the sun (and even then, some of those will be subordinated without being supplanted entirely).

The basis for mobilizing such organization starts at the cellular level -- reading/study groups, lone bloggers and the followers they attract, and so on. Which in no way mistakes the mobes for the workers themselves or their organization.

So for ourselves, internally, we oppose some things without prejudice. The initial dispute with SP (which sadly couldn't help but be overblown) revolved around the fact that he demands support for a hodgepodge of (low level) movements as though they constitute a PROGRAM. That is asinine and not because of a rejection of Marxism. Worse, in many cases "issues" shut down the conversation (class, Class, CLASS) before it can begin -- suffocated in the crib. And when there is no traction, one is merely spinning his/her wheels.

My contribution to a synopsis of where things are at right now

Yo Ferrous Bueller,

Your fervor is not in question but..

You know that Marx and Engels disagreed with you, and vehemently. This is true despite any proclivity to appropriate phrases and turn them 1000 ways to read in support of one's own political inclination. Even if you relegate the source to a support role (ie "Marx is good for agitation"), the familiar refrains do not go away and at some point it seems you are compelled to answer. The refrains certainly do not go away courtesy of ad hominen attacks on the dead -- particularly since those you would assassinate in their graves come quite late to the discussion (Bakunin was a contemporary of Marx, well before Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro..)

It doesn't have to be here (and that ship sailed I think) but eventually you must make reply, no?

As with most anti-materialists, anti-socialists, anti-communists it all boils down to the "personal".

No one here, as far as I know, has talked in any serious way about what a revolutionary organization in the US would look like - ain't there yet. There is a general consensus, I think, that some form of working class organization is needed. Anax used to say something along the lines of, 'you mean organizing the eight of us?' Which meant, of course, we ain't there yet. We have to hone our materialist chops, we have to attain to a better grasp of criticism and analyses, we have to be able to better understand what the fuck is actually going on, before we can even approach organization.

Right now, if you talk "organization" you wind up talking social democrats or CPUSA or some stripe of Trot or other, which is what our ferrous parrot was squawking about, whether he knew it or not (prolly did). It isn't so much that we (as in the 4 or 5 of us here) advocate for one thing or the other, it is that we oppose anything that is not evidently conducive to advancing working class power. That sticks in the craw of all of the "go along to get along" crowd. These folks think that there is actually an avenue to working power that does not involve real (historical) revolutionary struggle.

Think about this for just a moment. Without any authoritative structures (not saying what kind - doesn't seem to matter), without any working class established hierarchy, the only way capitalist power could be crushed would be if ALL the working class of ALL the world rose up at the same time and spontaneously defeated ALL the bourgeoisie of the ENTIRE world all at once. This is just stupid. This is worse than idealism, it is collusion, whether knowingly or not. For the proletariat to accept this concept (?) as viable is to defeat the proletariat at the outset. And I am beginning to think our ferrous parrot in fully conscious of this. I have no idea about what is going on with TA or anybody else. As far as I am concerned everyone is welcome here, who genuinely wants to discuss and learn about materialism and Marx and socialism and capitalism and current events/conditions - all of it. It doesn't mean that we all have to agree on anything or that if "we" are like "this" "they" won't like "us" - no one should care about that, right now. You tell the truth, you honestly explore conditions and you let the chips fall. Sorry for the sermon.

I have just one question (maybe two) that maybe some one can answer: why does anyone care about having an "authority", if that authority stems form your own class? Why is it problematic having a "supervisor" or "superior officer" if that person is of the same class and is working for the same thing as you? I honestly do not understand this.


A little something to ponder Dhalgren...because you see...there are always two sides to the story....

In the case of the Soviet Union... one side (your side) is the fable of sunshine and a wondrous Bolshevik benevolence to "the cause."

And then there is the historical reality that those that don't indulge in the fantasies of "communist" idolatry understand....


https://iww.org/history/library/iww/Chicago-Replies-to-Moscow


A gent who signs himself "Director of Library of Social Sciences of the Academy of Social Science of the U.S.S.R." has recently written a letter to the Industrial Worker.

We believe that such a gent should be taught some social science! And History is one of them.

We believe he should be taught that the present is the child of the past, and the father of the future!

We believe that this gent should be taught some of the facts of life!

And who better able to teach these things than the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD?

We give here his letter and our reply to the same. Not that we hope to teach him anything — but we do hope that the working people of America will read — and reading, remember — the truths we speak.

To—INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD, 555 West Lake St., Chicago, Ill.

From—Library of Social Sciences of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R., Moscow 19, 171 Frunze 11.

Gentlemen:

With reference to our previous correspondence interrupted on account of the present mailing and shipping conditions we would like to resume our exchange relations with your organization.

In checking over our file of your periodical "Industrial Worker," we find that we failed to receive the following numbers of it for the previous years.

[Here follows year by year from 1933, index numbers of the Industrial Worker of which they are short. The paragraph ends "1943, all numbers."]

We would be very much grateful to you if you found it possible to send us all the missing numbers and place our library on your mailing list for the current and next years to continue receiving it regularly from now on.

We are also interested in your other publications in the field of social and political problems, and particularly the contemporary labor movement and World War II.

In return we can offer you some of the publications of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., both current and periodical. Kindly let us know what subjects are of special interest to you, and we shall be glad to supply you with some of our latest publications.

Yours very truly,

(Signed) D. Ivanov, Director.

DEAR MR. IVANOV

Hanging round an Academy of Social Science, you may be aware of a platitude of science which is well known to the mujiki of America: that "what is bred in the blood comes out in the bone." We can assure you that this is a pragmatic truth, the kind of truth which your govt. professes to like.

We come from a long line of Yankee horse traders who married Xtian females. The maternal teaching was to "Return Good for Evil," while the old man used to believe: "'Tisn't much good to give things away. When a guy needs something bad make a dicker and swap with him for something you need good. That way, you keep his friendship and show a profit on your generosity."

Being the result of our breeding and upbringing, we wouldn't want to negate the truth of the American mujiki. Hence though we feel like ignoring you and your kind, it behooves us to act true to our breeding; to return the Good of the Industrial Worker for all the Evil you have done, and to try and make a dicker with you to our mutual advantage.
WE WILL SWAP

Do you, Mr. Ivanov, remember the days when the shipyard workers of the Kronstadt pulled a strike for one of the noblest and most unselfish causes in the history of the labor movement? Do you remember how these workers, comparatively well-fed themselves, noticed that Communist bigshots were living on the fat of the land while women and kids in Leningrad and Moscow were dying of starvation—even those who were eating out of the garbage cans outside of Communist party headquarters?

It was a time, you remember, when all people (even us poor suckers) believed in the professed aims of the Revolution. Believed that at long last, Liberty, EQUALITY and Fraternity had become the bedrock of the new era. These workers pulled the pin in order to draw the attention of the Commissars to their stand on social science and to the misery of women and kids of their class.

And—you can read your Lenin on this—two vile rats named Djugashvilli and Bronstein took to the Kronstadt a large army of gunmen and two lying tongues. They induced the strikers to "arbitrate the issues" and when the strikers, believing in their honor, were willing to arbitrate, the gunmen put them up against the wall and machine-gunned them.

Do you remember a period when the name of Thiers caused nausea among decent people of all kinds because he did these things in Paris after the fall of the Paris Commune? Do you know that the infamy of Thiers is buried in the minds of decent people beneath the much greater infamy of the two men who were YOUR governors at the time?

These rats are known to the world under aliases. Stalin and Trotsky they called themselves. But in our social science, rats are still rats, no matter what they call themselves.

We will trade you whole files of the Industrial Worker for the lives of the men your govt. murdered in the Kronstadt. Many of them were our boys; they had Wobbly cards and Wobbly buttons on them when they died. And even though most of the others didn't belong they were still our kind of people. Workers with hearts; with guts; with thinking, rational minds, and with a hope of the future. Can we dicker with YOU for their lives?
WE WILL TRADE

Do You, Mr. Ivanov, remember the Kuzbas Colonies? Do you know that hundreds of our boys went to Russia in the hope of helping build a "Workers Fatherland?" Do you know, that seeing Russia with her life blood pouring from the wounds of civil war; seeing the country without rail transport, without minerals, without any of the raw materials of modern industry, these boys pooled their money, bought tools, and forming themselves into co-operative groups, left the semi-civilized USA to go to the uncivilized USSR? Your govt. welcomed them, it offered them 50 % of the product of their labor; it lauded them for their sacrifice and solidarity. And then—it cheated them of food and wages; it lied about them—and finally—murdered them in cold blood!

We will trade you many a file of the Industrial Worker for their lives. But can you deliver?

Can you give us back the lives of Shatoff and Andreychine—men whose competence and services your govt. lauded so highly, but who were murdered because they foolishly believed they had the right to their own thoughts? We'd rather have some of the Jimmie Higginses you have murdered, but we'll trade for the lives of these two boys.

We will trade you many a volume of the Industrial Worker for the diaries of William D. Haywood which your govt. burned, lest the wage workers of the U.S. learn something of the truth of the tyranny then in birth, but now in full maturity in your Communist heaven. Would YOU dare send it out to us, knowing that willingly, we would print it?
WE WILL BARTER

Do you remember that the workers of Vienna put up a brave struggle against the clerical fascism of Dollfuss and the Germanic national socialism of Prince von Starhemberg? You know of course, that your govt. offered these workers a haven in your country. And you know that every last one of them were murdered by your govt., lest their independence have beneficial effect on the slavish servility of the mujiki of Moscow. You know of course, that your govt. added the last final insult by calling them "Trotskyites." Some of these were our boys, men who learned the social science of unionism in the ranks of the I.W.W. Not even the dirtiest rats of Commercial America ever defamed these boys with the last insult of "Trotskyism."

Can you give us the lives of one of these victims? Just one, and gladly we will send you the Industrial Worker. Even until the day it becomes the official organ of the Industrial Democracy of America!
MORE TRADE-BAIT

Does your social science encompass the knowledge that when the Jehovah-screaming Browder of Kansas, the ineffable Cant of London, and the cowardly Tom Mann of ignominious memory were living in luxury in the foreign city of Shanghai, uplifting the downpressed and uptrodden masses of China, (whom they knew as thirteen lackeys they hired in their mansion) the Marine Transport Workers of the I.W.W. were doing a magnificent job for democracy on the waterfront stretching from Stettin in Germany, through Hamburg, Antwerp and on to Le Havre?

Do you know that many of these 510 boys were murdered and slugged on the direct orders of your gang? A guy named Kreb, alias Jan Valtin has admitted some of his part in these murders. Don't tell us that he is a liar—we know that if he wasn't your govt. would not have hired him. Don't tell us that he is a "no-good." How could he be otherwise after mixing so long with your kind of people?

Do you know that the local Nazis regarded the red-card men of Hamburg and Stettin as their most courageous and competent enemies. And do you know that members of YOUR communist party put the finger on these red-card men so that Hitler's mob could finish off the murders your mob had begun?

Can you trade us the lives of one of these members? Name your price and we'll meet it!
DO YOU REMEMBER?

Does your library have the facts on the Revolt of the Generals in Spain in 1936? Can you read there, that after the Socialist Party of France had conceived the idea of International Brigades of wage workers to help our Spanish fellow-workers, your govt. demanded full control under threat of refusal to sell arms to the legal govt. of the country?

Can you read in your library of the deliberate campaign of lies and treachery the members of your International waged against the union men of Spain? Do you know that your mobsters insisted that the industries and transport system being operated so efficiently by the C.N.T. be turned over to "public" control—the public being the kind of political lice who would accept the bribes so freely offered in the name of Holy Russia?

Do you know that this campaign culminated in a deliberate murder by govt. troops of the wage workers of Barcelona on—of all days—MAY DAY of 1937? Your chief of military espionage, General Krevitsky, says that they only wanted to murder POUMISTS. But do you know that there were more decent union men murdered than the cretins of your bastard child of POUM??

Does your library contain the facts of the English speaking Brigade, called the XVth by the Spanish govt., but called a different name by the commies of English speaking countries (Lincoln in U.S.; MacKenzie-Papineau, Canada; Saklatvala, England). Do you know that your mob insisted on nominating the commanders of this brigade — that your gang shot three of these commanders as "fascists." Your mob named four commanders of this outfit until the Spanish govt. stepped in. If 75% of your pets are fascist as you say—why should any decent man maintain relations with you?

Do you know that we have it from your own sources that of the "military experts" sent by your govt. to Spain, EVERY ONE OF THEM WERE SHOT WHEN THEY WENT BACK TO RUSSIA. We don't blame you for that! But why didn't you shoot these experts before you sent them to Spain? Do you know how many good guys lost their lives because of these experts? And do you know that Copec (Jugo-Slav) the only XVth Brigade Commander you didn't shoot was the most cowardly, most contemptible rat ever to sneak into a soldier's uniform? Is that the reason why you saved him, after shooting Lavelle, (French), Klaus (German), and Tchevedeu (Russian)?

The I.W.W. lost many good members because of your control of the International Brigades. We lost many members and thousands of good friends to the murder lust of your LISTER—the rat whose sadism would entitle him to high rank in your ogpooeys.

Can you trade back any of these lives?
OR TRY THIS

Your armies invaded Hungary and Poland, They have shown themselves to be just as intolerant of thinking among Workers as were the German armies. Do you know that your mob have murdered as many members of the I.W.W. in these countries as have the American Capitalist class in the U.S.? Men who learned something of SCIENTIFIC unionism here is the U.S. and who returned as missionaries to spread the light among the more benighted people of Europe?

Sure—we'll send you the Industrial Worker for your files IF. Will you see that your murder gang allows us to send our paper BERMUNKAS to the Hungarian workers? Can you guarantee the right to read a working class paper to those workers who are now being amgotted by Stalin's armies in Hungary?

You want some of our publications? Do you know that we have a daily newspaper published in the Finnish language?

We'd like to get it in the hands of the workers in Finland. Will your govt. agree that the Finnish workers have the right—the freedom to read—INDUSTRIALISTI if we honor you by sending the Industrial Worker into your despicable Academy?
OH MR. IVANOV

You have some issues of the Industrial Worker on your files. IF you will read them you will note that the I.W.W. have never had a great amount of respect for the petty-boogers of the SOCIAL LEFT. We have always regarded them as naive children who hadn't grown up. Occasionally, we meet one among them who is worth saving—generally a worker or a worker's kid.

You will note that we have a large amount of no-use for the substitutes for unionism which sprout from adolescent minds as incapable of understanding social science as any student of your Academy.

But—believe it or not—there was a time when we could trust these people in matters and causes common to us all. There was a time when we could collaborate with socialists and with other union-forms for specific causes and on specific issues. Not respecting their intelligence, but trusting to their integrity.

Do you know that this trust among workers and among working class organizations has been murdered and betrayed by the stooges of the govt. which hires you? Do you know that the faith in our fellow man has been replaced by suspicion and mistrust—due directly to the habit of forming United Fronts contracted by comrats an direct orders from your govt.?

Can YOU give a rebirth to the elementary solidarity which used to exist in working class organizations? Can you revive that shining faith in men with whom we differ that was, at one time, the glory of the working class movement? Do this—and we'll give you a better education in social science than you ever dreamed possible. We will send you every copy of the two "language" papers and every copy of the Industrial Worker, the Railroad Worker, the Lumber Worker and the Metal Worker.
ARE WE TOO TOUGH?

Mr. Ivanov, you may believe that these dickers we offer are too tough to take. You may tell us that dead men cannot be revived—even by the Russian govt. You may tell us that faith in mankind, once ruined can never be reborn. And yet, because you have the good taste to want to read the Industrial Worker, you may still be anxious to trade.

So we'll deal with you for cash!

We know of at least 5 million dollars which you have spent on the Communist Party of America for the purpose of dividing and splitting the forces of labor. We are almost certain your govt. has spent more—but we will stick to what we know.

Are you willing to induce your govt. to spend 5 thousand for the purpose of UNIFYING the American labor movement? One grand for every million you have spent to divide!

Too much? How about the half million dollars which the Russian govt. gave the rats and renegades of the I.W.W. WRECKING CREW which used to operate on the Pacific Coast? We'll trade you whole volumes of the Industrial Worker for your secret files on this matter!

Or—will you give us the inside story of the Marine Workers Industrial Union which you formed to smash the Marine Transport Workers Industrial Union 510 of the I.W.W. Your stooges deliberately formed this—not as a union—but as a union-busting agency. We have the word of men who are still in your party and service for this statement!

Men who were the initiators of this union-busting move!
MOOLA FROM MUJIKS

The millions of dollars you have spent in all countries from America to Afghanistan to smash the working class movement were millions taken from the hide and sweat of the Russian mujiki. May be we wouldn't want that kind of money—even if you offered it to us. We have refused it on the numerous occasions your rats in the U. S. have offered it to us, and we see no reason to change our attitude.

But—today, you have got millions of lent-lost dollars which the Wall St. govt. is taking out of our paychecks weekly. We'd like to have some of these dollars back—even if we have to fumigate them to get rid of the stink of the hands they have passed through.

Here is a trade you might like to make.

For the first time in the history of the world, the standard of living of the American worker is declining in a period of prosperity.

Funny situation, isn't it?

But we cannot appreciate the humor of it! We know the reasons why!

Members of the stooge society of your fuehrer are in control of most of the international unions of the CIO which was born out of the Blue Eagle of the National Assn. of Manufacturers and the desire of Mr. Roosevelt to form a Bismarckian form of labor front.

We quote Mrs. Perkins on this. "The No-Strike pledge was made by 30 or more labor leaders without consulting any of their members."

That No-Strike pledge, Mr. Ivanov, has cost the American wage worker billions of dollars in wages that he should have been paid—and wasn't.

That No-Strike pledge has been the weapon whereby years of effort to erect and maintain standards, and years of heartbreaking toil to improve conditions have been thrown into the lap of the political helots to do with what they will.

That No-Strike pledge, Ivanov, is the bastard child of YOUR GOVT.! Its midwives were the agents of YOUR GOVT. in the American labor movement!

These same agents, Mr. Ivanov, are today, the most despicable strikebreakers and finks in the long, bloody history of American labor. We have had our Pinkertons, our Baldwin Felts, our Jim Farleys, our Pearl Bergdoffs, our American Legionnaires. But—in the last three years, YOUR GOVT. AGENTS have busted more strikes, have fingered more strikers, and have snitched on more workers than all these "honest fink" agencies combined.

Will you trade the honor of reading the Industrial Workers for .0001 per cent of the money which the antics of the comrat finks have cost the American worker during this period of prosperity? We promise, that if you will, we will give it to the decent elements of the U.A.W. who, trying to offset the finky record of their international officers find that they are being opposed by money which Coffee-Time Curran is stealing from seamen in order to fasten the chains of the No-Strike pledge on the auto workers!
PUT UP—OR SHUT UP

These are our offers, gent Ivanov, To our Yankee proclivity for trading we will add many a Yankee saying—the easiest of which is Put up or shut up. Make a dicker with us—that will satisfy us both. And if you're not ready to do that, will you please cease bothering us with your letters!

You know, Tovarish, when deciding to answer your plea, we wondered how we could get the answer to you. We could, in the best comrat manner, go hush-hush about it, and could with a lot of abracadabra, have handed this reply to Coffee-Time Curran to take to you when next time, in order to escape fighting for your cause in uniform, he poses as an honest seaman until his draft board forgets him.

If we sent this reply through such devious channels, you might think we were comrats and hence deserving of the contempt which you Russians must feel for the rats who tote your banner and bray your cause in other lands. And if we did use your channels, we would earn your contempt but what is more important, we would forfeit our own self-respect.

You may not know it, but there still exists in this land of Jefferson far more freedom of speech and far more liberty and equality than exists in your country. And that freedom and liberty exists because the I.W.W. have bought and paid for it

We have paid for it with thousands of years in jail. We have bought it with hundreds of lives of good and gallant men. Men whose dust you were not worthy to swallow! And we who are alive and out of jail want that which our brothers have bought so dearly.

We are sending you this through the U. S. mails. We know that censors will look over every line of it—and that if they know anything of your history and ours, they will echo every word we say.

We are sending our reply to you to every city in the U. S. and to wage workers all over the world—that they may know some social science which your mobsters have deliberately tried to bury.

IF we thought you had a real Academy of social science, we would applaud your taste in wanting the authentic voice of labor unionism in your liberty. But we have seen some of the crap which you send out under the guise of "science" and we can get better in the gutter press of the U. S. In papers, which no matter how low and degraded, have still more spark than your Iskra and still more truth than your Pravda.
SOCIAL SCIENCES, EH?

You don't need to read every issue of the Industrial Worker in order to learn more than you know. On page 4 of this paper you will see the Preamble to the I.W.W. constitution, and you can pray to your dead Lenin for brains enough to understand and decency enough to comprehend the profound truths therein contained.

That the victims and the beneficiaries of the wages system have nothing in common—not even the Workers Fatherland as you call the hell you have made In Russia.

That as long as the wages system lasts, there can be no EQUALITY among men, and where there is no Equality there can be no Liberty, No Fraternity, No Peace.

That these conditions can be changed, when and only, the workers get wise to their position. organize as a class—in Germany, in Russia, in the U. S. and in Timbuctoo, take possession of the things that workers themselves have made, and put you and your kind in overalls and make you earn an honest living!

(And if YOU can understand and believe that much of social science, we are sure that you are one of the victims of the next "exhibition of justice" which your govt. stages so frequently.)

You know, Mr. Ivanov, that we have a govt. here that occasionally turns one of its Janus faces to us and tells us that we are in a "war against nazism." So we ought to be careful about thus writing you.

We know that your dead fuehrer Lenin was the first to use the term "national socialism;" that he laid down its code of ethics when he married the ideas of Machiavelli to those of Ignatius Loyola; that he laid down the economic basis of it when he promulgated his New Economic Policy in 1924; that he laid the cornerstone of its political corruption when to his "middle class intellectual mind" he added the contempt for people so ably expressed by M. Blanqui of an earlier France.

If we believe the Janus Face of govt. we might hesitate to thus write you. But the I.W.W. might be lots of things—but it has lost its naivete!

Sure, we'd like to put the Industrial Worker in your hands. We'd like much better if we could put a million Industrial Workers on your neck. But—why should we tell you these things. You can read the back copies of the Industrial Worker which you have and find out for yourself.

Here is a final offer—and a titbit of information. You did NOT get the Industrial Worker for 1943 and 1944 for a very good reason.

Some of the Russian workers were In the "underground" long before the underground became the plaything of govts. and the pet of propaganda pimps of Hollywood. There were Russian seamen who believed that if the Industrial Worker was good enough for your library, it surely must be good enough for the wage workers who were your serfs. They used to pick up many copies in many ports of the world and smuggle them in to your Fatherland.

Where are those boys today? In Siberia? In the Lubianka prison murdered by the OGPOOEYS?

Tell us that and heed our final offer. We will send you back copies of the Industrial Worker if you can send us the names of 500 union men in Russia who can read English.

Pretty tough proposition, eh? If you knew the name of ONE UNION man in Russia you would have him shot! If you dared believe that there were five hundred UNION men, your govt. would declare martial law in Russia which it now exercises in Poland. in Finland and in the Balkans.

The only ones in Russia who are allowed to learn English, are the agents who are picked for espionage in the semi-civilized English speaking countries. You couldn't afford to have people reading in the original those English books which your govt. murders in translation. The instructions given your mujiki when they enter a country like Romania is a sure indication of what you fear when people can read English literature direct! You and we know well. that if some mujiki tried to read the Industrial Worker in your library, he would be suspected of the great crime of being "politically unreliable." And neither you nor we would like to see that happen!

So, Dear Mr. Ivanov, the answer to your request for the Industrial Worker is distinctly in the negative. We have failed to teach any of the social sciences to your stooges and agents in this country, where despite their antics, they still have a little freedom. Why then should we hope to educate the poor suckers who live in your country?

Some day, let us hope, you will be able to read the Industrial Worker. Some day, let us hope, you will have brains enough to understand it. Some day, let us hope, you will have decency enough to comprehend the social science arising from the lives of workers and of which the Industrial Worker is the foremost exponent. Some day—

Until then, Dear Mr. Ivanov—farewell.

Well that reads like every issue of every Trot newspaper ever

Not really my business BP. I've always been an outsider here looking in as a reader. TA simply mentioned that there was power struggle here on direction a few years ago and he was locked out as administration. I didn't say he was locked out of the forum. TA has always been a staunch ally despite any differences me and him might have on tactics and ideology. He's pissed on his treatment here and I can't say as I blame him if this inquisition on which side I'm on is any indication. I will defend that cat under all circumstances. Sure, I'm a belligerent asshole but TA surely isn't despite any disagreements you all had on direction. That's about all I'm gonna say because it really is none of my damn business.

TA was never an Admin at this site, though he was at SI. This place was set up by Anaxarchos with technical help from Catherina, myself as owner/janitor. The administrative team was proposed by Anaxarchos.

Edit: otherwise we'll let it rest, water under the bridge.

Well that reads like every issue of every Trot newspaper ever

Yes, and repeated by every enemy of socialism, ad nauseaum, whatever their identification.

Yes, and repeated by every enemy of socialism, ad nauseaum, whatever their identification.

We really are at an impasse with the Ferrous Brother. He says, "Everything you think is shit and only I am right!" "Everything you hold to be true is crap and only I have the truth!" "If you hold any previous communist as worthy of respect you are idiot!" "You all stink and are stupid and are beneath contempt!"

Well, okay, Mr. Educated one. I don't have much learning, but it seems to me that there are two sides...

Can I ask a question or two? What does Mr. Educated think is going on? What are his motives and why is he doing this? If he wants access to the archives, he has that. If he wants to talk he can (assuming anyone will talk back). Why does TA want to be an admin? For what reason. If he wants to read here, or talk here or start a blog here, he can - what is so big about being an admin? It is kind of funny, in a way - to be an admin is to have authority, right? Well, isn't that what Steelmagnolia is soiling his drawers about?

Michael Parenti on the Cuban Revolution


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npkeecCErQc

Michael Parenti on the Cuban Revolution


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npkeecCErQc

Excellent video. Parenti is emotional, and rightfully so.

Michael Parenti on the Cuban Revolution


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npkeecCErQc

"The passion and concern [liberals] feel for the fascists...who are dumping and destroying and murdering people before--now the revolution needs to be flawless?"

Proof that sometimes rocket science is easier to understand than human conditions. Funny, the only people who hold socialism to the highest, utopian standards are the liberals. That's awful nice of them. Or just awful.

"The passion and concern [liberals] feel for the fascists...who are dumping and destroying and murdering people before--now the revolution needs to be flawless?"

Proof that sometimes rocket science is easier to understand than human conditions. Funny, the only people who hold socialism to the highest, utopian standards are the liberals. That's awful nice of them. Or just awful.

Awful indeed, the last 'ace' in their hand, and it goes hand in hand with the booj narrative of history, especially US history, where whatever can't be blown off as 'mistakes' or such is studiously ignored. Whereas socialist history is one monstrous tragedy where all things beneficial are ignored or minimized by booj criteria while any and every application of state power by socialists is utterly condemned and magnified to absurdity. The liberals don't understand why classes struggle, the far lefts don't take it seriously, preferring cartoon solutions which curiously require no work.

http://www.leglessbird.com/movies/pics/v-for-vendetta.jpg

That picture...

Triggered.

That picture...

Triggered.

Funny.

You want a 'trigger-warning'? Consider it done....

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/98/d9/64/98d9640ad69a88bf9800b3616d60a415.jpg

Yo Ferrous Bueller,

Your fervor is not in question but..

You know that Marx and Engels disagreed with you, and vehemently. This is true despite any proclivity to appropriate phrases and turn them 1000 ways to read in support of one's own political inclination. Even if you relegate the source to a support role (ie "Marx is good for agitation"), the familiar refrains do not go away and at some point it seems you are compelled to answer. The refrains certainly do not go away courtesy of ad hominen attacks on the dead -- particularly since those you would assassinate in their graves come quite late to the discussion (Bakunin was a contemporary of Marx, well before Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro..)

It doesn't have to be here (and that ship sailed I think) but eventually you must make reply, no?

You three been getting plenty of replies. The only thing that even comes close to even mildly addressing those replies with any kind of coherence is BP and even that's a long stretch at this point. You've provided nothing in addressing any criticisms of the autocratic rule of "existing socialism." Marx and Engels you ain't my friend. They would both be firing off coherent defense of their positions. You've offered nothing of the sort.

As I just posted to Atomsk (who is entirely coherent in responding and defending on such matters) elsewhere.

"If constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be. Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves."

-- Karl Marx

Well that reads like every issue of every Trot newspaper ever

Trotsky was part of the same treacherous cesspool turned against the workers that was being addressed. One treacherous traitorous bastard offed by another is of no concern to me. The workers are. You lose again.

Who cares whether everyone gets one or not


Certainly not you it would seem... that is akin to saying who cares if everyone gets food, shelter, ect ... Not exactly in line with the equitable distribution of social production created by the working class and in control by the working class. You can certainly make the case that iPhones ain't necessary... but if the consensus is reached by the working class that they should be produced then everyone gets access to one if they want it. Not hard to understand by any model of public ownership of the means and distribution of production. Or perhaps you think that "to each according to his ability to each according to his work" should carry on indefinitely under top down state "socialism" ? Sounds quite a bit like meet the new boss...same as the old boss... to me.

Trotsky was part of the same treacherous cesspool turned against the workers that was being addressed. One treacherous traitorous bastard offed by another is of no concern to me.

I agree. Similarly, I wouldn't mind if you were to walk the metaphorical plank into that cesspool you originated from.

Yes, and repeated by every enemy of socialism, ad nauseaum, whatever their identification.

State "socialism" was not to be the end-game development of the materialist processes as explained by Marx and Engels in their works. It also remains up for fierce debate... and subject to full critique.... as to whether "existing socialism" (as you use the term) past or present... represents or did represent anything resembling the "dictatorship of the working class" in transition to the end of class distinctions and the withering away of the state. You can go on the attack of labeling all critique of that as reactionary but it won't help you defend your case.

I agree. Similarly, I wouldn't mind if you were to walk the metaphorical plank into that cesspool you originated from.

Well now...there is a well thought out reply. So thoroughly do you identify with your imagined unassailable Gods Of "Socialism" that you actually take any criticism of them as a wound to yourself. Quite a sad exercise in vindictive emotion run amok.

Well now...there is a well thought out reply. So thoroughly do you identify with your imagined unassailable Gods Of "Socialism" that you actually take any criticism of them as a wound to yourself. Quite a sad exercise in vindictive emotion run amok.

You're easier than Sunday morning.

You three been getting plenty of replies. The only thing that even comes close to even mildly addressing those replies with any kind of coherence is BP and even that's a long stretch at this point. You've provided nothing in addressing any criticisms of the autocratic rule of "existing socialism." Marx and Engels you ain't my friend. They would both be firing off coherent defense of their positions. You've offered nothing of the sort.

As I just posted to Atomsk (who is entirely coherent in responding and defending on such matters) elsewhere.

"If constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be. Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves."

-- Karl Marx

Firstly, you are confusing 'authority' and 'autocratic'. Two different things, try again. You parrot every booj accusation against existing socialism but do not appear to have any consideration of what they say about themselves. Why is this? Whose side are you on?

Cuba is more democratic than the USA, yet you curse Fidel Casto as an autocrat. Whose side are you on?

As for addressing criticism of real, existing socialism, it's all over the place around here. Your years of reading around here are strangely selective, or something.

State "socialism" was not to be the end-game development of the materialist processes as explained by Marx and Engels in their works. It also remains up for fierce debate... and subject to full critique.... as to whether "existing socialism" (as you use the term) past or present... represents or did represent anything resembling the "dictatorship of the working class" in transition to the end of class distinctions and the withering away of the state. You can go on the attack of labeling all critique of that as reactionary but it won't help you defend your case.

Of course not, no one has said that. It is a necessary step, whose length is modified by conditions.

To think that we can achieve communism without the hard tedious work and sacrifice is juvenile, "I want my communism NOW! Whah!

You are like liberal critic, using idealism to defend the ruling class.

Ecuador’s President: Cuba to Never Become ‘Colony’ Having Castro’s Example
worker | November 30, 2016 | 7:49 pm | Fidel Castro
04:17 30.11.2016(updated 07:23 30.11.2016)
Cuba will never again become a colony, as it currently has the example of Fidel Castro, President of Ecuador Rafael Correa said on Tuesday.
MEXICO CITY (Sputnik) — Castro passed away on November 25 at the age of 90, as announced by his brother, incumbent Cuban President Raul Castro. Cuba received many condolences over Fidel Castro’s death from leaders around the world. “With the example of Fidel, the Cuban people will never allow to make itself a colony of the empire. They did not invade Cuba, because they knew they would not be able win the whole nation,” Correa said during a ceremony to honor the Cuban revolutionary leader. According to the Ecuadorian leader, today the peoples of Latin America are united as never before. “With you, dear Fidel, Che [Ernesto Guevara] [Camilo] Cienfuegos, [Hugo] Chavez, we have learned to move towards the creation of a world of justice, we swear to always struggle till final victory, Comandante” Correa said. Cuba used to be the colony of the Spanish Empire for centuries, until 1898, when as a result of the Spanish-American War, it came under the US control. The occupation of the island officially came to an end in 1902, when first Cuban President Tomas Estrada Palma was elected. In 1933, a military coup occurred in Cuba, and Fulgencio Batista took power, and remained the actual leader until 1959, when he was overthrown following the revolution, headed by Fidel and Raul Castro, Che Guevara, Cienfuegos and Juan Almeida Bosque, among others.

http://houstoncommunistparty.com/ecuadors-president-cuba-to-never-become-colony-having-castros-example/

Far be it for me of all people to be moderator here but how about a cease fire on some of the idiotic crap. Dhal's hint as to banning SP was out of line as is SG's idiotic remark about "walking the plank." Stick to just proving that SP's critique's here are "like the liberal critics, using idealism to defend the ruling class"- which they are.

In this particular thread blast his VERY FAR OFF THE MARK and reactionary assessment of Castro to pieces to SHOW him how he is using the same crap that liberal critics have been hurling upon Castro (and too many other socialists/revolutionaries/leftists etc...) for decades. BP makes that accurate assessment now pile up the evidence.

I'm not saying "let's be civil" but what I am saying is that SP is much further along the road than many (but needs to get out of the ditch with this one) and offering up a load of insults and jargon is useless and tedious.

Carry on then.

You can certainly make the case that iPhones ain't necessary... but if the consensus is reached by the working class that they should be produced then everyone gets access to one if they want it. Not hard to understand by any model of public ownership of the means and distribution of production. Or perhaps you think that "to each according to his ability to each according to his work" should carry on indefinitely under top down state "socialism" ?

Don't know or care about 'indefinitely'. And, no, what you say certainly does NOT make sense. The scale of almost all means of production is far to large for individuals to "own" in any meaningful sense that is not connected to profit (ie capital). As for commodities..your idea entails producing every commodity to the point of ubiquity. That is too stupid to even be absurd. Even the capitalists don't subscribe to such an idea -- and they are insane and beholden to their own out of control creations.

Producing for NEED is a very different social system than the one that presently exists. Sure, it seems like most everybody will have a tricorder -- but for use, not as a trinket. You'll have to pick baubles up on your own dime..


Marx and Engels you ain't my friend. They would both be firing off coherent defense of their positions.

Like I said, they already did that. You want me to copy/paste 100 pages? You want lil ol' me to paraphrase for you? The truth is you wouldn't even get an eye roll out of Marx..maybe a "harumph!" outta Freddie..but he had a very upright bearing..

State "socialism" was not to be the end-game development of the materialist processes as explained by Marx and Engels in their works.

This is simply a stupid statement. Idiotic. A liberal dunce with some kind of complex. I guess the steelstooge would have sided with the Whites in the civil war, because the Bolsheviks were "autocratic" and "anti-worker". Of course no socialist government has been able to advance as they would have liked because of constant, unrelenting warfare from the hugely powerful capitalist countries that dominate the world! Jesus Christ, the Soviets were fighting for their lives from day one, so were the Chinese and Vietnamese and Cubans. You can't just pretend that there was nothing standing in the way of socialist development.

I was wrong about you. You are dumb as a sack of hammers.

I say flush this anti-communist turd back into the cesspool he sprang from, he is not advancing anything but his own little view of fairyland.

Don't know or care about 'indefinitely'. And, no, what you say certainly does NOT make sense. The scale of almost all means of production is far to large for individuals to "own" in any meaningful sense that is not connected to profit (ie capital). As for commodities..your idea entails producing every commodity to the point of ubiquity. That is too stupid to even be absurd. Even the capitalists don't subscribe to such an idea -- and they are insane and beholden to their own out of control creations.

Producing for NEED is a very different social system than the one that presently exists. Sure, it seems like most everybody will have a tricorder -- but for use, not as a trinket. You'll have to pick baubles up on your own dime..



Like I said, they already did that. You want me to copy/paste 100 pages? You want lil ol' me to paraphrase for you? The truth is you wouldn't even get an eye roll out of Marx..maybe a "harumph!" outta Freddie..but he had a very upright bearing..[/COLOR]


LOL...more word salad.You're a regular savant Kid. I didn't say shit about owning. Maybe you forget what super-abundance and high stage communism means ? Now call me a fucking utopian... seeing it was Marx and Engels who believed it possible with the technological advances in social production. We ain't going backwards...we're going forward. You get ten demerits for your work and ability to understand what's being said. Looks like you ain't getting no Iphone from the "existing socialist" state.

Far be it for me of all people to be moderator here but how about a cease fire on some of the idiotic crap. Dhal's hint as to banning SP was out of line as is SG's idiotic remark about "walking the plank." Stick to just proving that SP's critique's here are "like the liberal critics, using idealism to defend the ruling class"- which they are.

In this particular thread blast his VERY FAR OFF THE MARK and reactionary assessment of Castro to pieces to SHOW him how he is using the same crap that liberal critics have been hurling upon Castro (and too many other socialists/revolutionaries/leftists etc...) for decades. BP makes that accurate assessment now pile up the evidence.

I'm not saying "let's be civil" but what I am saying is that SP is much further along the road than many (but needs to get out of the ditch with this one) and offering up a load of insults and jargon is useless and tedious.

Carry on then.

You're right, chlams. Apologies. It's truly work for me to not make jokes. I'm working on it.

I feel like *showing* SP is as fruitful as an atheist convincing a christian. Frankly, the full video you posted is a great example of forming conclusions from analysis (in layman terms, to boot). It would be worth it for him to watch it; however, anyone could take in material examples but they can dismiss it on idealistic and metaphysical principles. He's been resistant to logic that is clearly stated on the front page of this website. I was defending his presence here but his constant misunderstanding and his re-appropriated pejoratives are frustrating.

The triumphs of Castro are easily accessible, especially if you're aware of the Bell. A new composer will listen to Bach and say, "Wow, this shit is dated but his melodic prowess is undeniable"; scientists of today look to scientists of yesterday, recognize their faults but once rejected they continue with things they discovered; Marx found inspiration from Hegel, yet had to "put him on his head." Real world application of communism is held to a standard by self-proclaimed leftists that completely ignores advancement of something so new that people in our lifetime saw the beginning of. We're in a time where bourgeois opinion of communism is so obvious that a five year old can parrot the platitudes. Were these men perfect humans? Fuck no. I don't think anyone could truly argue that and that's not the point anyways.

I sat through a lecture today on periodization and it brings to mind Marx: Feudalism lasted like four centuries or something. Communism, outside of theory, has existed for what? Let's dismiss everything on the squishy premise that something is "evil."

This is simply a stupid statement. Idiotic. A liberal dunce with some kind of complex. I guess the steelstooge would have sided with the Whites in the civil war, because the Bolsheviks were "autocratic" and "anti-worker". Of course no socialist government has been able to advance as they would have liked because of constant, unrelenting warfare from the hugely powerful capitalist countries that dominate the world! Jesus Christ, the Soviets were fighting for their lives from day one, so were the Chinese and Vietnamese and Cubans. You can't just pretend that there was nothing standing in the way of socialist development.

I was wrong about you. You are dumb as a sack of hammers.

I say flush this anti-communist turd back into the cesspool he sprang from, he is not advancing anything but his own little view of fairyland.

LOL..no them good old benevolent Bolsheviks weren't anti-worker. Nah they didn't put the party over the worker cause at all.

"They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy!"

--Leon Trotsky

"The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship...regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class...The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy..."

--Leon Trotsky

Far be it for me of all people to be moderator here but how about a cease fire on some of the idiotic crap. Dhal's hint as to banning SP was out of line as is SG's idiotic remark about "walking the plank." Stick to just proving that SP's critique's here are "like the liberal critics, using idealism to defend the ruling class"- which they are.

In this particular thread blast his VERY FAR OFF THE MARK and reactionary assessment of Castro to pieces to SHOW him how he is using the same crap that liberal critics have been hurling upon Castro (and too many other socialists/revolutionaries/leftists etc...) for decades. BP makes that accurate assessment now pile up the evidence.

I'm not saying "let's be civil" but what I am saying is that SP is much further along the road than many (but needs to get out of the ditch with this one) and offering up a load of insults and jargon is useless and tedious.

Carry on then.

Sorry chlams, you can have at it. This whole business has become about how nasty this character can be toward the builders of a rather arduous history of socialism. I don't set anyone up as an idol, but I don't have to read socialist heroes being denigrated, either. So the guy can say whatever he likes, I'm out.

Of course not, no one has said that. It is a necessary step, whose length is modified by conditions.

To think that we can achieve communism without the hard tedious work and sacrifice is juvenile, "I want my communism NOW! Whah!

You are like liberal critic, using idealism to defend the ruling class.

I ain't defending anything but the workers. That you address anything that doesn't fit the mold of Marxism/Leninism as the work of liberalism is beyond laughable and you should know that by your prior dabbling with Bakunin. There's been lots of hard tedious work by militant labor and other anti-capitalist leftists. That is doesn't meet your approval as the the only true path doesn't make make your point. The excuses are over...the Soviet Union is gone and it ain't coming back.Time to expand your wings rather than grasping at straws.

Far be it for me of all people to be moderator here but how about a cease fire on some of the idiotic crap. Dhal's hint as to banning SP was out of line as is SG's idiotic remark about "walking the plank." Stick to just proving that SP's critique's here are "like the liberal critics, using idealism to defend the ruling class"- which they are.

In this particular thread blast his VERY FAR OFF THE MARK and reactionary assessment of Castro to pieces to SHOW him how he is using the same crap that liberal critics have been hurling upon Castro (and too many other socialists/revolutionaries/leftists etc...) for decades. BP makes that accurate assessment now pile up the evidence.

I'm not saying "let's be civil" but what I am saying is that SP is much further along the road than many (but needs to get out of the ditch with this one) and offering up a load of insults and jargon is useless and tedious.

Carry on then.

You're simply wrong and you should know this. This is not a matter of reaction. This is not a matter of liberalism. This is a matter of legitimate critique of "existing socialism" - past and present - as an anti-worker program when the haze and incense of idol worship is stripped off. Castro got rid of Batista and that's a good thing. Revolution is possible. Very good. We already knew that. Nobody has claimed otherwise. He was also a fucking opportunist of the highest degree who didn't advance power in the hands of the working class more than a few inches. That is a fact and that is what is in dispute here.

Sorry chlams, you can have at it. This whole business has become about how nasty this character can be toward the builders of a rather arduous history of socialism. I don't set anyone up as an idol, but I don't have to read socialist heroes being denigrated, either. So the guy can say whatever he likes, I'm out.

You're out because you can't defend and match up your position with the historical facts on the ground that claim otherwise. You're not interested in the self-criticism you claim to be so fond of. Like the Bolsheviks ...a purveyor of words in defense of the workers that don't match the actions.

The excuses are over...the Soviet Union is gone and it ain't coming back.

I don't think any Marxist would argue that communism would look the same in every country; if every revolutionary movement today was met with the same global resistance as the USSR, it for sure would look nothing like we've seen before. I don't think anyone here is even considered ideas of such speculation. Once again, I feel like you're over simplifying and philosophizing for the hell of it. Your only line of defense is taking quotes out of context, mark it with names that we "can't refute," and assume a check mate. Nobody is here to win some game.

You can call yourself whatever tag you want, but Bakunin and Anarchism (collectivist, my ass) are rooted in liberalism. This is why we don't get anywhere. Your premise, whether you want to recognize it or not, stems from individualism over the collectivism. You want to talk about who was bad or who is good, or what works or what doesn't, but you're calling for something in opposition to your own logic. Bakunin was no saint either.

I don't think any Marxist would argue that communism would look the same in every country; if every revolutionary movement today was met with the same global resistance as the USSR, it for sure would look nothing like we've seen before. I don't think anyone here is even considered ideas of such speculation. Once again, I feel like you're over simplifying and philosophizing for the hell of it. Your only line of defense is taking quotes out of context, mark it with names that we "can't refute," and assume a check mate. Nobody is here to win some game.

You can call yourself whatever tag you want, but Bakunin and Anarchism (collectivist, my ass) are rooted in liberalism. This is why we don't get anywhere. Your premise, whether you want to recognize it or not, stems from individualism over the collectivism. You want to talk about who was bad or who is good, or what works or what doesn't, but you're calling for something in opposition to your own logic. Bakunin was no saint either.

Look...when the workers stop listening...it's time for a reassessment on why that is. Maybe you think that the actual workers don't figure in the plan but you would be dead wrong. And you can call it reaction, you can call it idealism, you can call it anything you want but that is the bottom line.

You're simply wrong and you should know this. This is not a matter of reaction. This is not a matter of liberalism. This is a matter of legitimate critique of "existing socialism" - past and present - as an anti-worker program...

List 5 examples to support your thesis.

I don't think any Marxist would argue that communism would look the same in every country

The Bolsheviks, and Lenin in particular, expected communism in Germany -- which could justifiably be seen as imminent -- to look very different and to be much more developed than in Russia.

The failure of the German Revolution is actually an event of WORLD historic magnitude (directly shaping the 20th century) but the analysis of what went wrong was abridged for reasons of survival. The sources that do tackle the subject -- eg Trotsky -- are too close to the matter and highly unreliable.


You want to talk about who was bad or who is good

Don't let him take you down this road. Karl Marx could be the worst person to ever live and it wouldn't really change anything. Granted, the likes of Edward Aveling are cautionary tales..but leave arguing who is or is not a bad person for the philistines.


what works or what doesn't

There are multiple levels here. The reason that the banners of the worker's carry the names and visages of Marx, Engels, and Lenin is that Marxism is the closest thing there is to an unassailable bulwark against reaction AND liberalism/social chauvinism. It has been tried in the fires of intellectual and theoretical combat and has also proved itself in practice on the ground under every conceivable set of conditions. Nothing else has proven that it can stand the test -- "smash everything! what survives is good". There's still a place at the table for a little old fashioned Russian nihilism after all..


Bakunin was no saint either.

Bakunin was a disgusting corpulent bag of flesh and a treacherous, conspiratorial thug. In most cases I would attempt a political biography, but in this case I contend there is not one to be written.

There are multiple levels here. The reason that the banners of the worker's carry the names and visages of Marx, Engels, and Lenin is that Marxism is the closest thing there is to an unassailable bulwark against reaction AND liberalism/social chauvinism. It has been tried in the fires of intellectual and theoretical combat and has also proved itself in practice on the ground under every conceivable set of conditions. Nothing else has proven that it can stand the test -- "smash everything! what survives is good". There's still a place at the table for a little old fashioned Russian nihilism after all..

If you have the time, could you expand on this more.

I ain't defending anything but the workers. That you address anything that doesn't fit the mold of Marxism/Leninism as the work of liberalism is beyond laughable and you should know that by your prior dabbling with Bakunin. There's been lots of hard tedious work by militant labor and other anti-capitalist leftists. That is doesn't meet your approval as the the only true path doesn't make make your point. The excuses are over...the Soviet Union is gone and it ain't coming back.Time to expand your wings rather than grasping at straws.

You are not defending workers by denigrating the only method that has brought massive benefit to hundreds of millions of workers. You have no historical context, the accomplishments of labor such as they've been, were done when there were communists and radical socialists agitators in the ranks and leadership. It is not coincidental that labor stopped advancing when Taft-Hartley purged the unions. Marxism-Leninism is not a religion or a club, it is a tool, it is the Estwing 22 oz framing hammer of political action, that is why we esteem it. As for the Soviet Union, no it will not be back, we can only advance, standing on the shoulders of those giants. Or would you take issue with the anti-Nazi fighters of Ghost Brigade too?

Or would you take issue with the anti-Nazi fighters of Ghost Brigade too?

My guess is he wouldn't back the Ghosts either, if he even knows who they are.

If you have the time, could you expand on this more.

The reason such an emphasis is placed on being scientific is that this is the only way to provide a legitimate foundation for socialism. Marx laid the groundwork for this in a way that has withstood all challengers, detractors, deniers, obfuscaters, etc. The outline is the Manifesto with everything else (especially Capital) adding meat to the bones. All previous and competing versions of socialism are ultimately undone by utopianism because they place IDEAS at the center of their rationale -- ideas elevated above the reality they represent/reflect (these include all variations on "humanity" as an abstraction)

This is where Hegel pops up his smart aleck head. While the discussion carries the gloss (and a bit of the dreck) of philosophy, it is actually a very important question of how we can know/establish anything in the first place. Hegel basically concluded that it can't be done within the strait-jacket of philosophy -- and then tried to play the edges and make an end run to do exactly what we deduced couldn't be done.

Marx took Hegel's one step forward and sloughed off his two steps backward (might be unfair to Hegel but it illustrates my point).

Meanwhile, in terms of "what works" it depends on whether you are talking about the tactical, strategic, or implementation (=really existing socialism) level. The reason that Marxism stands alone on this front is because "the next step is always the hardest". And eventually EVERY OTHER GROUP drops out, while the people struggle to press forward. You can see this phenomenon in defeat just as well as in victory (it is really in this sense that Babeuf is "the first communist" although I am personally quite partial to Marat as well. 1848 is another classic example). Certainly this effect was very obvious in Cuba for a topical example.

This is why it is so unbelievably important to understand what we think and WHY. Quite a bit of the language used involves themes of dispelling illusions or seeing through simulacra (Marx initially termed this alienation but mostly abandoned that terminology for his theory of Commodity Fetishism). This is because the perspective of the the workers is shaped by the social form they exist in (capitalism) but their interests do not lie in the perpetuation/continuation of capitalism OR class society (Marx showed that the proletariat is unique in this regard).

See, burning talk can afford to take some liberties and allows for a layer of imprecision. But that isn't the case in the backroom (if you will).

If you have the time, could you expand on this more.

Oh, if you meant the last sentence, I was being a little facetious:

Nothing else has proven that it can stand the test -- "smash everything! what survives is good". There's still a place at the table for a little old fashioned Russian nihilism after all..

It is an allusion to Pisarev, who Lenin quoted in Chto Delat?


Break, beat up everything, beat and destroy! Everything that's being broken is rubbish and has no right to life! What survives is good

Sorry, I just had to...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyoDIZ6UkAAzA7q.jpg:large

The Fierce Debate Over Castro’s Legacy
by JOHN WIGHT

Fidel Castro’s death, at 90, has sparked a fierce debate in the West over his legacy. I specifically mention the West as elsewhere there is no debate: Castro has rightfully been lauded as one of history’s great emancipators, a man who led a revolution that succeeded in throwing off the yoke of US imperialism.

But in the West the liberal commentariat has united as one in denouncing Castro as an evil tyrant and torturer who ruled Cuba for over five decades with an iron fist, quashing the human rights of the Cuban people, who in the wake of his death can now look forward to the future safe in the knowledge that freedom and democracy beckons.

When we talk about Castro’s critics, it is worth pointing out that we are talking people who live in societies where poverty has been unofficially criminalized and the poor demonized, despised, and abandoned to a fate of destitution and despair. We are talking, in the main, the kind of men and women who walk or drive past the ever-growing army of homeless who colonize the streets of towns and cities throughout the West, casualties of a neoliberal economic system that is the real tyrant in our world, without batting an eyelid. In other words, we are talking people whose condemnation of Fidel Castro is suffused with hypocrisy, the kind that is common among those who have imbibed the received truths of empire. The most fundamental of those truths is that the West has been divinely ordained with the task of colonizing a Third World – culturally, economically, and geopolitically – that consists of peoples of lower cultures, civilizations, and human worth.

The metric by which Castro’s legacy should be judged is the transformation of Cuba as a result of the revolution he led and inspired. And in this regard one salient fact shines forth more than any other – namely that the only place in the world where you will find homeless Cuban children today is Miami.

Let us take a moment to examine in detail the legacy of the “tyrant” Fidel Castro:

+ Cuba is today the only country in the Americas where child malnourishment does not exit (UNICEF).

+ Cuba has the lowest child mortality rate in the Americas (UNICEF).

+ 130,000 students have graduated from medical school in Cuba since 1961.

+ Cuba has eliminated homelessness (Knoema).

+ 54% of Cuba’s national budget is used for social services.

+ Cuba has the best education system in Latin America.

+ Cuba has sent hundreds of doctors and nurses on medical missions across the Third World.

+ Cuba was the first country to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV (World Health Organization).

If only the Haitian people or the people of the Dominican Republic had such a tyrant ruling their countries. If only the poor in the US and UK had such a tyrant at the head of their respective governments.

When it comes to the accusation that gays were persecuted in Cuba after the revolution, there is no doubt that LGBT rights were non-existent in Cuba in the sixties and for most of the seventies, just as they were non existent throughout much of the world. Homosexuality, for example, was decriminalized in Cuba in 1979, which compares favourably to Scotland and Northern Ireland in the UK, where it was decriminalized in 1980 and 1982 respectively. Moreover, same-sex sexual activity was only made legal across the entire United States in 2003. It is also worth bearing in mind that homosexuality today is criminalized in Saudi Arabia – a close UK and US ally and a society in which women are treated as chattel and people are routinely beheaded – where it is punishable by death.

The fact is that the existence of homophobia in Cuba predated Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution by around five centuries. It was entrenched as part of the cultural values of Cuban society, indeed the cultural values throughout the Americas, courtesy of the Catholic Church. Fidel Castro was a product of those values and to his credit later renounced them, awakening to the justice of LGBT rights. Today his own niece, Mariela Castro, plays an active role in the Cuban LGBT community, leading the country’s annual gay pride parade in Havana last year.

As for torture, meanwhile, the only place on the island of Cuba where this can be found is at the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

The key point to be borne in mind when it comes to Cuba and its state of development is that countries and societies do not exist on blank sheets of paper. In the Third World their development cannot be divorced from a real life struggle against the huge obstacles placed in their way by histories of colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism, responsible for retarding their progress in service to the exploitation of their human and natural resources.

The legitimacy of the Cuban Revolution lies in its survival in the face of the aforementioned US blockade, designed to starve the country to its knees for daring to refuse to be slaves of global capital. To understand what that would look like all we need do is cast our eyes over to the aforementioned Haiti or Dominican Republic, countries of comparable size located in the same region. Compared to them Cuba stands as a beacon of dignity, social and economic justice, and sustainable development.

Fidel Castro was no dictator. On the contrary, he dedicated his life to resisting Washington’s dictatorship of the Third World. Moreover, as a result of the Cuban Revolution the right to be homeless, illiterate, and to go without healthcare no longer exists in Cuba. In their place have come the most fundamental human rights of all – the right to be educated, to healthcare that is free at the point of need, and the right to live with dignity and pride in being the citizen of a small island that has stood over decades as a beacon of justice in an ocean of injustice.

This, in truth, is the reason ‘they’ despise him. And this, in truth, is why millions of Cubans will come out and pay tribute to his life and legacy on the day of his funeral. For them he will forever be ‘El Comandante’.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/01/the-fierce-debate-over-castros-legacy/

Fidel Castro was no dictator. On the contrary, he dedicated his life to resisting Washington’s dictatorship of the Third World.

Good piece chlams, thanks.

Some of the gusano Miami whiners left Cuba because they were forced to leave the city and go out to the country to teach the peasants reading and writing.

The Fierce Debate Over Castro’s Legacy
by JOHN WIGHT

Fidel Castro’s death, at 90, has sparked a fierce debate in the West over his legacy. I specifically mention the West as elsewhere there is no debate: Castro has rightfully been lauded as one of history’s great emancipators, a man who led a revolution that succeeded in throwing off the yoke of US imperialism.

But in the West the liberal commentariat has united as one in denouncing Castro as an evil tyrant and torturer who ruled Cuba for over five decades with an iron fist, quashing the human rights of the Cuban people, who in the wake of his death can now look forward to the future safe in the knowledge that freedom and democracy beckons.

When we talk about Castro’s critics, it is worth pointing out that we are talking people who live in societies where poverty has been unofficially criminalized and the poor demonized, despised, and abandoned to a fate of destitution and despair. We are talking, in the main, the kind of men and women who walk or drive past the ever-growing army of homeless who colonize the streets of towns and cities throughout the West, casualties of a neoliberal economic system that is the real tyrant in our world, without batting an eyelid. In other words, we are talking people whose condemnation of Fidel Castro is suffused with hypocrisy, the kind that is common among those who have imbibed the received truths of empire. The most fundamental of those truths is that the West has been divinely ordained with the task of colonizing a Third World – culturally, economically, and geopolitically – that consists of peoples of lower cultures, civilizations, and human worth.

The metric by which Castro’s legacy should be judged is the transformation of Cuba as a result of the revolution he led and inspired. And in this regard one salient fact shines forth more than any other – namely that the only place in the world where you will find homeless Cuban children today is Miami.

Let us take a moment to examine in detail the legacy of the “tyrant” Fidel Castro:

+ Cuba is today the only country in the Americas where child malnourishment does not exit (UNICEF).

+ Cuba has the lowest child mortality rate in the Americas (UNICEF).

+ 130,000 students have graduated from medical school in Cuba since 1961.

+ Cuba has eliminated homelessness (Knoema).

+ 54% of Cuba’s national budget is used for social services.

+ Cuba has the best education system in Latin America.

+ Cuba has sent hundreds of doctors and nurses on medical missions across the Third World.

+ Cuba was the first country to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV (World Health Organization).

If only the Haitian people or the people of the Dominican Republic had such a tyrant ruling their countries. If only the poor in the US and UK had such a tyrant at the head of their respective governments.

When it comes to the accusation that gays were persecuted in Cuba after the revolution, there is no doubt that LGBT rights were non-existent in Cuba in the sixties and for most of the seventies, just as they were non existent throughout much of the world. Homosexuality, for example, was decriminalized in Cuba in 1979, which compares favourably to Scotland and Northern Ireland in the UK, where it was decriminalized in 1980 and 1982 respectively. Moreover, same-sex sexual activity was only made legal across the entire United States in 2003. It is also worth bearing in mind that homosexuality today is criminalized in Saudi Arabia – a close UK and US ally and a society in which women are treated as chattel and people are routinely beheaded – where it is punishable by death.

The fact is that the existence of homophobia in Cuba predated Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution by around five centuries. It was entrenched as part of the cultural values of Cuban society, indeed the cultural values throughout the Americas, courtesy of the Catholic Church. Fidel Castro was a product of those values and to his credit later renounced them, awakening to the justice of LGBT rights. Today his own niece, Mariela Castro, plays an active role in the Cuban LGBT community, leading the country’s annual gay pride parade in Havana last year.

As for torture, meanwhile, the only place on the island of Cuba where this can be found is at the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

The key point to be borne in mind when it comes to Cuba and its state of development is that countries and societies do not exist on blank sheets of paper. In the Third World their development cannot be divorced from a real life struggle against the huge obstacles placed in their way by histories of colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism, responsible for retarding their progress in service to the exploitation of their human and natural resources.

The legitimacy of the Cuban Revolution lies in its survival in the face of the aforementioned US blockade, designed to starve the country to its knees for daring to refuse to be slaves of global capital. To understand what that would look like all we need do is cast our eyes over to the aforementioned Haiti or Dominican Republic, countries of comparable size located in the same region. Compared to them Cuba stands as a beacon of dignity, social and economic justice, and sustainable development.

Fidel Castro was no dictator. On the contrary, he dedicated his life to resisting Washington’s dictatorship of the Third World. Moreover, as a result of the Cuban Revolution the right to be homeless, illiterate, and to go without healthcare no longer exists in Cuba. In their place have come the most fundamental human rights of all – the right to be educated, to healthcare that is free at the point of need, and the right to live with dignity and pride in being the citizen of a small island that has stood over decades as a beacon of justice in an ocean of injustice.

This, in truth, is the reason ‘they’ despise him. And this, in truth, is why millions of Cubans will come out and pay tribute to his life and legacy on the day of his funeral. For them he will forever be ‘El Comandante’.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/01/the-fierce-debate-over-castros-legacy/

Here's your go to site Chlams. You use it about a dozen times a week out in the web swamps to make your points. Last I checked the Trots weren't liberals. You know my opinion of the WSWS, the Trots, and David North but that's besides the point in this instance.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1998/01/cast-j07.html

Castroism and the Politics of Petty-Bourgeois Nationalism

-- Bill Van Auken

Castroism has been the subject of immense confusion, not a small part of it created by the Pabloite revisionist tendency which emerged within the Fourth International. The Pabloites presented—and some of them still present—Castroism as a new road to socialism, as confirmation that the socialist revolution could be carried out, and a workers' state established, without the conscious participation of the working class.

Led by Joseph Hansen in the US and Ernest Mandel in Europe, the Pabloite revisionists abandoned the struggle for revolutionary leadership in the working class, and ceded the historical tasks of the proletariat in the backward countries to the petty-bourgeois nationalists.

In so doing, they helped prepare some of the most terrible defeats suffered by the working class in the latter half of the 20th century.

The International Committee of the Fourth International waged an implacable struggle against this perspective, thereby defending and developing the theoretical and political weapons forged by Marxism over the whole previous period. Involved in this struggle were the most essential questions relating to the tasks of Marxists.

Our movement fought against those who saw Marxism merely as a means of discovering, describing and adapting themselves to supposedly unstoppable objective processes that were compelling other, non-working class, forces to lead the struggle for socialism. It defended the perspective that the only road to socialism lay in building revolutionary parties, based on the international proletariat, in a relentless struggle against the dominant bureaucracies and petty-bourgeois leaderships, no matter how powerful or popular they might appear.

In dealing with Castroism 35 years later, we are entitled to ask who was right in this dispute? Did Castroism provide a new road to socialism or did it turn out to be a blind alley and a trap for the working class? What were the consequences of the Pabloites' renunciation of the role of the working class and its conscious revolutionary vanguard? We will take the opportunity in this lecture to review this strategic experience and its lessons for the working class movement.
Che's revival

A fitting place to begin our analysis is with the recent commemorations marking the 30th anniversary of the execution of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, the most prominent exponent and practitioner of the perspective of guerrilla warfare with which Castroism is identified. In recent months we have witnessed a virtual Che revival, though not the sort that the Argentine-born guerrilla could have envisioned, even in his worst nightmare.

Che has become the object of commercialization in a manner which seems quite incongruous with his radical reputation. His image itself has been transformed into a commodity. The Swiss watchmaker Swatch has come out with a "revolution" model, with the guerrilla's visage. His face has also been used to advertise skis, to adorn the covers of rock CDs and even to sell beer.

In Argentina, the government of Carlos Menem, the favorite of Washington for his embrace of the IMF and enthusiastic support for the Persian Gulf war, has even issued a commemorative stamp honoring Che as a "great Argentine."

The Castro regime has also gotten into the act. It recently brought back Guevara's remains from Bolivia, reintering them in Cuba with pomp and circumstance. The Cuban government has organized Che tours for foreign ex-radicals and markets Che T-shirts and trinkets, providing a new source of hard currency for the crisis-ridden Cuban economy.

What is it about Che that makes him so susceptible to being turned into a harmless, though profitable, icon? The qualities which his admirers cite are well-known. Physical bravery, self-sacrifice, asceticism, giving his life for a cause. These can all be admirable traits. No doubt they present a stark contrast to the prevailing social ethic in which a man's worth is determined by the size of his stock portfolio. But these qualities, in and of themselves, are by no means indicators of the political and class character of those who possess them. Religious sects and even fascist movements can claim to have produced martyrs with similar qualities in their own struggles for wholly reactionary ends.

A careful review of Guevara's career demonstrates that his political conceptions had nothing to do with Marxism and that the panaceas of armed struggle and guerrilla warfare with which he was identified were fundamentally hostile to the revolutionary socialist struggle of the working class.

In the midst of the recent revival of the image of Che there have appeared several new biographies of the guerrilla leader. Those of the Mexican author Jorge Castaneda and the American John Lee Anderson, while by no means offering a Marxist political analysis, do provide some useful insights into both Guevara's trajectory and that of the Cuban revolution.

What emerges so clearly from the detailed recounting of Che's career in these books is the abysmal shallowness and the tragic results of his political perspective.

Alongside these factual accounts there has been a renewed attempt by various petty-bourgeois left tendencies to portray Guevara as a revolutionary leader and theoretician whose example and conceptions continue to provide a meaningful perspective for the struggle against capitalism. Unlike the biographers, these groups provide no fresh insights or information. They combine a diseased nostalgia for the glory days of middle class radicalism with what can only be described as a falsification of Guevara's real views and their political consequences.

Some, such as the Socialist Workers Party in the United States, uncritically echo the official commemorations of the Cuban government. Others, like the old Pabloite scoundrel Livio Maitan in Italy or the Morenoite MAS in Argentina, attempt to portray Guevara as having posed some sort of revolutionary alternative to both Stalinism and the Castroite regime itself.

In a recent statement on the Cuban question, the Morenoites praise Che's slogan of "One, two many Vietnams,'' and declare: "Even if with disastrous methods—guerrilla focos, isolation from the mass movement, opposition to the construction of revolutionary workers parties—it expressed the necessity of extending the revolution internationally.''

How a necessary and revolutionary perspective can be expressed through disastrous methods, the Morenoites do not bother to explain. This tendency, like all the Pabloite factions, has made a career out of attempting to demonstrate how various forces—Peronism, Stalinism, guerrillaism—are "expressing" the struggle for socialism.

Indeed, the Morenoites, at an earlier stage, even reached the point of finding this expression in the Cuban dictator whom Castro overthrew, Fulgencio Batista. Proclaiming him "Cuba's Peron", they hailed the Cuban working class for failing to respond to a general strike call issued by Castro's July 26th movement. After Castro won, however, they placed his portrait alongside that of General Peron on the masthead of their newspaper.

The political alchemy of the Morenoites notwithstanding, the disastrous methods of Guevara were a faithful expression of the political perspective—or perhaps more accurately lack of any real perspective—which underlay them.

Neither the Morenoites nor any of the other Pabloite tendencies care to make a class analysis of Castroism and Guevarism, trace their historical origins and development, or draw up a balance sheet of the experience with guerrillaism in Latin America over the past nearly four decades.

That critical task can only be carried out by our movement, based on the struggle it has undertaken throughout that period for the political independence and international unity of the working class.
Proletarian socialism versus petty-bourgeois nationalism

The Pabloite revisionists, like the middle class ex-radicals in general, are hostile to such an approach. They fervently hope for a revival of Castroism. All of them were enthused by the appearance of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation in Chiapas, Mexico and likewise applauded the actions of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement when it seized the Japanese embassy in Lima, a little more than a year ago.

Our movement did not join in celebrating this apparent resurgence of Guevarism and the hollow political formula of "armed struggle.'' We have a long record of fighting against such conceptions, recognizing that they embody not the revolutionary socialist strivings of the proletariat, but rather the politics of petty-bourgeois nationalism. They are directed not at resolving the vital questions of revolutionary leadership within the working class, but rather at denying the revolutionary role of this class altogether and diverting radicalized layers of students, as well as workers and peasants, away from the struggle for socialism.

They serve not to illuminate, but rather obscure, the strategic problems of the socialist revolution that were elaborated by Trotsky in his theory of Permanent Revolution. Such slogans as "the duty of the revolutionary is to make the revolution,'' "armed struggle,'' and "protracted peoples' war'' leave unanswered the issues of what class will play the leading role in the revolution, what is the connection between the revolution in one country and the world revolution, and what is the relation between the struggle of the workers and oppressed in the backward countries and that of the working class in the advanced capitalist ones.

Behind their radical rhetoric, these movements have definite conceptions about all these questions. Invariably, they are directed at suppressing the independent revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, and subordinating the oppressed masses as a whole to the needs of the national bourgeoisie.

In this sense, no matter how radical these movements may appear, they are, in the final analysis, one of the last bulwarks of imperialism against the socialist revolution. It is this essential nature of petty-bourgeois nationalism and guerrillaism which provides a key to understanding the ease with which capitalism has appropriated the image of Che for its own purposes.

If one examines carefully the politics of the Peruvian MRTA and the Mexican Zapatistas, they are merely a different manifestation of the accommodation with imperialism carried out by all bourgeois nationalist regimes and movements. The Tupac Amaru group seized the Japanese ambassador's residence with the aim of pressuring Japanese imperialism to exert influence over the Fujimori regime to soften its policy. The group's ultimate aim, communicated to some of the hostages, was to force a negotiated settlement through which it could transform itself from an armed movement into a legal petty-bourgeois political party.

As for the Zapatista movement, it has been universally hailed precisely because it has, from the beginning, renounced any revolutionary aims. The vague demands of Subcomandante Marcos have been for democratization, an end to corruption and increased cultural rights for the indigenous population. These demands could and have been embraced not only by the petty-bourgeois left, but by sections of the ruling PRI and even the right-wing opposition party, PAN. Marcos and the Zapatistas, rather than providing a revolutionary road forward for the Mexican workers and oppressed peasantry, have been converted into another instrument for settling political accounts within the Mexican bourgeoisie.
The political role of the petty bourgeoisie

What precisely do we mean when we describe these different movements as "petty-bourgeois nationalist"? This is not merely a political epithet thrown by Marxists at their opponents. It is a scientific definition of the class interests and methods which characterize these movements. Marx, basing himself on the experience of the 1848 revolution, and Trotsky, in his theory of Permanent Revolution, demonstrated that the petty-bourgeoisie is incapable of independent and consistent political action. Its inconsistency is a reflection of its intermediate social position. Caught between the two main classes of society and continuously being differentiated into exploiter and exploited, it is compelled to follow one or other of these classes—either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie.

In the postwar period, imperialism created and came to depend upon a new social layer identified as the middle class. In the advanced capitalist countries, this consisted of functionaries who staffed government bureaucracies and corporate offices, administered social services of newly-created welfare states and ran the growing mass media.

An analogous stratum emerged within the oppressed countries, and it was to this layer that imperialism handed over power during the period of decolonization. In Latin America, as in other areas of the globe oppressed by imperialism, the opportunities presented to this social layer were far more limited than what prevailed among their counterparts in the advanced capitalist countries. Thousands of students graduated from university with no prospect of a professional career. In many cases those who did pursue a profession or attempted to live off a small business enjoyed little more in terms of living standards than the average worker. It was this social stratum which provided the principal social base for petty-bourgeois nationalist politics.

There was, therefore, an objective class basis for the emergence of the Pabloite theories of a "new world reality", in which the struggle for socialism could be undertaken, not by the working class and its conscious revolutionary vanguard, but rather by the radicalized petty bourgeoisie. Ultimately these revisionist formulations reflected both the strivings of this particular social layer, as well as imperialism's need for a buffer between itself and the threat of proletarian revolution.
The roots of the Cuban Revolution

Like every major event, the revolution led by Fidel Castro in 1959 had deep roots in preceding historical developments. These historical roots, generally ignored by the cheerleaders of Castro among the Pabloites and the petty-bourgeois left in general, must be examined to understand the class content and political significance of Castroism.

Cuba's history was shaped principally by the abortive character of its independence struggle, which effectively transferred its status from a colonial possession of moribund Spanish colonialism, to an economic and political semi-colony of the rising imperialist power, the United States.

The US intervened in Cuba in 1898 following a 30-year war waged for Cuban independence. The intervention was short and decisive. The Spanish were relieved of their colonies in the Treaty of Paris, a settlement in which the Cubans themselves had no participation.

This settlement produced what became known as the Platt Amendment Republic. Named for the US senator who drafted it, the legislation was passed in Washington and then imposed as an amendment to the first Cuban constitution. It included a prohibition against the nominally independent Cuban republic entering into any international treaty deemed prejudicial to US interests. It also guaranteed the US the right to intervene militarily: "for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the Treaty of Paris.'' The US would avail itself of this "right" repeatedly in the first part of the 20th century.

Cuba's dependence upon US imperialism was not merely the formal one embodied in the Platt Amendment. It rested upon the Cuban export of sugar to the US market. This single crop accounted for the vast majority of the island's export earnings and was shipped almost exclusively to the United States. The sugar monoculture condemned the majority of the population to backwardness, poverty and chronic unemployment.

The political and social relations that came to prevail in Cuba were bound up with the uncompleted character of the bourgeois democratic struggle for national independence. While Cuba's semi-colonial status was among the more blatant in the world, it was by no means unique.

As the Fourth International was to warn on the eve of the Second World War: "Belated national states can no longer count upon an independent democratic development. Surrounded by decaying capitalism and enmeshed in the imperialist contradictions, the independence of a backward state inevitably will be semi-fictitious and the political regime, under the influence of internal class contradictions and external pressure, will unavoidably fall into dictatorship against the people.''[1]

Another statement, written in the same year, stressed that there was no possibility of ending imperialist oppression outside of the world socialist revolution: "The hopes of liberation of the colonial peoples are therefore bound up even more decisively than before with the emancipation of the workers of the whole world. The colonies shall be freed politically, economically and culturally, only when the workers of the advanced countries put an end to capitalist rule and set out, together with the backward peoples, to reorganize world economy on a new level, gearing it to social needs and not monopoly profits.''[2]

As we shall see, Cuba's subsequent history has proven this thesis, albeit in the negative. Without such a united and international struggle of the working class, genuine economic, political and cultural liberation has proven impossible.

The relationship between the US and Cuba gave rise to a bourgeois political setup which was notable for its impotence, extreme corruption and frequent eruptions of violence. US domination of the economy, combined with a predominance of foreign immigrants in both the business and landowning classes, also bred a Cuban nationalism which was characterized by extreme anti-Americanism and even a xenophobic strain.

Another perspective, however, did emerge in Cuba. In 1925, the Cuban Communist Party was formed, affiliating itself to the Third International. Its most prominent figure was Julio Antonio Mella, a law student who became the leader of a university reform movement in the early 1920s and sought to turn the students to the working class.

Mella and his comrades led the struggle against the dictatorship of Gerardo Machado, whom Mella described as a "tropical Mussolini.'' Jailed by the dictatorship, he was freed under popular pressure and then fled the country, traveling to the Soviet Union, Europe and finally Mexico.

Mella broke with the Communist Party in Mexico in 1929, declaring his support for Trotsky's struggle against the Stalinist bureaucracy. Shortly thereafter he was assassinated.

Mella had emerged out of a broad movement of Cuban students and intellectuals seeking to change the island's corrupt political system and its domination by US imperialism. But he renounced the prevailing nationalist conceptions and adopted the perspective of socialist internationalism.

Stalinism was to prevent the working class from providing its own solution to Cuba's historic problems based on such a perspective. It can be said, therefore, that Stalinism helped prepare Fidel Castro's rise to power long before he and the Cuban Communist Party ever considered joining forces. By suppressing the perspective for which Mella and the first generation of Cuban Marxists had fought, Stalinism promoted the growth of radical petty-bourgeois nationalism.

In the first lecture at this school, David North dealt at some length with how history consisted, not merely of "what happened" and "who won", but rather, what alternatives existed, what were the consequences of those which were taken and those which were not. What would have happened had the Left Opposition prevailed? The same question can be posed in relation to Cuba, albeit on a smaller scale.

There are limits, of course, on what we can safely say about "what might have been". One cannot assert with any assurance, for example, that had there been a genuine communist party in Cuba, a socialist revolution would have taken place in such and such a year. We can state with certainty, however, that had there existed a genuine revolutionary party of the working class, as opposed to the corrupt political apparatus of Cuban Stalinism, the emergence of the specific tendency known as Castroism would have been impossible.

In the wake of the Stalinist degeneration of the Communist Party in Cuba, the country passed through a profound revolutionary crisis. A nationwide insurrection erupted in 1933, forcing the dictator Machado to flee the country. The high point of this movement was a general strike by the working class, which saw the seizure of factories, sugar mills and estates.

As the general strike grew in intensity and scope, the Stalinist Cuban Communist Party, which dominated the unions, issued a back-to-work order, claiming that the strike threatened to provoke a US intervention. While the vast majority of workers ignored the order, the CP nonetheless entered into secret talks with Machado, obtaining concessions for the party in exchange for its responsible role in seeking to end the walkout.

This deal, short-lived only because of Machado's subsequent flight into exile, was to set a pattern which the CP would follow for the next 25 years. The Stalinists continued their domination of the labor movement, while forging a series of alliances with conservative bourgeois parties and even military regimes. In the 1940s, the Stalinists entered the government of US-backed strongman, Batista.
Castro and Castroism

With Stalinism held in contempt for its collaboration with right-wing parties and dictatorships, the rhetoric of anti-imperialism and social revolution became increasingly the monopoly of radicalized middle class nationalist elements particularly centered among the students of Havana University. It was in this hothouse environment that Fidel Castro got his start.

Born to a Spanish landowning family, Castro's awakening to political life began as a student in a Jesuit high school. There, he came under the influence of Spanish priests who supported Franco fascism. He read all of the works of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, the founder of the Spanish Falange and was, according to his classmates, strongly attracted to fascist ideology.

In the late 40s and early 50s Castro was involved in the activities of the armed student gangs that dominated the university. The ideology of these gangs was both nationalistic and explicitly anti-communist.

Castro entered a struggle against Batista as a member of the bourgeois Ortodoxo Party. He had stood as a candidate to the Cuban legislature in 1952, but Batista's coup of that year thwarted his parliamentary ambitions. He then began organizing a small group of followers for armed action. He led an assault on the Moncada army barracks in July 1953. All of the 200 participants were either killed or jailed.

Castro's actions were not unique. Throughout this period, followers of various parties and petty-bourgeois factions carried out attacks on garrisons, assassination attempts and even the seizure of Batista's palace. There is little in Castro's political statements during the period leading up to the 1959 revolution to differentiate him from the run-of-the-mill politics of anti-Batista Cuban nationalism. His most famous speech, "History will absolve me,'' prepared in his defense at the trial on the Moncada assault, consisted of denunciations of the dictatorship's repression and a list of fairly mild democratic reforms.

Following a brief jail sentence, Castro went to Mexico, from where, at the end of 1956, he organized a landing of some 80 armed men. Like Moncada, the landing was a catastrophe with barely a dozen surviving the first encounters with Batista's repressive forces. Yet, barely two years later Castro was to take power.

Power literally fell into the hands of Castro's guerrillas because there existed no other credible political force on the island.

This political vacuum was a function, above all, of the absence of any revolutionary leadership in the Cuban working class. Whatever the limitations of Castro's reformism, his social policies were far more radical than those put forward by the Stalinists. Moreover, his armed actions, as limited as they were, won wide popular support at a time when the Cuban Stalinists were seen as accomplices of the dictatorship.

Castro's original intentions were to reach an accommodation with the US. On his first trip to the United States, four months after coming to power, Castro declared the following; "I have stated in a clear and definitive manner that we are not communists. The doors are open to private investments that contribute to the development of industry in Cuba. It is absolutely impossible for us to make progress if we do not reach an understanding with the United States.''

Castro's movement, however, had committed itself to a limited agrarian reform as well as social measures to benefit the Cuban people. In its first months it had decreed a redistribution of unused land, a reduction in rents, wage increases and various measures expanding education and health care.

Washington would have none of it.

The US sought to discipline Castro with naked economic pressure. In a spiraling conflict with the Cuban regime, the US cut Cuba's sugar export quota, its principal economic lifeline and then refused to provide it with oil.

The Cuban regime responded with nationalizations, first of US property, then Cuban-owned enterprises, and a turn to the Soviet bureaucracy for assistance.

US foreign policy was rigidly ideological and vindictive. Britain had handled similar developments in a quite different way. African leaders like Nkrumah, Kaunda and Kenyatta were cultivated despite their radical and even "socialist" rhetoric, thereby preserving British imperialism's influence and interests in the region.

Ironically, US arrogance and stupidity has proven to be one of the central pillars of Castro's rule over the past 40 years. They have has allowed him to pose as the embodiment of Cuban nationalism and to cast any opposition as a tool of Yankee imperialism.

Along with the turn to Moscow, Castro forged an alliance with the Cuban Stalinists. This move was hailed by the Pabloites, and the petty-bourgeois left in general, as a further indication of the revolution's radicalization and its socialist character. It was nothing of the sort. As we have seen, Cuba's Popular Socialist Party, as the Stalinists were then known, was a thoroughly reactionary and discredited political force. It represented part of the existing bourgeois political setup in Cuba, having faithfully served even the Batista regime.

Having found himself unexpectedly catapulted into power, Castro turned to the PSP out of necessity. He had neither a party, a program nor even a real army. The Cuban Stalinists provided him with an apparatus and an ideology through which he could rule.

Castro subsequently would reinterpret his own political past, declaring that he had become a "Marxist- Leninist'' long before the Batista coup, though "not quite'' a communist. All of his political adventures, from his days with the armed anti-communist gangs on the university to his campaign as a Congressional candidate for a bourgeois party, were recast as mere tactical initiatives aimed at preparing the conditions for a socialist revolution.

What was it that Castro, as well as other left bourgeois nationalists, found in "Marxism-Leninism"? Clearly, they were not seeking a scientific perspective to guide the struggle of the working class for its own social and political emancipation. At the same time it was more than just a pretense aimed at winning support from Moscow.

They saw the Marxism-Leninism they learned from the Stalinists as a policy which promoted the use of the state to effect desired changes in the social order. They also found in it a justification for their own unrestricted control over this state, ruling through an omnipotent "revolutionary party" headed by an infallible and irreplaceable national leader. It should be recalled that Chiang kai shek also modeled his party, the Kuomintang, on what he learned from Stalinism.
The myth of guerrillaism

Like virtually all the nationalist regimes and tendencies that emerged in the postwar period, Castroism has rested on a set of myths concerning its own origins and development. Such mythologizing is inevitable, given the class character of these movements, resting as they do upon the petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie, while claiming to represent the interests of the oppressed masses.

After coming to power, Castro and his followers portrayed their victory as the exclusive outcome of the armed struggle waged by the guerrillas in the Sierra Maestra mountains: a military victory over imperialism and the native bourgeoisie won by a small force through sheer will and determination. As Che Guevara was to write, barely a month after the toppling of the Batista dictatorship:

"We have demonstrated that a small group of men who are determined, supported by the people, and without fear of dying... can overcome a regular army... There is another lesson for our brothers in [Latin] America, economically in the same agrarian category as ourselves, which is that we must make agrarian revolutions, fight in the fields, in the mountains, and from here take the revolution to the cities, not try to make it in the latter..''

This conception, which became the official explanation of the Cuban revolution, represented a radical distortion of events. In the course of Batista's six years in power, some 20,000 Cubans lost their lives at the hands of the regime. Of these, 19,000 were killed in Cuba's cities. Acts of sabotage, political strikes and other forms of resistance, the majority of them outside the control of Castro's July 26th movement, were widespread and ultimately provided the principal impetus for the regime's downfall.

Castro's guerrillas amounted to, at most, a few thousand men. There were no conclusive military battles and the largest engagement involved no more than 200 guerrillas. Batista lost the support both of the Cuban bourgeoisie—a substantial section of which backed Castro—and Washington, which imposed an arms embargo on his regime. Deprived of this support it rapidly disintegrated.

Within Cuba, this myth of Castro's guerrillas defeating both US imperialism and the native ruling classes through sheer audacity and military prowess served a very definite political purpose. It justified the consolidation of a regime that placed all the reigns of state power incontestably in Castro's own hands.

The myth developed by Castro and Guevara was to be exported with catastrophic results. The so-called Cuban road was promoted throughout Latin America as the only viable form of revolutionary struggle. Thousands of Latin American youth were led to the slaughter by the promise that all that was required to overthrow governments and end social oppression was courage and a few guns.

Guevara's most well-known writing, "Guerra de Guerrillas'' or guerrilla warfare, served as a handbook for this doomed strategy. It summed up what he described as the three great lessons of the Cuban experience for the "mechanics of revolutionary movements in America'':

1. Popular forces can win a war against the army.
2. It is not necessary for all conditions to be present to make a revolution; the insurrectional foco [term for guerrilla unit] can create them.
3. In the underdeveloped Americas the terrain of the armed struggle must be primarily the countryside.[3]

What little political analysis these writings contained was radically false. Latin America's path of development had been capitalist for many years. The essential foundation of oppression in Latin America was not, as Guevara claimed, Latifundia - that is the concentration of land in the hands of a tiny minority - but rather capitalist relations of wage labor and profit. Even as these works were being written, the continent was undergoing major structural changes that were further proletarianizing the population and leading to massive migration from the rural areas to the cities.

None of this was analyzed. Revolutionary preparation was reduced to the impressionistic process of picking the appropriate rural arena for guerrilla war. Those who followed this advice ended up trapped in jungles and backland, where they were condemned to one-on-one combat with the Latin American armies.

What emerges again and again in Guevara's politics is the rejection of the working class as a revolutionary class and contempt for the ability of the workers and oppressed masses to become politically conscious and carry out their own struggle for liberation.

While he proposed the countryside as the only possible venue for armed struggle, it was not a matter of mobilizing the peasantry on social demands. On the contrary, Che's conception was one based on the utilization of violence in order to "oblige the dictatorship to resort to violence, thereby unmasking its true nature as the dictatorship of the reactionary social classes." In other words, the aim of the guerrilla band was to provoke repression against the peasantry, who would supposedly respond by supporting the struggle against the government.

For such a struggle, neither theory nor politics were required, much less an active intervention in the struggles of the working class and oppressed masses. As Guevara set about to build guerrilla groups in Latin America, he insisted that they exclude all political controversy and discussion. Unity was to be based solely on an agreement on the tactic of "armed struggle".
The fiasco of Guevarism

The results were predictably disastrous. It was in his native Argentina where Che set up one of the first guerrilla groups, under the leadership of the journalist Jorge Masetti. In his biography of Che, Anderson provides a particularly chilling account of this fiasco. The guerrillas never saw combat. Some became lost and apparently starved in the wilderness. Others fell into the hands of the police. Before the decimation of the group, however, Masetti had ordered the execution of three of its members for alleged disciplinary infractions. The author cites one of the survivors of this debacle, who notes that all three of the condemned men were Jewish. It turned out that Masetti, before his alignment with Castroism, had been a member of an extreme right-wing nationalist and anti-Semitic organization in Argentina.

Che's own group in Bolivia came to a similar end. What is most noteworthy about his activities there was his complete indifference to the social and political situation in the country itself. The tin miners, the most powerful force in the Bolivian revolution of 1951, were engaged in strikes and confrontations with the army in the months preceding Che's arrival in the country. In his diary he merely noted these events as part of the scenic backdrop to his own activity. He had no perspective or policy to present to the Bolivian workers. As for the Bolivian peasantry, its reaction to the initiation of armed struggle was not to back the guerrillas but rather to turn them in to the military.

In Bolivia, the Castroites had counted on the support of the pro-Moscow Communist Party. This support was never forthcoming and many have blamed the Stalinists and the Moscow bureaucracy itself for condemning the guerrillas to total isolation and perhaps even providing US intelligence with information on Che's whereabouts.

This is plausible. The secretary general of the Bolivian CP, Monje, was apparently a KGB asset who moved to permanent residence in Moscow shortly after Guevara's death. One thing that emerges from Castaneda's biography is the extraordinary domination of all of the principal Communist Parties of Latin America by such figures, in many cases men who had a direct role in Trotsky's assassination in 1940. He also establishes, through formerly secret documents from the Soviet archives, how these parties were funded through direct subsidies from Moscow. The Soviet bureaucracy was financing reliable political agencies whose purpose was to further its own quest for peaceful coexistence with Washington.

But in the end one is left with the fact that such a betrayal was not really that necessary. The idea that a revolution would be made by bringing less than two dozen armed men into a region where they had no political antecedents, no support or even a worked out program and perspective to win such support, was doomed from the outset. It is a measure of the pathetic character of this adventure that in his final days, surrounded by the Bolivian army, Guevara was planning to appeal for international support... by addressing letters to Bertrand Russell and Jean Paul Sartre.
Cuba and the Fourth International

The Cuban revolution proved to be a crucial turning point in the history of the Fourth International.

After leading the struggle against Pabloism in 1953, the American section, the Socialist Workers Party, reunified with the main Pabloite tendency led by Ernest Mandel a decade later. The reunification was based primarily on their common assessment of Castroism and the role of petty-bourgeois nationalism. They determined, based on the nationalization of the bulk of the productive forces in Cuba, that it had become a workers state. Furthermore, they advanced the perspective that Castroism could become an international tendency, giving rise to a new revolutionary leadership of the world working class.

This perspective had implications reaching far beyond Cuba. As Trotsky had pointed out in relation to the debate over the definition of the Soviet state in 1939-1940, behind every sociological definition lies a historical prognosis. Bound up with the designation of Cuba as a workers' state was a break with the entire historical and theoretical conception of the socialist revolution developed from Marx onwards.

In Cuba, power had fallen into the hands of a guerrilla army which was clearly of a petty-bourgeois nationalist character, without any serious ties to the workers. The workers themselves had played no significant role in the formation of the new regime, nor had they established any means of exerting democratic control over the state once it was formed.

To designate such a regime as a "workers state" had immense ramifications. It meant abandoning the entire struggle waged by the Marxist movement for the political and organizational independence of the working class. Instead, it indicated that the path to socialism lay through subordinating the working class to the nationalist leaderships. It would be the Castroites, the guerrilla armies and other nationalists rooted in the petty-bourgeoisie who would lead the socialist revolution, not the working class, educated and organized by parties of the Fourth International. That was the central historical prognosis flowing from the sociological definition of a Cuban workers state put forward by the Pabloites.

The perspective elaborated by the SWP's Joseph Hansen in relation to Cuba was founded upon a gross vulgarization of Marxism. He took as his point of departure the previous decision by the Trotskyist movement to use the highly conditional and somewhat makeshift definition of "deformed workers state" in describing China and the Eastern European buffer states.

In these earlier discussions, the SWP had placed the emphasis on the adjective "deformed", to indicate that these states were historically unviable. They had opposed Pablo's attempt to use this definition as a means of endowing Stalinism with a revolutionary potential.

Hansen, however, in an even cruder fashion than Pablo, set out to demonstrate how Cuba met a series of abstract criteria—above all economic nationalization—which supposedly placed it in the category of workers state.

The working class had not made the revolution, and it exercised no control over the state apparatus in the revolution's aftermath. But these facts were taken merely as a few more normative criteria the Cuban revolution had failed to meet, demonstrating that progress was still to be made, and that uncritical support was all the more necessary.

As Hansen wrote at the time: "The Cuban government has not yet instituted democratic proletarian forms of power as workers, soldiers and peasants councils. However, as it has moved in a socialist direction it has likewise proved itself to be democratic in tendency. It did not hesitate to arm the people and set up a popular militia. It has guaranteed freedom of expression to all groupings that support the revolution. In this respect it stands in welcome contrast to the other non-capitalist states, which have been tainted with Stalinism.

"If the Cuban revolution were permitted to develop freely, its democratic tendency would undoubtedly lead to the early creation of proletarian democratic forms adapted to Cuba's own needs. One of the strongest reasons for vigorously supporting the revolution, therefore, is to give the maximum possibility for this tendency to operate."[4]

Cuban reality was quite different from the rosy scenario painted by Hansen. The Cuban Trotskyists, for example, were ruthlessly repressed, their leaders jailed and their press smashed. The island has long held one of the largest number of political prisoners of any country in the world, not a few of them Castro's former comrades in the July 26 movement.

From a theoretical standpoint, the most deceptive aspect of Hansen's assessment was his suggestion that, if given the opportunity, the Castro regime would "institute democratic proletarian forms of power"; i.e., workers councils or, to use the term forged in the Russian revolution, soviets.

Such organs of workers power, however, are not instituted or granted from above by a regime created by the petty-bourgeois nationalists. Such institutions, whether created by Castro, Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein, are never more than window dressing for a bonapartist regime. Genuine workers councils or soviets can be created only by the workers themselves, as a means of organizing the masses, overthrowing capitalism and establishing a new proletarian state power.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not hand soviets down to the workers after seizing power. Rather, they led the struggle for power through these organs that the Russian proletariat had created itself, based on the development of its class struggle and the growth of political class consciousness produced by the protracted intervention of the Russian Marxists.

The Pabloites adopted the position that Castro's national-izations, and his self-proclamation as a Marxist-Leninist, constituted the confirmation of the Permanent Revolution.

In reality, Cuba, like so many other oppressed countries in the course of the decades following the Second World War, provided a confirmation of Permanent Revolution, but in the negative. That is, where the working class lacked a revolutionary party, and therefore was incapable of providing leadership to the masses of oppressed, representatives of the national bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeois nationalists were able to step in and impose their own solution. Nasser, Nehru, Peron, Ben Bella, Sukharno, the Baathists and, in a later period, the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, were all examples of this process. In virtually all of these cases nationalizations were also carried out.

In a document sent by the Socialist Labour League to the SWP in 1961, the British Trotskyists sharply criticized Hansen's adulation of the petty-bourgeois nationalist leaderships.

"It is not the job of Trotskyists to boost the role of such nationalist leaders,'' they stated. "They can command the support of the masses only because of the betrayal of leadership by the Social Democracy and particularly Stalinism, and in this way they become buffers between imperialism and the masses of workers and peasants. The possibility of economic aid from the Soviet Union often enables them to strike a harder bargain with the imperialists, even enables more radical elements among the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leaders to attack imperialist holdings and gain further support from the masses. But, for us, in every case the vital question is one of the working class in these countries gaining political independence through a Marxist party, leading the poor peasantry to the building of Soviets, and recognizing the necessary connections with the international socialist revolution. In no case, in our opinion, should Trotskyists substitute for that the hope that the nationalist leadership should become socialists.''[5]

Those familiar with the subsequent degeneration of the Workers Revolutionary Party know that this passage reads like a direct indictment of the line which Healy, Banda and Slaughter would begin pursuing barely a decade later, in relation to the PLO and various Arab regimes. This only demonstrates the acuteness of the analysis, and the fact that the revisionist attack on the Fourth International was rooted in objective class forces. Having abandoned the struggle against Pabloism, the leadership of the British section was to fall victim to the same class forces that had fatally undermined the SWP.

What was involved in proclaiming Cuba a workers state, and its revolution a new road to socialism, was the renunciation of the entire perspective of Permanent Revolution. The working class no longer had to play the leading role in the backward countries, nor was it necessary to fight for the development of socialist consciousness within this class. Instead, bands of guerrillas, basing themselves on the peasantry, could bring about socialism without, and even in spite of, the workers.

This marked the rejection of the most essential foundation of Marxism. The struggle for socialism was separated from the proletariat. No longer was the liberation of the working class the task of the working class itself. Instead it was turned into a mute spectator of the actions of heroic guerrillas.

In considering this perspective, one can clearly grasp the class basis for the enduring infatuation of the petty-bourgeois left as a whole with Fidel Castro. What they see in Castro is the ability of the petty-bourgeoisie to dominate the working class and to play a seemingly independent role. Cuba, for them, served as proof that the leftist intellectual, the student radical or middle class protester did not have to subordinate themselves to the working class and the difficult and protracted struggle for the development of socialist consciousness among the workers. Rather, they could revolutionize society through their own spontaneous activity.

In combating this revisionist attack on Marxism, the SLL traced the dispute over Cuba to fundamental methodological questions. It demonstrated that the SWP was engaged in what Trotsky had described as the "worshipping of the accomplished fact," that is, adapting themselves to the so-called reality determined by the existing social structure, the existing leaderships in the working class and the bourgeois forms of consciousness prevailing among the broad masses of workers and oppressed. All of these were accepted as objective, determining factors, entirely separated from the conscious struggle of the revolutionary proletarian party.

The SWP's method was one of passive contemplation of these "facts'', and an adaptation to existing leaderships, in search of what appeared to offer the most immediate prospects for political success. Thus they became apologists for these leaderships, justifying their every action with the argument that, given the circumstances, what else could they do? These "circumstances" however, always excluded the conscious struggle of Trotskyists to mobilize the working class independently on its own socialist and internationalist program.

The SLL defended the theoretical conquests made by the Trotskyist movement in the struggle against Stalinism. It insisted that the strategic experiences of the whole imperialist epoch had demonstrated that non-working class leaderships could not carry through to completion the struggles for liberation from imperialist oppression and backwardness in the colonial and former colonial countries.

These struggles could be completed only through the conquest of power by the working class and the extension of the world socialist revolution. The principal task flowing from this analysis was the building of independent revolutionary parties of the working class, based on a struggle against all opportunist trends, particularly the Stalinists, who sought to subordinate the working class to nationalism and nationalist leaderships.

Above all, Pabloism denied that the achievement of the socialist revolution required the development of a high level of socialist political consciousness within the leading sections of the working class. The political consciousness of the workers was, in the Pabloite scheme of things, a matter of indifference. To the extent that the working class was seen as having any relation to the socialist revolution, it was merely as an objective force led and manipulated by others.

The resolution drafted by the Pabloites after reunification with the SWP spelled out the political implications of the theoretical revisions developed on the Cuban question. It stated the following: "The weakness of the enemy in the backward countries has opened the possibility of coming to power even with a blunted instrument.''[6] In other words, workers states could be established without even building parties of the working class.

In these countries, they declared, and particularly in Latin America, the conditions of mass poverty and the relative weakness of the bourgeois state structures "create situations in which the failure of one revolutionary wave does not lead automatically to relative or even temporary social or economic stabilization. A seemingly inexhaustible succession of mass struggles continues... The weakness of the enemy offers the revolution fuller means of recovery from temporary defeats than is the case in imperialist countries."[7]

This was a gross distortion of Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution. When Trotsky pointed to the weakness of the bourgeoisie in Tsarist Russia it was not in some kind of timeless vacuum, but rather in relation to the domination of imperialism on the one hand and the objective strength of the small, but concentrated, Russian working class on the other. The bourgeoisie was never too weak to either crush or control the petty-bourgeois democracy. It was weak in that it confronted a young proletariat with a revolutionary leadership at its head.

The Pabloites, however, had rejected the role of the industrial proletariat and had assigned the task of revolution to just such petty-bourgeois forces.

Their theory of "blunted instruments" and "inexhaustible mass struggles" was elaborated on the eve of the first in a series of US-backed coups—led by General Castelo Branco in Brazil—which were to plunge Latin America into a decade of nightmarish repression, whose shadow still hangs over the continent.

The Pabloites not only failed to prepare the working class for these events, they helped facilitate them by insisting that the revolution could be carried out by forces other than the working class and endorsing the Castroite perspective of armed actions by isolated guerrilla bands.
Pabloism and the crisis of leadership

Why did Castroism become such a pole of attraction in Latin America? While the continental-wide conditions for guerrilla warfare presented by Guevara may have proven false, there was one thing that the countries shared in common. The dominant leaderships in the working class, particularly the Stalinist Communist Parties, offered no way forward under conditions of growing revolutionary crisis.

So the "new reality" which the Pabloites celebrated, the rise of a petty-bourgeois-led radical nationalist tendency like Castroism, was essentially a manifestation of the unresolved crisis of revolutionary leadership in the working class itself. Yet they presented it as the solution to this crisis, disavowing the strategic aim of the Fourth International. Abandoning an independent orientation to the working class and the struggle to build up a party which could smash the bureaucracies' domination, they reduced the role of the Fourth International to that of aiding the petty-bourgeois nationalists and Stalinists, influencing them and subtly nudging them to the left.

How was this perspective realized in practice? In1968, the Pabloites held their Ninth Congress, in the immediate aftermath of Guevara's Bolivian fiasco and on the eve of great class struggles in Latin America. They instructed the parties affiliated to the United Secretariat in Latin America to abandon the working class and engage in guerrilla warfare.

As the congress document stated: "Even in the case of countries where there may first occur great mobilizations of conflicts by the urban classes civil war will take varied forms, in which the principal axis for a whole period will be the rural guerrilla, a term whose principal meaning is military-geographic and which does not imply an exclusively (or even predominantly) peasant composition."[8]

The resolution continued: "The only realistic perspective for Latin America is that of an armed struggle, which can last for many years. Technical preparation cannot be conceived of merely as an aspect of work, but rather as the fundamental aspect on an international scale and one of the fundamental aspects in those countries where even the minimum conditions don't yet exist."[9]

There could not have been more explicit instructions. In case anyone within the Latin American sections harbored doubts as to whether they had sufficient backing among the peasantry, or the necessary political conditions to stage an uprising in the countryside, the resolution assured them that no peasant support was necessary and that the political situation was beside the point. All that was required were "technical preparations" for armed struggle.

The result was the political liquidation and physical annihilation of the cadres led by the Pabloites in Latin America.

In Argentina, for example, the official section of the United Secretariat reconstituted itself as the ERP before formally breaking with the Pabloites. It engaged in the kidnapping of business executives for ransom, simply adding on demands for increased wages and better conditions for the workers.

What was the effect of such actions? The workers were essentially taught that it was not their role to wage the struggle to put an end to capitalism. They were merely to serve as grateful spectators, as heroic armed guerrillas did it for them.

In Chile, the workers conducted a sustained offensive, ultimately strangled by Allende's Popular Unity government whose policies paved the way for the Pinochet dictatorship. In Argentina, the Cordobazo of 1969, in which the workers of Cordoba seized control of the city, inaugurated a protracted offensive which was suppressed by the Peronists and then annihilated by the dictatorship of Videla. In Bolivia, the miners rose up repeatedly only to be subordinated by their leaderships to a supposedly nationalist and left section of the military under General Torres. Predictably, Torres soon handed power over to his more traditional colleagues who carried out the ruthless repression of the Bolivian workers.

With their turn to Castroism, the Pabloites had abandoned both the working class and the struggle to free it from the domination of the old bureaucracies. Just as Castro had supposedly confirmed Permanent Revolution, he had also rendered this crucial struggle superfluous.

The SWP's Hansen put forward this thesis with his usual cynicism and crudity, proclaiming that Castro had overcome the counterrevolutionary role of Stalinism.

"Unable to blast away the Stalinist obstacle, the revolution turned back a considerable distance and took a detour. The detour has led us over some very rough ground, including the Sierra Maestra of Cuba, but it is clear that the Stalinist roadblock is now being bypassed.

"It is not necessary to turn to Moscow for leadership. This is the main lesson to be drawn from the experience in Cuba... To finally break the hypnosis of Stalinism, it became necessary to crawl on all fours through the jungles of the Sierra Maestra."10

This conclusion had definite political implications, reaching far beyond Cuba. If one could simply "bypass the Stalinist roadblock" by means of guerrilla war led by petty-bourgeois nationalists, the difficult and protracted struggle waged by the Fourth International to break the chokehold which Stalinism maintained over the working class, was not only superfluous but counterproductive.

The net effect of this perspective was not to break, but rather strengthen, the grip of Stalinism over the workers' movement in the oppressed countries and particularly in Latin America. It helped to divert a whole generation of Latin American youth from any struggle within the working class. The turn to guerrillaism represented a boon to the Stalinists and other bureaucratic leaderships. It isolated the most revolutionary elements among the youth as well as a section of radicalized workers, thereby strengthening the bureaucracy's own grip over the workers movement.

In the end, the Pabloites' adaptation to petty-bourgeois nationalism helped ensure that the working class had no revolutionary leadership as it entered the major class struggles of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The guerrilla adventures they promoted, gave the military and imperialism the pretext for imposing dictatorship. Thus, this revisionist tendency played a crucial role in preparing the bloodiest defeats ever suffered by the workers of Latin America.
Balance sheet of guerrillaism

What became of the Guevarist-Castroite movements that the Pabloites proclaimed as the new instruments of the socialist revolution? To trace their concrete evolution is to lay bare the class character of these movements from their origins.

The FALN of Venezuela was one of the principal guerrilla movements of the 1960s, formed with Cuban support. Let us cite a statement by one of the leaders of this movement during that period.

"When we speak of the liberation of Venezuela we mean the liberation of all Latin America; we do not recognize frontiers in Latin America. Our frontiers are ideological frontiers. We interpret international solidarity in a truly revolutionary way, and we are therefore committed to fight, to fight imperialism until it no longer exists; we are committed not to lay down our arms until North American imperialism in particular is reduced to impotence."

The author of these lines was Teodoro Petkoff. Not only did he lay down his arms, he has since become Venezuela's Minister of Planning and the chief official responsible for implementing IMF austerity programs. From proclaiming continental solidarity and a struggle to the death against Yankee imperialism, Petkoff is now engaged in slashing wages and privatizing state enterprises with the aim of successfully competing with other capitalist economies in the region for transnational investment. He is expected to emerge as the leading candidate in this year's presidential election in Venezuela.

His case is representative. In Uruguay, the Tupamaro guerrillas now form part of the Frente Amplio, a bourgeois electoral front which administers the disintegrating social conditions in the capital of Montevideo. The M-19 movement worked out an arrangement with the Colombian government, that not only assured their leaders posts in parliament, but allowed their members to trade their weapons for small business loans.

In the early 1980s, the Castro regime and its supporters claimed that Central America, with the taking of power by the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and the eruption of civil war in El Salvador, offered a fresh vindication of their perspective.

But what became of all these movements? The Sandinistas, the FMLN in El Salvador, the URNG in Guatemala, all joined in pacts with the very forces responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants. Castro helped broker these pacts in the Contadora and Esquipulas negotiations which consolidated power in the hands of US-backed factions of the bourgeoisie, while turning the cadres of the so-called liberation movements into parliamentary deputies, military officers and policemen in the new regimes. All of these groups have become divided into various factions, denouncing each other, with great justification, for political betrayal and financial corruption.

Meanwhile, the masses of the region confront conditions of poverty and oppression which are as bad or worse than those which gave rise to the revolutionary upheavals in the region 20 years ago. The net effect of these Castroite-influenced petty-bourgeois nationalist movements was to sow demoralization among a layer of the more militant workers, youth and peasants.
Cuba today

What of Cuba itself? What is the end result of the new road to socialism which both the Castro regime and the Pabloite revisionists proclaimed 35 years ago?

For 30 years the island survived thanks to huge subsidies from the Moscow bureaucracy. According to both Castro's supporters and US estimates, economic subsidies from the Soviet Union to Cuba amounted to somewhere between $3 and $5 billion annually. The mechanism for this aid was the purchasing, by the Soviet bloc, of Cuban agricultural products, particularly sugar, at above world market prices—as much as 12 times as high—and the sale of petroleum at below market prices. Based on this arrangement, Cuba reached the point of buying sugar from the neighboring Dominican Republic, and reselling the oil on the world market to obtain hard currency.

Dependence on Soviet subsidies ultimately had the effect of solidifying Cuba's monoculture in sugar, the historic foundation of its backwardness and oppression. Just as before the 1959 revolution, Cuba's exports, 83 percent of which went to the USSR and Eastern Europe, consisted of sugar, tobacco, nickel, fish and a few other agricultural commodities. From the Soviet bloc it imported manufactured consumer goods and machinery, not to mention a large share of its food.

No amount of tinkering or abrupt changes in economic policy dictated by the infallible 'lider maximo' Fidel Castro changed this essential relationship. In the end, the substantial reforms won by the Cuban people in the areas of health, education and nutrition were sustained through these subsidies. Now that the regime is turning to foreign direct investment, the reforms are being systematically whittled away.

Castro entered into a Faustian bargain with the Soviet bureaucracy, in which he functioned as a pawn in US-Soviet relations in return for Soviet subsidies. Inevitably, the devil has come to collect his due.

Dissolution of the USSR spelled economic catastrophe for Cuba. The Castro regime's response has been to promote increased foreign investment and to allow the emergence of a growing social stratification within Cuba itself.

Foreign Minister Roberto Robaina explained Cuba's policy recently in an interview with the state-run newspaper Granma: "In Cuba what is taking place is an economic opening with full guarantees for foreign investors... This opening is strategic and is widening and deepening with every day...

"Mitsubishi Motors, Castrol, Unilever, Sherrit Gordon, Grupo Sol, Total, Melia Hotels, Domos, ING Bank, Rolex, DHL, Lloyds, Canon, Bayer, these are all names of success in the universe of business and they are in Cuba. Some of these firms have the greatest capital in the world and they have placed their confidence in us.

"Ease of investing capital, security and respect, guarantees of profit repatriation, availability of personnel with a high level of excellence, accommodation, desire to get ahead, seriousness in negotiations and loyalty of their Cuban partners are some of the elements which those who have decided to join with Cuba appreciate most..."[11]

Though he didn't say it in Granma, the point is undoubtedly made to these investors in private that in Cuba they can obtain some of the cheapest labor in the hemisphere and are guaranteed a strike-free environment by a Stalinist-trained police state.

The Castro regime habitually claims that foreign capitalist investment has been sought for the purpose of saving the "social conquests'' of the Cuban revolution. The reality is that the Castro regime, like bourgeois regimes throughout the former colonial world, is engaged in marketing cheap labor to the multinationals.

In the case of Cuba, this is done in an extremely direct and centralized form. Cuban labor is contracted out to the foreign corporations for hard currency paid to the Cuban government. The government hires the needed workers and then pays them a fraction of this amount in the form of pesos, the local currency. The foreign companies retain full discretion in firing workers.

The growth of social inequality is fed by a burgeoning dollar economy. The greatest source of foreign reserves today is the cash sent by exiles based largely in the US to their relatives in Cuba. What can one say of a "revolution" which is economically dependent on those whom it recently denounced as counter-revolutionary "gusanos," or worms?

Other hard currency filters in through the growth of the tourist industry, which the Castro regime has made the centerpiece of its economic planning. The result is what some in Cuba have described as touristic apartheid. New hotels, restaurants, stores have been erected, reserved solely for foreigners, with ordinary Cubans barred. Prostitution is rampant. The immense majority of the population lives under conditions of poverty.

The Castro regime blames all of the island's economic problems on the US embargo. Without question the US policy is a brutal and irrational exercise of imperialist power against a small, oppressed country. But this policy has been in effect for 35 years. In the meantime, Cuba had economic relations with virtually every other major country in the world.

Cuba's crisis is fundamentally the outcome of the bourgeois character of the revolution itself. It failed to resolve any of the historic problems of Cuban society. Rather, the contradictions were covered over with massive subsidies from the Soviet bureaucracy.

Few countries have seen such a massive exodus of refugees. In the first years of the revolution these consisted largely of the bourgeoisie and more privileged layers of the middle class. But those who have fled on rafts and inner tubes in the 1980s and 1990s are motivated by the same forces which sent thousands fleeing from Haiti, Mexico and other countries: the desire to escape hunger and oppression.

On top of these conditions rests a regime that stifles the aspirations of the masses of Cuban working people. Castro rules through a political dictatorship organized along military lines. The essential institution of the state is the armed forces which runs most of Cuba's economic enterprises.

Castro is enshrined in the Cuban constitution as president for life. To oppose him is therefore not merely "counter-revolutionary,'' but unconstitutional. He is both head of state and head of government as well as first secretary of the Communist Party and commander-in-chief of the military. In short, all power is concentrated in his hands and he imposes his personal dictat over every significant decision With Castro now in his 70s, succession is becoming an increasingly pressing question. His brother Raul occupies all secondary posts in the government, military and party.

To the extent that Cuba was identified with socialism—something promoted by both the imperialists on the one hand and the Castro regime and its petty-bourgeois left supporters on the other—it has had the effect of discrediting the conception of a socialist alternative to capitalism, particularly in Latin America.
Summation

The First International under Marx adopted the slogan that "The liberation of the workers shall be the task of the workers themselves.'' That is, socialism was, in the final analysis, the self-determination of the working class. It could not be granted to the workers or won for the workers by some other class force acting on their behalf. It could be the product only of the conscious struggle of the working class, democratically organized as a class for itself, fighting to change society on its behalf and that of all humanity.

The International Committee defended this perspective against all the fashionable theories of the 1960s and 1970s which rejected the working class and claimed to have discovered other, more revolutionary, vehicles providing convenient shortcuts to socialism. Thirty odd years later, there is nothing left of these theories. The struggle undertaken by the ICFI has been powerfully vindicated by history.

We should recall what Joseph Hansen said about the intransigent struggle of the International Committee and its refusal to bow before Castroism. This stand, he warned, would be "political suicide in Latin America." What really happened? Pabloite revisionism and its support for Castroism helped to lead a generation of radicalized youth into suicidal adventures for which the working class paid the biggest price.

What would have been the effect if, instead of adapting themselves to Castroism, the forces which fell under the influence of Pabloism had subjected the politics of petty-bourgeois nationalism to a relentless criticism?

Certainly the result could have proven to be one of temporary isolation, at least from the movements dominated by the petty-bourgeoisie. But in the process they would have educated the most advanced sections of workers and youth. Through this struggle, a leadership could have been prepared capable of mobilizing the working class in revolutionary struggle. Instead of falling under the domination of military dictatorships which helped achieve a temporary restabilization of world capitalism, Latin America could have given a powerful impetus to the world socialist revolution.

The central lessons we must draw from this strategic experience concern the critical responsibilities of Marxists. Their task is not that of discovering and adapting themselves to some other forces who will spontaneously carry out the socialist revolution. Rather, it is to build independent revolutionary parties of the working class, sections of the International Committee of the Fourth International, that base themselves on implacable theoretical firmness and tell the working class the truth.

The objective conditions in Latin America and internationally are maturing to the point where the struggle undertaken by the Trotskyist movement will intersect with the revolutionary movement of millions. The lessons this movement has assimilated from the struggle for socialism in the 20th century, will become decisive for its realization in the 21st.

The Fierce Debate Over Castro’s Legacy
by JOHN WIGHT

Fidel Castro’s death, at 90, has sparked a fierce debate in the West over his legacy. I specifically mention the West as elsewhere there is no debate: Castro has rightfully been lauded as one of history’s great emancipators, a man who led a revolution that succeeded in throwing off the yoke of US imperialism.

But in the West the liberal commentariat has united as one in denouncing Castro as an evil tyrant and torturer who ruled Cuba for over five decades with an iron fist, quashing the human rights of the Cuban people, who in the wake of his death can now look forward to the future safe in the knowledge that freedom and democracy beckons.

When we talk about Castro’s critics, it is worth pointing out that we are talking people who live in societies where poverty has been unofficially criminalized and the poor demonized, despised, and abandoned to a fate of destitution and despair. We are talking, in the main, the kind of men and women who walk or drive past the ever-growing army of homeless who colonize the streets of towns and cities throughout the West, casualties of a neoliberal economic system that is the real tyrant in our world, without batting an eyelid. In other words, we are talking people whose condemnation of Fidel Castro is suffused with hypocrisy, the kind that is common among those who have imbibed the received truths of empire. The most fundamental of those truths is that the West has been divinely ordained with the task of colonizing a Third World – culturally, economically, and geopolitically – that consists of peoples of lower cultures, civilizations, and human worth.

The metric by which Castro’s legacy should be judged is the transformation of Cuba as a result of the revolution he led and inspired. And in this regard one salient fact shines forth more than any other – namely that the only place in the world where you will find homeless Cuban children today is Miami.

Let us take a moment to examine in detail the legacy of the “tyrant” Fidel Castro:

+ Cuba is today the only country in the Americas where child malnourishment does not exit (UNICEF).

+ Cuba has the lowest child mortality rate in the Americas (UNICEF).

+ 130,000 students have graduated from medical school in Cuba since 1961.

+ Cuba has eliminated homelessness (Knoema).

+ 54% of Cuba’s national budget is used for social services.

+ Cuba has the best education system in Latin America.

+ Cuba has sent hundreds of doctors and nurses on medical missions across the Third World.

+ Cuba was the first country to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV (World Health Organization).

If only the Haitian people or the people of the Dominican Republic had such a tyrant ruling their countries. If only the poor in the US and UK had such a tyrant at the head of their respective governments.

When it comes to the accusation that gays were persecuted in Cuba after the revolution, there is no doubt that LGBT rights were non-existent in Cuba in the sixties and for most of the seventies, just as they were non existent throughout much of the world. Homosexuality, for example, was decriminalized in Cuba in 1979, which compares favourably to Scotland and Northern Ireland in the UK, where it was decriminalized in 1980 and 1982 respectively. Moreover, same-sex sexual activity was only made legal across the entire United States in 2003. It is also worth bearing in mind that homosexuality today is criminalized in Saudi Arabia – a close UK and US ally and a society in which women are treated as chattel and people are routinely beheaded – where it is punishable by death.

The fact is that the existence of homophobia in Cuba predated Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution by around five centuries. It was entrenched as part of the cultural values of Cuban society, indeed the cultural values throughout the Americas, courtesy of the Catholic Church. Fidel Castro was a product of those values and to his credit later renounced them, awakening to the justice of LGBT rights. Today his own niece, Mariela Castro, plays an active role in the Cuban LGBT community, leading the country’s annual gay pride parade in Havana last year.

As for torture, meanwhile, the only place on the island of Cuba where this can be found is at the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

The key point to be borne in mind when it comes to Cuba and its state of development is that countries and societies do not exist on blank sheets of paper. In the Third World their development cannot be divorced from a real life struggle against the huge obstacles placed in their way by histories of colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism, responsible for retarding their progress in service to the exploitation of their human and natural resources.

The legitimacy of the Cuban Revolution lies in its survival in the face of the aforementioned US blockade, designed to starve the country to its knees for daring to refuse to be slaves of global capital. To understand what that would look like all we need do is cast our eyes over to the aforementioned Haiti or Dominican Republic, countries of comparable size located in the same region. Compared to them Cuba stands as a beacon of dignity, social and economic justice, and sustainable development.

Fidel Castro was no dictator. On the contrary, he dedicated his life to resisting Washington’s dictatorship of the Third World. Moreover, as a result of the Cuban Revolution the right to be homeless, illiterate, and to go without healthcare no longer exists in Cuba. In their place have come the most fundamental human rights of all – the right to be educated, to healthcare that is free at the point of need, and the right to live with dignity and pride in being the citizen of a small island that has stood over decades as a beacon of justice in an ocean of injustice.

This, in truth, is the reason ‘they’ despise him. And this, in truth, is why millions of Cubans will come out and pay tribute to his life and legacy on the day of his funeral. For them he will forever be ‘El Comandante’.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/01/the-fierce-debate-over-castros-legacy/

Here you go Chlams...last I checked the Anarchists ain't liberals...

https://iww.org/history/library/Dolgoff/cuba/13

Structure of Power in Cuba

In the first phase of authoritarian revolutions, the revolutionary elite (sometimes commanded by a personal dictator) seizes and consolidates power on the pretext that it is acting in the "name of the people." But in order to govern the country and carry out the decrees of the leadership, every regime must eventually institutionalize its power by creating a permanent, legally established bureaucratic administrative apparatus.

To implement institutionalization, Castro, in 1970, launched the reorganization of his government and the drafting of a new constitution, proclaiming that the Revolution had now come of age and the people could now be trusted to more self-rule. Castro promised the enactment of measures to expedite the decentralization of his adminstration; expand local autonomy and worker's self-management of industry, democratize the mass organizations and create new state agencies designed to encourage more participation of the people in local and national affairs. (We list the more important changes and our comments under appropriate headings.)

Reorganization of the Governmental Structure

In 1973 the top governmental structure was reorganized in the following manner: 1) The division of the government into legislative, executive, and judicial sections was rejected as "bourgeois." The functions of the three branches are concentrated into the Council of Ministers, "... the supreme ... organ of State power ..." In addition to the Council of Ministers, there are a number of affiliated national agencies such as Agriculture and Husbandry Development, the Fishing and Forestry Institute, the National Poultry Board and a number of cultural bodies (the Institutes of Cinema, Literature, the National Council of Culture and similar groupings).

2) Actually, the real power is exercised by the Executive Committee of the Council of Ministers (equivalent to a Cabinet) composed of ten Deputy Prime Ministers who control and coordinate their respective departments and agencies. These departments include: basic industry and energy; consumer goods industries and domestic trade; the sugar industry; non-sugar agriculture; construction; transportation and communications; education and welfare. "... The Executive Committee of the Council of Ministers was created pursuant to the orientation of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Cuba ..."

3) At the intermediate levels, Coordinating Provincial Councils appointed by the Deputy Prime Ministers of the Executive Committee in "... coordination with the Provincial Delegates of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party will carry out ... the directives issued from above ... by the corresponding central authority ..." (i.e., the Deputy Prime Ministers of the Executive Committee of the Council of Ministers.)

4) "... the Prime Minister of the Council of Ministers, Fidel Castro Ruz, who also presides over the Executive Committee of the Council of Ministers will be directly in charge of the following agencies: Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR), Minsitry of the Interior, National Institute of Agrarian Reform (INRA) and Ministry of Public Health ..."

Since Castro is also the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba (CPC) and since every major ministry and agency head is a member of the CPC and is appointed by Castro, Herbert Matthews (a Castro sympathizer) reluctantly concludes that: "... all the organs of state power are under Castro's direct command. He is all-powerful and it is his Revolution ... Castro does not want -- or dare -- to create a self-governing administration, a managerial apparatus, an autonomous political party, a powerful military elite; because any one of them could threaten his power ..." (1, for continuity of the text all notes for this chapter have been placed at the end of this chapter).

Following the Stalinist pattern, the Cuban State is a structured pyramid in which absolute power is ultimately exercised by an individual (Castro) or by a collective dictatorship as in post-Stalin Russia.

The Judicial System

There is no independent judiciary. "... the courts [reads the law] receive instructions from the leadership of the Revolution which are compulsory..." The judicial system is only an agency of the Council of Ministers, which regulates and controls all courts and legal agencies. The highest judicial administrative body is the Council of Ministers of the Supreme People's Court, which transmits to the lower courts the "... instructions of the leadership of the Revolution which are compulsory..." (2) The system centralizes all four judicial branches: ordinary, military, political, and the People's Courts for minor offenses. The judges of the People's Courts are laymen. The President of the Republic, the Ministers, and the members of the Political Bureau of the CPC are exempt from the jurisdiction of the courts and can be tried only by special Party courts. (3) Private law practice is prohibited. Defendants in court cases can be represented only by state appointed lawyers even when the State itself is being sued. Judges, juries, and other judicial personnel must be ideologically reliable. (4) "... knowledge and study of Marxism-Leninism, Marxist sociology, and the materialist interpretation of history are indispensible prerequisites for the true integral education of a revolutionary judge..." (5)

The Communist Party of Cuba (CPC)

Under the name "People's Socialist Party" (PSP) the Communist Party was organized in 1925. Under Castro, it was known as Integrated Revolutionary Organizations (ORI); the United Party of the Socialist Revolution (PURS) and, since 1965, as the Communist Party of Cuba (CPC).

The Communist Party was never on good terms with Castro, not only because of its collaboration with Batista, but also because it ridiculed Castro's historic July 26th, 1953, attack on the Moncada Barracks (now commemorated as a national holiday). The communists called the attack a "bourgeois putschist adventure." Moreover, the communists took no part in the fight against Batista and sabotaged Castro's call for a general strike to unseat Batista. The communists came to Castro only a few months before the overthrow of Batista, when they saw that Castro was going to win.

The revolution was made in spite of the opposition of the Party. Since the Party did not, as in Russia, initiate revolutionary action and seize power, it was in no position to dictate terms to Castro in exchange for its collaboration. The Party was accepted only on condition that it acknowledged Castro's leadership and accepted without question all his ideological, political and economic policies.

Castro dominates the CPC, much like Stalin. The members of the Communist Party's Central Committee belong to Castro's clique. Castro himself (as already noted) is the First Secretary of the Party and his brother Raul ranks next. There is, of course, no democracy within the Party. Thus, when Anibal Escalante was accused of "micro-factionalism" (a crime that is not even listed in the penal code), because he tried to subordinate Castro to the discipline of the Communist party, he was sentenced to 15 years at hard labor. "...Escalante and his lawyers were deprived even of the right to address a single word in self-defense to the court and the public documents contain no defense pleas of any kind..." (6)

The CPC does not make policy. Its function is to carry out government orders, not to govern, or, as Maurice Halperin puts it: "...the function of the CPC is to mobilize the population for goals set by Castro himself..." (7)

In Cuba, the CPC fulfulls the same preponderent role as in Russia and the other "socialist countries." The expanding role of the CPC in the reorganization process is manifested in its growing membership, which increased from 55,000 in 1969 to 200,000 in 1975. The estimated membership of the Union of Communist Youth is about 300,000. 85% of armed forces officers also belong to the CPC. An interesting sidelight: according to Verde Olivio (organ of the Armed Forces) the composition of the Central Committee of the CPC was 67% military (including 57 Majors), 26 professionals and only 7% workers. In addition to the 6 secretariats of the CPC in the provinces, there were in 1973, 60 district secretariats, 401 in the municipalities and 14,360 party cells in mass organizations, factories and rural areas.

The Communist Party governs Cuba and Castro rules the Communist Party. The Stalinist subservience of the CPC to Castro was stressed by Armando Hart (in 1969, Organizing Secretary of the CPC) in a speech at the University of Havana:

...can anyone analyze or study theoretical questions, raised, for instance, by philosophy, the roads to Communism; or any field of culture, mainly those of social science and philosophy, without taking into account the ideas and concepts of Fidel [Castro] and Che [Guevara]?...(8)

The first post-Castro Congress of the CPC (Dec., 1975) ratified the new constitution drawn up by the veteran communist leader Blas Roca and the juridical committee of the Party Central Committee. The CPC was proclaimed as the "... supreme leading force of Cuban society and the State." The national program of the Party was approved and the tentative first five year economic plan for 1976-1980 inclusive was also recommended.

Pending implementation of the new directives of the Congress, the CPC is headed by a 100 member Central Committee. Below the Provincial Committees are the Regional and Municipal Committees down to the factory and farm cells. At every level of this complicated, autocratically centralized organization, the orders of the high command (Castro's clique) are faithfully carried out.

Driven by the necessity to remain on good terms with his saviors, the "socialist countries" upon whom his survival depends, Castro falsifies the history of his relations with the Cuban communists, affirming now what he vehemently denied before. His mouthpiece, Granma (August 16, 1975) hypocritically stressed that:

... throughout its history our nation's first communist party performed tremendous work disseminating Marxist-Leninist ideas; fought the local oligarchy and against imperialism and selflessly defended all democratic demands of the working class ... (9)

People's Democracy and Decentralization

In the summer of 1974 an experiment in democracy and decentralization was initiated in Matanzas Province. Municipal, district and provincial Organizations of the People's Power (PPO) were established. 5,597 production and service units were handed over to the PPO. The PPO performs the combined functions of city council and local administration, and also takes on certain functions of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR) etc. 90% of the people voted in the elections, but "60% of the deputies are communists and young communist members ..." (10)

An interview with a high official of the PPO proves that the much publicized "decentralization," "democracy," and "people's self-management of affairs" allegedly being instituted in Cuba is a brazen fraud:

Q) Is the establishment of self-governing Organs of People's Power (PPO) to promote mass participation in local and provincial administration part of the process of reinforcing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat? A) Actually the establishment of the PPO -- being tried out as an experiment in Matanzas -- is part of the process. Q) On what principles are the PPO based? A) The Communist Party is the principal, the indispensable organism for the construction of socialism in our country and, as such, directs as it deems best all the organizations and organisms, including of course the Organs of People's Power. (11)

This system, patterned after the fake Russian "soviets," actually reinforces the dictatorship.

The Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR)

"... What [asked K.S. Karol] has become of the many rank-and-file organizations that were once so dynamic? ... these organizations have ceased to exist on anything but paper. They became puppets ... for example, the CDR ... spring into action when it comes to tracking down bad citizens and small traders. The CDR has been reduced to mere appendages of the "Seguridad" [National Police Force] ..." (12) And Herbert Matthews writing five years later in 1975 states flatly that the CDR is now completely "... under the control of the Communist Party ... Besides spying the CDR also performs certain functions such as helping to organize vaccinations for polio, diptheria and measles, and sees to it that parents send their children to school, that food and other rations are fairly handled, etc. ..." (13)

The CDR is actually a vast, intricate network reaching into every neighborhood, every home and even into the personal life of every man, woman and child in Cuba. The following verbatim conversation with a native Cuban tells more about the operations of the Cuban Police State and the total obliteration of individual freedom than any number of abstract academic dissertations or statistical tables:

... I ran into a hurricane of a woman named Mrs. S. "The famous literacy campaign," she stormed, "was indoctrination. There was no dissent ... It was like a new Dark Age in Cuba. These spies of the CDR know who visits me and whom I visit ... Under Mr. Castro, it is suddenly my neighbor's duty to know how I live. Everybody knows that in a civilized country your home is your fortress ... Here in Cuba, every jackass is knocking on your door to give you advice on who is dangerous ... They want to take the lock off my door ... You think I exaggerate? Well, you don't live here ... Our deepest need is to be our own selves, different, non-conformist ... My motto is 'leave people alone' ... It is intolerable to have only one power in the State ... even a righteous power ... because human beings have a perverse desire to say NO -- even to righteousness -- to disagree.

[A medical student told the visitor:] We all know who are the self-appointed spies. Go and talk to Mrs. Blanco. [The visitor quotes her:] ... Yes, I know what everybody says about me, but I have to see that people do not do certain things -- like being absent from work. No absenteeism on THIS block ... [An absentee who claimed sickness -- "Stress" he called it -- was actually, unbeknwn to his wife, visiting his girlfriend. When Mrs. Blanco threatened to expose him to his wife;] ... he was all right for two days [she said] -- I checked with his work place -- Two days, and then more "stress" ... He was hungry for his girlfriend ... I felt like following him one day and catching him out ... because, after all, it IS MY BUSINESS ... He is a parasite letting down my block ... I wondered if I should not talk to his girlfriend ... warn her to keep away from him, break relations ... I am not saying anything ... but I am watching from here what is happening ... but what a pain if his wife finds out! ... (14)

Rene Dumont tells that in the barracks of the "machateros" (cane cutters) working away from home: "... there are sometimes little signs that read: 'Sleep quietly. The Revolution is watching over your wife.' As a matter of fact, if a 'machatero's' wife is visited by a man, the husband gets a telegram from the local CDR ..." (15)

Cuban Youth Rebels

In the spring of 1972, Jaime Crombat, Secretary of the Young Communist League, complained that among the youth there was a "... backward minority who neither study nor work --- or do so only under pressure -- those who, permeated by the old ideology ... maintain a conduct contrary to socialist morals ..." (16) Mesa-Lago's painstaking research unearths the true situation. He deserves to be quoted at length:

"... in spite of the remarkable progress in education, i.e., reduction in the illiteracy rate ... serious deficiencies were reported. In April, 1971, out of the number of school-age youngsters 14 to 16 years old, there were 300,000 who neither worked nor studied: 23% among 14 year olds, 44% among 15 year olds, and 60% among 16 year olds. The dropout rate was worse -- more in rural areas (88%) than in urban areas (66%). In elementary schools, 69% of those who attended classes in 1965 did not finish in 1971 ... students showed a lack of concern for socialist property ..." According to the Minister of Education, 50% of the books sent to school were lost every year due to carelessness. Castro exploded in indignation: "... there is something wrong when we have to educate our young people in the need to care for socialist property ... loafers, people who don't work, criminals are the ones who destroy ..."

... in the same speech Castro denounced the youth for wearing "extravagant" foreign fashions [Too tight pants and long hair in the case of boys. Too short mini-skirts in the case of girls.], liking "decadent literature." In some cases, "... the youth were used by coutner-revolutionaries against the Revolution ..." Castro found "residual manifestations" of prostitution and homosexuality. In 1967, minors participated in 41% of all crimes committed in the nation. Four years later the percentage rises to 50%... (16)

... in 1972, Joe Nicholson, Jr., a sympathetic journalist who visited Cuba, asked Cuban officials why boys are not allowed to wear long hair. The official answered that if one boy is allowed to be different in hair, dress or behavior, the rest might request the right to be different, too. This in turn, would create controversy, something that was considered incorrect... (17)

Measures to correct this situation included compulsory military service, military units to aid production, and to work in construction, irrigation and other projects. Nevertheless, it was reported that the number of youngsters in the 13 to 16 year bracket who committed offenses remained unchanged. Castro alleged that the high juvenile delinquincy rate was due to the fact that they were exempt from criminal punishments by the courts. In May 1973, legal liability was reduced from 18 to 16 years and tough penalties up to life imprisonment were imposed for crimes against the economy, abnormal sexual behavior and other offenses.

... The drop-out problem was partially solved through the SMO (compulsory military service) and the Youth Centennial Columns. The SMO recruits numbered 300,000 in 1972 (about one third of all youngsters between 16 and 17). In 1973 both these youth organizations were merged into the Youth Army of Work (EJT) ... (18)

Plight of the Workers

The promised abolition of house rents and increasing wages of the lowest paid workers was not kept. Likewise, full pay for sick and retired workers was eliminated. There was no lessening of the severe food rations in 1973. One of the main resolutions of the 13th Congress of the Cuban Confederation of Labor (CTC), Nov., 1973, restored the worst features of the capitalist wage system -- payment according to output, instead of according to need. In this speech to the closing session of the Congress, Castro tried to justify this policy: "... paying the same wage for the same type of work without taking into account the effort required to do it, is an equalitarian principle we must correct ... payment should be measured in physical terms according to the complexity and skill required to do the job ..." In line with this policy, 132 million pesos were allotted to raise wages for technicians in order to spur them to "increase their productivity." (19) At the First Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba (Dec. 1975), the motto "From each according to his ability; to each according to his WORK." was displayed in huge red letters.

Wages are linked to work quotas. Every worker is given a quota. If the quota is not fullfilled, wages are proportionally reduced. Purchase of scarce appliances (television sets, refrigerators, washing machines, etc.) are allotted not according to the worker's need but according to his correct attitude (obeying orders, patriotism, overfullfillment of work quotas, etc.) The faithful wage slave will be allowed to spend his vacation at the better resorts and be granted first access to housing. (20)

Actually, the 13th Congress of the CTC rejected the right of the Unions to defend the interests of the workers. According to the resolutions, there are no conflicts. The State, the Communist Party, and the unions are partners cooperating always to produce "more and better products and services; to promote punctual attendance at work; to raise political consciousness; to follow the Communist Party directives ..." (21)

To get a job, every worker must carry an identity card and a file with a full work record of his "merits" and "demerits." "Merits" include voluntary unpaid labor, overfullfillment of work quotas, working overtime without pay, postponing retirement to keep on working, defense of State property, and a high level of political consciousness. "Demerits" are "activities that negatively affect production, disturb discipline, lower the level of political consciousness ..." (22)

In the Spring of 1971, the government proclaimed a law against "loafing," compelling all able-bodied men between the age of 17 and 60 to work. Worker absenteeism was 20% in late 1970. Penalties for the "crime of loafing" fluctuate between house arrest and one or two years of forced labor. (23)

Union "Democracy"

In September, 1970, Castro announced that we "... are going to trust the workers to hold trade union elections in every local ... the elections will be absolutely free ..." Castro the brazenly contradicted himself, making it clear that "... only workers who would unconditionally follow government, management and party orders would be elected ..." (24)

The election procedure prohibited candidates from electioneering or advertising their candidacy. Only the election committee had the exclusive right to advertise the "merits" of the candidates. More than half the workers refused to participate in the rigged electoral farce, because they did not expect any real changes, or because there was only one candidate on the ballot. When the CTC was discussing election proceedings, some union members strongly criticized the methods of conducting the elections and the choosing of the candidates. The Minister of Labor interrupted the discussion, calling the critics "counter-revolutionaries" and "demagogues" and warning them that their "negative attitude" had to be "radically changed." (25)

The 13th Congress of the CTC (Nov., 1973) was the first in seven years (1966). The Congress was attended by 2,230 delegates allegedly representing 1,200,000 workers. The main business was automatically ratifying or modifying details of the "thesis" submitted by the organizaing commission (over 99%) in favor). The number of national syndicates was increased from 14 to 22. (26)

Workers' Control and Self-Management

The Castro government never seriously intended to allow meaningful participation of the workers in management (to say nothing about full self-management of industry). K.S. Karol reveals that in 1968: "... Castro himself confessed to me that he saw no chance of granting the workers the right to self-management in the near future -- let alone of introducing a truly socialist mode of production ..." (27)

Jorge Risquet, the Minister of Labor, declared that: "... the fact that Fidel Castro and I suggested that the workers be consulted, does not mean that we are going to negate the role that the Communist Party must play ... decision and responsibility fall to the management ... one thing that is perfectly clear is that management should and does have all the authority to make decisions and act ... management represents the organization of the State and is charged with the planning and fulfillment of production and services ..." (28)

In his famous speech of July 26th, 1970, Castro made it clear that: "... we must begin to establish a collective body in each plant ... but it must be headed by one man and also by representatives of the Advanced Workers Movement (The Cuban equivalent of the Russian Stakhanovites, who excelled all other workers in speed and output -- model workers. Later Stakhanovism became the prototype for the Socialist Emulation Movement.), the Young Communist League, the Communist Party and the Women's Front ..." (29)

A 1965 law established Labor Councils (Consejos de Trabajo). The Labor Council is composed of five workers elected for a three year term. But the Council does not manage, administer, or even partially control production. Its functions are to settle workers' grievances, expedite the orders and directives of management, enforce work discipline and process transfers. The transfer of a worker must be approved by both the Ministry of Labor and the Communist Party nucleus. (30)

The unions are actually transmission belts for the administration and implementation of production. Raul Castro declared that the "... unions are supposed to be autonomous, but must be politically guided by the Party and must follow its policies ..." The 13th Congress of the CTC declared that: "... the functions of the unions are to cooperate in improving management performance; strengthen labor discipline; assure attendance at work, increase production, and eradicate absenteeism, malingering and carelessness ..." (31)

The union could participate in the administration of the enterprise through two institutions, Production Assemblies and Management Councils (Consejos de Direccion). These two institutions are the top administrative bodies at all work centers ..." "... each Management Council is composed of an administrator, his or her top assistants, the worker elected union representative, the Communist Party nucleus and the local branch of the Communist Youth Organizations ..." (33)

"... the Assembly could make recommendations but the manager could accept, reject, or modify the recommendations as he sees fit ... unions are not allowed to intervene in the determination of salaries, hiring or firing, dismissal of managers, or in planning ..." (34)

European, American and many Latin American workers actually excercise more workers' control than do the Cuban workers. There was, in fact, more workers' control before Castro's regime came to power.

K.S. Karol, commenting on the massive militarization of labor, which reached a high point in the 1968 "Revolutionary Offensive," tells how "... the whole country, was, in fact, reorganized on the model of the army ... Command Posts were set up ... in every province ... Labor Brigades were turned into batallions, each divided into three squads, led by a Major and a Chief of Operations ... the Che Guevara Brigade [on the agricultural production front] ... was under the direct control of the army ..." (37)

Militarization of Labor

According to Gerald H. Reed who studied the Cuban educational system during his long visit to Cuba: "... the plan for the Technological Instruction Institutes converted these institutions into military centers. The students live under strict military discipline and complete their draft obligations while they study ..." (35)

The Youth Army of Work (EJT) is a branch of the regular army, commanded by Commandante (equivalent to Major General) Oscar Fernandez Mell. Mell is also Vice Minister of the Revolutionary Army and a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The EJT was founded Aug. 3, 1973, in the Province of Camaguey. On its first anniversary, a message of congratulations grandiloquently signed "Fidel Castro, First Secretary of the Communist Party and First Prime Minister of the Revolutionary Government" thanks the EJT for:

... your decisive help in the sugar harvests of 1974. Your formidable work in fulfilling agricultural plans, in the construction of schools, factories, housing and ferries surpasses even the extraordinary achievements of preceeding organizations...

And Castro's brother, who signs himself, "Raul Castro Ruz, Commander of Division and Minister of the Armed Forces":

... sends our most fraternal greetings to all soldiers, officers, under officers [non-commissioned sergeants, corporals, etc.] and political commissars of the Youth Army of Work, and exhorts them to perfect themselves politically, and ideologically for combat ... as we have already said on other occasions, we are certain that this army will become a true bastion of prodcution and defense of the Revolution... (36)

The Armed Forces

At the Inception of the Revolution Castro was acclaimed by the people when he vowed to curb the power of the military, reduced the highest rank in the rebel army to Major and eventually abolished the army entirely in favor of the People's Militias.

The process of compulsory military service, begun in 1963, culminated in 1973 with the abolition of the vaunted Militias, "The People in Arms." "... the Militia has been replaced by civil defense organization under direct army control. Nor is there anything of a 'People's Army' about the new organization ... after each excercise, the guns are safely locked away in the barracks -- a far cry from the days when Fidel declared that he was prepared to distribute arms 'even to cats'..." (38)

Cuba boasts the most powerful army in Latin America. Russia and "the socialist countries" supplied Cuba with massive armaments and military technicians. Hundreds of young officers in the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) were trained in Russia. (39) As early as 1963, the military expert Hanson Baldwin considered the Cuban air force to be the "most modern and potentially the most powerful in Latin America." (40)

It has been greatly strengthened since with Russian MIGs and other equipment. Cuba has a "formidable array of anti-aircraft missiles, coast artillery, radar stations," (41) long range cannons, the latest light and heavy tanks, and other modern weapons.

With the cooperation of Soviet military experts, Raul Castro transformed the Cuban armed forces into a highly disciplined, highly stratified military machine differing in no essential respect from the modern conventional armies of the great military powers.

Raul Castro is a far more capable military organizer and strategist than is his brother Fidel. Raul, and not Fidel, devised the strategy and organized the Guerrilla War in the Sierra Maestra and in the Sierre de Cristal, which precipitated the downfall of Batista. Raul has since then capably commanded the Cuban army. (42) Nearly all the commanders who served under Raul became high officers in the Cuban army and government, and became members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.

It would be a mistake to assume that Raul Castro is a mere figurehead in the regime. He not only shares power with his brother Fidel, but also wields considerable power on his own account. When Castro travels abroad, Raul rules Cuba in his place until Fidel returns. And Matthews emphasizes that if Fidel Castro should for any reason disappear, Raul would easily succeed him as ruler of Cuba, because he would be in a position to rally all the most formidable power blocs to support him. "... Raul would have with him a powerful military and police force, a strong administration, the governmental bureaucracy and the all-powerful Politburo of the Communist Party ..." (43)

Although Raul Castro cut the size of the Cuban army in half (from 300,000 to 150,000), it is still five times greater than Batista's 30,000-man army, navy and air force. Better organized, better trained, and better equipped with the most advanced weapons, the numerically reduced army had been reorganized into a far more formidable fighting force. So much so, that, at this writing, the Cuban government has, in collusion with Russia, been able to send thousands of troops to fight in Angola without noticeably impairing the combat power of the Cuban army.

The hierarchical ranking system of the armed forces has been reorganized to conform with the prevailing traditional ranking systems of all military powers, "capitalist" or "socialist." "... Law 1257 leaves Fidel as Chief Minister of the Armed Forces. Raul Castro, as Minister of the Armed Forces (directly under Fidel), becomes the only Division Commander whose equivalent in other countries is Lieutenant General. (Raul is in fact now called 'Lieutenant General' in Cuba.) Four Brigade Commanders were named who are the equivalent of Major Generals ... a number of First Commanders, or Colonels, were also appointed. Below the rank of Commander (Lieutenant Colonel), the titles of First Lieutenant and Sub-Lieutenant are used as in other armies... Similar changes are made for the Revolutionary Navy. (Ship Commander, for Admiral, down to Covrette Captain, for the equivalent of Commander as in other navies..." (44)

In justifying counter-revolutionary militarization, Castro said that the armed forces "... had been distinguised in the past for their modesty of rank and uniform [plain, shabby olive-green, but that now the] Revolution had become more mature and so had the armed forces..." (45)

Increasing militarization signifies revolutionary progress! This remark alone signifies the degeneration of the Revolution -- even without additional incontrovertible evidence.

Concluding Remarks

While Castro is at present the undisputed ruler of Cuba, institutionalization is eventually bound to undermine his personal dictatorship.

It is axiomatic that no State can possibly rule without an administrative apparatus. The reconstruction of the Cuban government therefore necessitates the creation of an enormous bureaucratic administrative machine. The Communist Party, the armed forces, the educational establishment, the economic agencies, the unions, the local, regional, provincial and national governmental branches, etc., relentlessly compete for more power. As these formidable power blocs expand and become more firmly entrenched, Castro's machine will increasingly be obliged to share power with them. Personal rule will give way to a collective dictatorship and tyranny will be perpetuated.

The institutionalization of the Cuban Revolution is, however, still in its early stages. Thus far, the first attempts in this direction indicate that the institutionalization of the Revolution serves only to re-inforce the personal dictatorship of Fidel Castro and his faithful lieutenants.

Powerfully abetted by the massive support of the Soviet bloc of "socialist countries" and its own massive internal apparatus, the Castro regime is still powerfully entrenched. The Cuban people, unable to revolt by force of arms, are waging a relentless guerilla war of passive resistance against the Police State. They have, in the course of their struggles, developed ingenious ways of harassing and even seriously frustrating the plans of their tyrants (loafing, slowdowns, evading laws, sabotage, sporadic acts of violence, ridicule, etcetera).

The rebellion could provide a solid base for a mass underground movement comparable to the anti-Batista resistance movements. On the other hand, the ability of modern totalitarian regimes -- both "right" and "left" -- to survive mass discontent indefinitely for generations -- must not be underestimated. Many hard battles will have to be fought, many lives lost, before victory will have at last been achieved.

wsws is not my "go-to" site SP- laughs- any more than any site is. So yer wrong there.

Next up Van Auken's analysis (which I had already read) here is moronic- these statements alone would draw any reader to question Van Auken's intelligence on this matter:


The Castro regime blames all of the island's economic problems on the US embargo. Without question the US policy is a brutal and irrational exercise of imperialist power against a small, oppressed country. But this policy has been in effect for 35 years. In the meantime, Cuba had economic relations with virtually every other major country in the world.

Cuba's crisis is fundamentally the outcome of the bourgeois character of the revolution itself

and this comment here is sheer a-historical stupidity of the lowest order;

Pabloite revisionism and its support for Castroism helped to lead a generation of radicalized youth into suicidal adventures for which the working class paid the biggest price.

I guess it's all happening in a vacuum.

In any case where are those 5 examples requested? Should be easy. Or was that piece your way of backing out of that. No hurry- take your time.

Here you go Chlams...last I checked the Anarchists ain't liberals...

Hey chlams, he doesn't even know that anarchists are liberals. Ha.

Are these cats liberals ? They're fucked up but they ain't liberals...

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/state/cuba-no-workers-paradise

Cuba: No workers paradise

Leftist fantasies exposed

The scene is typical: the dog-end of a trade union branch meeting; members are tired after discussing complex pay and discipline issues; tired from listening to the hyper-activists glorying in the sound of their own voices; desperate to escape. Item 9 on the agenda of the hour-long meeting is expenses for a delegate to the Cuba Solidarity Campaign meeting. Exhausted hands fly up to approve the monies, without debate, voting as much for escape as for sanction.

Cuba has become a cause celebre amongst many on the left. For example, Michael Albert of Z-Magazine in the USA had to give a rearguard defence of his criticisms of Cuba's decision to murder a number of hijackers (his critics themselves being activists and opponents of state-murder in the US); anarchist superstar Noam Chomsky warmly supports Cuba's defiance of the US, staying stoically silent on Cuba's internal regime, save that it is a matter for Cubans themselves.

In European literature, Utopia was always supposed to be an imaginary far-flung Island in uncharted seas like the Caribbean; now, it seems, it is a very real island in perfectly well-charted waters for a good majority of the left—even if those are waters that have been well sailed by the USSR and its sundry fellow travellers. This misty eyed respect for Cuba would not be so worrying were it confined to the dying ranks of Tankie Stalinists; however, its tendrils reach well beyond them. Like Chomsky, many take an anti-American reflex and root for the underdog versus the hyperpower: excusing the repressive parts of Castro's regime as mistakes, or excesses of siege warfare. This is a siege that has been going on for a very long time.

Castro's guerrillas emerged from the hills in 1959 to drive away the US-backed kleptocrat dictator Batista. What began as a simple nationalist movement was quickly driven into the "Communist" camp by the hostility of the American government. The new regime weathered numerous attempts to displace it, including Kennedy's Bay of Pigs invasion, and miscellaneous attempts by the CIA to assassinate Castro. Simultaneously, the former guerrillas declared for "Communism", and abandoned dreams of national autarky by becoming a sugar plantation for the USSR rather than the US. (See Socialist Standard, April 1984).

The US has never been able to forgive the expropriation of its millionaires by Castro's party, and has maintained its siege ever since. For its part, the Castro regime has proven remarkably resilient (to the point at which American planners are now taking the 'biological resolution', i.e. Castro's death from old age, as the most likely way for them to advance their cause). In that time, the regime has maintained a tight control over the economy. At times, this has meant a heavy bureaucratic hand, requiring strings of permits to produce, distribute and export or import goods. None of this has abolished the commodity nature of production, nor the wages system. A fact starkly illustrated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the loss of Cuba's export markets as well as the convenient supply of oil for industrial purposes. The economy underwent serious recession, from which it has yet to fully recover.

Since then, the government has been trying to re-orientate the economy towards tourism to bring in essential foreign currency. This has led to a situation in which goods are produced solely to be consumed by tourists in their enclaves which are denied the Cuban workers. The continued existence of the wages system has meant the need for measures to impose labour discipline. The Cuban state only recognises one trade union federation, Central de Trabajadores Cubanos (CTC). This consists of unions entirely dominated by the ruling Communist Party, wherein officers are vetted (not just by their present affiliations, but on a documentary of their entire lives going back to their school records) before they are allowed to take up posts. Whilst independent trade unions are not entirely illegal, their existence is subject to repressive controls and harassment, beginning with the Associations Act (Leyes de Asociaciones) and escalating to the generally repressive political order laws. (Source: http://www.icftu.org/).

As Amnesty International notes, in the past few years, the numbers of long term political dissidents imprisoned has fallen; but this is counter-posed by an increase in short-run harassment techniques, like arrest without trial, breaking up of meetings, threats of eviction, etc. According to the ICFTU (an organisation which the British TUC is affiliated to) in the early months of this year over 78 union activists had been targeted by the Cuban state. One, for example, was arrested for attempting to resist a state organised eviction of a family. Although Cuba nominally has 100 percent post-16 suffrage, this is restricted to candidates approved by the Committee for the Defence of the Revolution. Likewise, a plethora of laws make free criticism and electoral organisation impossible: Article 144(17) of the criminal code prohibits disrespect to authority; Articles 200–201 preventing the spread and cause of panic and disorder have been used to imprison people publicly voicing criticisms; Article 103 prohibits 'enemy propaganda' which is interpreted as anyone inciting criticism of the Cuban system and its international allies; Article 203 criminalises disrespect to the flag and symbols of the regime; Article 115 prevents the dissemination of 'false news against international peace'; and the piece de résistance is articles 72–74 which forbid anything 'dangerous', which can be anything the police and courts decide are so (http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/). This battery of laws amounts to an arsenal fit to stop any independent thought and organisation, and amounts to a capacity to arrest anyone the state doesn't like, any time they want. In a situation in which workers cannot hope to organise politically, it makes free association in trade unions impossible.

All of this needs to be borne in mind when stories are repeated by supporters of Cuba (such as the Cuba Solidarity Campaign) about how workers have democracy and freedom to organise in Cuba; or of how workplace committees and trade unions decide industrial matters. Indeed, as the ICFTU points out, the requirements of the Labour Code demand that collective agreements be decided by both workers' meetings, and the employers, with the Communist Party being heavily involved on both sides of these negotiations. There is no legally-sanctioned right to strike. Thus, although there are formal and nominal freedoms, much like in the USSR, in practice they are undermined by highly centralised capacity to crush dissent. In the absence of political and trade union freedoms, then, the working conditions of Cuban workers are hard. Their living standards drastically cut by the recent recessions, even if they "agreed" to this in mass meetings to save their jobs. International companies that invest in Cuba are compelled to hire their workers via agencies. These agencies pocket 95 percent of the dollar value of the wages. State officials maintain that this is to maintain Cuban equality, and not to direct the dollars into state hands. This despite the obvious stratification of Cuban society that has emerged.

The romantic supporters of Cuba put their concerns for "national rights" before class solidarity, in supporting the Cuban regime. They excuse its actions as a necessary defence against US aggression, and will it to survive against the greater power, even at the expense of its workers' lives and liberties. And they can point to its impressive record on health care and education (much better than in much of the rest of Latin America: including a healthy 76 year life expectancy). Cuba does indeed show what could be possible, even with meagre resources to meet the needs of human beings, and how artificial the deprivation across much of the rest of the world is. But the difference in treatment stems largely from an autarkic nation's need to maintain a functioning workforce versus the surplus population of the mono-export countries of much of the rest of South America.

Socialists do not consider that the best way to assist the workers of Cuba is to support the régime that dragoons them in siege warfare with the US, but that the spread of the world socialist revolution is the only way to rescue them from the unpalatable set of choices facing them. To do that, we need to free socialism from the taint of the undemocratic methods applied in Cuba and stand clearly for the political freedoms of association and speech for the working class the world over, so as better to spread the ideas and consciousness required for the building of a truly stateless classless world co-operative commonwealth.

Hey chlams, he doesn't even know that anarchists are liberals. Ha.

I feel like this is the crux of it. He's seemingly created his own definitions for pretty standard things. He's making things up as he goes based on some trial and error stemming from anecdotal evidence. I truly believe that arguing about Castro is maybe the 12th thing on the list of ways we could get through to SP for a coherent discussion (if that is what we intend to do).

http://isreview.org/issues/51/cuba_image-reality.shtml?reality_shtml=

CUBA: Image and reality

By PAUL D’AMATO

THOUGH FEW leftists today would look uncritically at the one-party dictatorships that once existed in Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union, Cuba is still widely held up as a socialist model on the left in the U.S. and Latin America. And of course there is good reason to look favorably at Cuba. Cuba has stood up to the imperialist giant to the north in the face of economic embargo, an attempted invasion, and ongoing destabilization campaigns—a feat that few countries, let alone one so close to the shores of the U.S., have been able to do. The CIA has hatched countless plots—Fidel Castro says 638—to assassinate the Cuban leader, involving such outlandish plans as filling a large sea mollusk with explosives to kill Castro while scuba diving.1 Cuba’s close economic and political cooperation with Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Castro’s verbal assaults on neoliberalism have also contributed to refurbishing Castro and his regime’s political image on the left.

In many instances, the defense of Cuba’s right to independence and against the U.S. embargo is coupled with a political identification with Castro’s government. Any criticism of Cuba is seen as playing into the hands of imperialism and therefore off-limits. Evidence of problems, at least as the Left might identify them—if acknowledged at all—are excused as necessary or unavoidable distortions resulting from the embargo. “The more honest or open-eyed of the ‘friends,’ at least when speaking tête-à-tête,” wrote Trotsky of the apologists for Stalin’s Russia, “concede that there is a spot on the Soviet sun. But substituting a fatalistic for a dialectic analysis, they console themselves with the thought that ‘a certain’ bureaucratic degeneration in the given conditions was historically inevitable.”2 Defenders of Cuba, at least the less starry-eyed, make the same argument. But as Trotsky wrote, “The stupidity and dishonesty of one’s enemies,” in this case U.S. imperialism, “is no justification for one’s own blindness.”3

The blindness referred to by Trotsky was on full display in the July 2006 issue of the magazine Socialism and Liberation, the magazine of the Party of Socialism and Liberation (PSL, a 2004 break-away from the Workers World Party), which published an article by its editor, Andy McInerney, entitled “A litmus test for socialists: Defending Cuba’s socialist revolution.” In it, McInerney asks the following questions:

Was the Cuban revolution a socialist revolution—that is, a revolution that brought the working class to state power? What is the role of the Cuban Communist Party and President Fidel Castro? Do they deserve the support of the progressive and working-class movement in the United States—not just against imperialist intervention but also against internal efforts to overthrow the government?

Answering these questions is a test of the fitness of an organization to lead a revolutionary struggle in the United States.

According to McInerney, organizations that “claim to be socialist,” such as the International Socialist Organization (ISO, the only group he mentions by name), fail his fitness test because, though they may oppose U.S. intervention in Cuba, they do not answer all of the above questions in the affirmative. For McInerney, this “fitness” (or lack of it) extends to any organization that fails to defend the former Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc countries, China (even today), and North Korea. Those who “refuse to stand with any of the parties and governments that have tried to build societies free of capitalist rule,” he argues, merely use “leftist-sounding criticisms” as “a cover for capitulation and cowardice in the face of anti-communist propaganda.”

Cuba cannot be “state capitalist,” McInerney asserts, because there are no private capitalists, and therefore no competition, inside Cuba. As for the impact of the world market on Cuba, McInerney informs us that Cuba’s participation in the world market is—and this is his most absurd claim—“limited.” Cuba’s state bureaucracy cannot be a class that “owns the surplus value created by Cuban workers,” he argues, because it is not very rich by comparison to capitalists elsewhere. Selectively pointing to Cuba’s period of sustained growth—the first decade of the 1970s—McInerney argues that Cuba’s economic problems can be laid entirely on the doorstep of the U.S. embargo.

Long live Stalin and…Saddam?

How socialists answer the questions posed by McInerney is indeed important, for it determines whether one identifies socialism with a society of genuine human liberation under workers’ control or with one in which the needs and aspirations of the working class are sacrificed to the demands of state accumulation.

As for “cowardice in the face of anti-communist propaganda,” Cold War propagandists did not invent the horrors of Stalin’s Russia—though they took full advantage of them to try and discredit genuine socialism for their own reasons. And just as cynically, the rulers of Russia pointed to the horrors of capitalist society in order to justify their rule. But there really was a gulag. Ante Ciliga, one-time leader of the Yugoslav Communist Party who joined the Trotskyist opposition and who spent several years in a Russian concentration camp, estimated that at the height of the 1930s purges there were ten million people in Russian prison camps.4 Millions died in these camps. Stalin was at this time imprisoning and shooting most of the revolutionaries who had played leading roles in the Russian Revolution—all in the name of socialism. “Nowhere else in the world,” Ciliga wrote bitterly in 1937, “exist such flagrant contradictions between official theory and real life, between hopes and their fulfillment, between word and deed.”5 We leave it to the reader to decide whether it was Ciliga or Stalin who employed “leftist sounding criticisms” as a cover.

The Russian Revolution for a brief few years brought workers to power, but the revolution degenerated from within and was finally snuffed out by a state bureaucracy that was hoisted up on the ruins of workers’ power; a process caused by the revolution’s isolation and impoverishment in the face of imperialist encirclement. In short, imperialist invasion and civil war devastated Russia’s already weak economy and its working class. To build up Russia’s heavy industry, needed for Russia’s defenses, the new bureaucracy squeezed the working class and peasantry using coercive means. The theory of “state capitalism” was meant to capture the fact that the bureaucracy, in engaging in this “primitive accumulation,” acted as a kind of state surrogate for the expropriated bourgeoisie.

Only the most hidebound sects that survived the fall of Stalinism persist in its defense. One of those sects was an organization that called itself the Workers World Party (WWP)—the political forerunner of the PSL, whose basic politics the PSL still shares. A 1959 splinter from the U.S. Socialist Workers Party, the WWP was led by Sam Marcy until his death in 1998. Though Trotskyist in origin, the hallmark of the WWP, perversely, was its uncritical support for all things Stalinist.

The basis of Marcy’s split from the SWP was his support for the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956 to crush the workers’ councils. PSL still adheres proudly to this tradition. The November 2006 issue of PSL’s magazine Socialism and Liberation published an article by Jon Britton entitled “The real lessons of the 1956 uprising in Hungary,” in which he writes: “Using the same language Bush uses today, the Hungarian uprising of 1956 was cloaked under the veil of ‘freedom and democracy.’ Few of the demonstrators called openly for the restoration of capitalism and landlordism. But the imperialist politicians and press knew where it was heading.”6

Since its founding, the WWP and its offspring have been consistent apologists for bureaucratic regimes from the Soviet Union to North Korea and Cuba. They supported the 1968 Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia (“The ‘democratic socialist revolution’ in Czechoslovakia is in reality counter-revolutionary, anti-socialist and not very democratic,” wrote Marcy7), and Polish General Jaruzelski’s military coup against the Solidarity trade union in 1981. “The workers of the world and the workers in the United States have nothing to gain and a great, great deal to lose by supporting, encouraging, or promoting the cause of this counter-revolutionary, fink outfit misnamed Solidarity,” wrote Marcy in 1981.8 He characterized the Chinese government’s violent suppression of the democracy movement in Tiananmen Square in 1989 as “a victory for socialism.”9

McInerney defended the Chinese government in a 1996 article that credits the Tiananmen crackdown for preventing China from going the way of the former Soviet Union, where, “A tiny handful have become fabulously rich.”10 Yet China at this time was itself in the throes of a series of pro-market economic reforms that were producing a new “fabulously rich” class of Chinese multi-millionaires, many of them leading Communist Party bureaucrats, a fact that led Western economists to lavish China with effusive praise.

The Workers World Party has found itself in the company of strange bedfellows for socialists; offering uncritical support, for example, to Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. During the first Gulf War, Marcy compared Saddam Hussein to the leader of a Roman slave rebellion, Spartacus, who, Marcy noted, “was as much demonized, hated and vilified in his time as Saddam Hussein is today.” Saddam Hussein was a former U.S. ally, a butcher too fearful of domestic revolt to mobilize an adequate defense of Iraq against the U.S. invasion in 2003. Spartacus, on the other hand, a real leader of the oppressed and himself a slave, destroyed seven different Roman armies sent to defeat him.

None of this directly answers McInerney’s claims about Cuba, but the historical record of the WWP and its identical offspring is relevant. Cuba came to model its state-led development closely on the Soviet Union until the latter’s demise in the late 1980s. McInerney’s position, which at first seems consistent, is broken, however, by his insistence that China, which has moved substantially to dismantle its aging state sector, is also socialist. Traditionally, Stalinists and their supporters would point to nationalized property as evidence of a regime’s socialist credentials. Today, we can only conclude that for McInerney a regime is socialist merely because it is ruled by a one-party state that declares itself socialist. The ISR’s difference with McInerney is not mainly about Cuba or some random fitness test, but rather about the fundamentals of socialism. For us, socialism is about workers’ self-emancipation and democratic self-rule. For McInerney, it is its opposite.

To be sure, Cuba’s national revolution, and its independence from the U.S., must be staunchly defended. Likewise, the gains of the revolution, in particular the establishment of a much-improved public education system and a health care system clearly superior to the private system in the United States, must be defended against any attempt (from without or within) to retract them. But such support does not require one to hold illusions as to the socialist character of the Cuban state, any more than the superiority of Canada’s national health system renders it any less capitalist in its social relations than the United States.

A workers’ state?

The basic facts surrounding the Cuban Revolution are not in dispute. Castro’s rebel army marched into power after the collapse of dictator Fulgencio Batista’s army in January 1959. Castro’s small band had initiated operations after landing in the boat Granma on the coast of Cuba from Mexican exile in December 1956, with only a few dozen fighters. At the time of Batista’s fall, the rebel army had a few thousand armed soldiers but it also depended on a substantial urban network.11 Though never large enough to pose a serious military threat, the rebel army was able to take advantage of the political vacuum left by the collapse of the Cuban army and state, as well as the disgust the mass of Cubans felt for the old corrupt political system. Castro’s July 26th Movement appealed to all sectors of Cuban society. “Victory was only possible,” Castro told a crowd in New York’s Central Park in April 1959, “because we united Cubans of all classes and all sectors around a single, shared aspiration.”12

The movement’s nationalist populism did not necessarily presage any move toward complete nationalization of the Cuban economy, though there was already a strong tradition of state intervention in the economy. Ernesto “Che” Guevara had embraced a Stalinized version of Marxism and Fidel’s brother, Raúl, also a leading rebel commander, was, if not a member of the Cuban Communist Party, at least a close sympathizer. The July 26th Movement was programmatically vague, but it was committed to a more diversified national economic development that would reduce or eliminate Cuba’s dependence on the United States and on sugar exports. There was mounting hostility from the Cuban bourgeoisie and U.S. investors, especially after the promulgation of a new land reform, and Castro turned toward nationalization and sought out Russian support. The flight of Cuban capital and a series of punitive actions by the U.S. against Cuba accelerated this process. After the April 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco—the abortive U.S.-sponsored invasion of Cuba by several hundred CIA-trained Cuban exiles—Castro retroactively declared the Cuban Revolution “socialist.”13

What was the class nature of the revolution? The July 26th Movement’s core around Castro consisted of men from different social classes, mostly from the cities, but even those from the working class had not been active in unions or other working-class organizations before joining Castro. Likewise, peasant guerrilla recruits, “typically had little or no history of previous organized peasant struggles,” notes Sam Farber. “This was very important in allowing Fidel Castro to mould these men into faithful followers of his caudillo leadership. In any case, an inner circle of ‘classless’ men unattached to the organizational life of any of the existing Cuban social classes became Fidel Castro’s political core.”14

The collapse of the old state and the discredited status of the old political parties gave Castro’s movement a great deal of room to maneuver. In the end Castro’s movement stood not only above the capitalists who looked to the U.S. to “save” them, but also above the working class and the peasantry. He carried out his measures in their name, but neither class exerted any control over the process.

According to McInerney, Castro established a “workers’ state.” His justification for this claim is that the revolution was popular, and the existence of an urban movement against Batista gave it a mass character. “There was support and participation from the masses,” writes McInerney, “such as the selling of bonds to finance the guerrilla fighters.” But even by this account, the urban resistance played an auxiliary role, that of providing material assistance to the guerrillas. More importantly, “support and participation” is by no means the same as saying that it was a mass upheaval or that the masses were in control of the process. Every successful revolution involves mass support and participation—such as the American and French revolutions. Neither created societies run by workers, however. What is so striking is that these bourgeois revolutions involved far greater mass mobilizations than did the Cuban Revolution.

A sympathetic observer, James O’Connor, writing in 1964, made a similar assessment of the Cuban Revolution:

From the attack by Fidel on the Moncada Barracks in July 1953, throughout the guerrilla war of 1957–58, until late 1959, when the Castro group firmly consolidated political power, not a single peasant revolt ignited the Cuban countryside. Passive resistance, surreptitious aid to Castro’s forces, there were, to be sure; unlike dozens of other political revolutions, however, the peasant class failed to grasp the initiative at any point in the struggle.…. The labor movement, in which over one half of Cuba’s labor force was enrolled, figured even less prominently in the Rebellion. It was in January 1959, after the regular army had received Castro’s final blows, that the working classes shut down Havana’s industry and commerce. Earlier a general strike in April 1958 had been a total failure.
In the social revolution of 1959–61, the liquidation of Cuba’s private property system was invariably initiated by the ruling group. The peasantry did not spontaneously seize and cultivate idle lands.15

Castro, in fact, threatened reprisals against “anarchic land distribution,” drafting a law stipulating that anyone seizing land “without waiting for the new agrarian law will lose their rights to benefits from the new agrarian reform.”16

Nor did the urban workers and sugar mill laborers independently occupy the factories (this was a sharp departure from the abortive social revolution of 1933); rebel army or militia units at the direction of the central government took possession of Cuba’s farm land and industry.
…The social revolution was more or less orderly because the political revolution transferred power from one relatively small group of men to another, [while] the masses of Cubans…passively supported the social revolution.17

There is no doubt that the new regime was enormously popular—a popularity it quickly consolidated with a series of significant reforms such as wage increases, land redistribution, utility rate and rent reductions, and a mass literacy campaign in the countryside; but Cuba’s was not a workers’ revolution, and it did not lead to a government by and of the working class.

Castro’s decision to turn to the Cuban Communist Party (CCP, known then as the Popular Socialist Party, or PSP) was not a turn to the working class. The CCP had long before become a thoroughly Stalinized party, discredited for its withdrawal of support for a general strike against the Machado dictatorship in 1933 and its collaboration with Batista from 1938 into the mid-1940s. The PSP had pledged its support for Batista in exchange for legalization, control of the Cuban Confederation of Workers (CTC) and two positions in Batista’s cabinet. Many activists in the July 26th Movement resented the PSP for its past collaboration with Batista, a resentment that Castro, always tactically flexible, waived aside when the time came. The CCP cadres, with their administrative abilities and ties to Russia, were useful now, especially given the exodus of thousands of technicians, administrators, and managers. “I needed them,” Castro remarked.18

Is there “direct democracy,” or any democracy, in Cuba?

Castro supporters, and Castro and Guevara themselves, have argued that Cuba had abandoned “the commonplaces of bourgeois democracy”19 for a new kind of direct democracy. The nature of this democracy derived allegedly from Fidel’s connection with the masses established, for example, at the numerous mass rallies where he would deliver hours-long speeches. But these rallies allowed millions to applaud Castro’s decisions, not debate or guide them. “Fidel Castro will decide on the orientation of the future,” a university director told René Dumont in 1969, expressing a widespread sentiment at the time.20 In the early phases of the revolution, these rallies were genuinely spontaneous expressions of mass enthusiasm, but by the late sixties they had become, according to Dumont, “obligatory.”21 At best, the masses are expected to play a consultative role, at worst, as an echo chamber for decisions already made at the top.

For Fidel, according to his 1960 May Day speech, democracy in Cuba was expressed not in elections, “so often prostituted to falsify the will and the interests of the people,” but in “the close union and identification of the government and the people.”22 It is one thing to expose the limits of bourgeois democracy, however, and another to claim that democracy can exist without voting and elections. As Nigel Harris writes, for Marxists,

The critique of parliament…was not a rejection of democracy itself. Lenin wrote: “The way out of parliamentarianism is not, of course, the abolition of representative institutions and the electoral principle, but the conversion of the representative institutions from mere ‘talking shops’ into working bodies.” For, Lenin continues: “We cannot imagine democracy, not even proletarian democracy, without representative institutions, but we can and must think of democracy without parliamentarianism.”23

“Close union,” that is, in the sense of support or agreement with decisions taken at the top, is not democracy, unless the close union is a product of elected leaders answering to their constituents. For Castro, however, democracy was not about the power of the masses to make important decisions or to exercise control over their elected representatives. Nigel Harris, writing about Mao’s China, captures in his description a similar reality in Castro’s Cuba:

The Chinese Communist party’s view of democracy was taken from the Russia of the 1930s. Democracy is a style of relationship between cadres and non-cadres, between party leaders and cadres, not the subordination of power to the majority. In this sense democracy is not directly about power at all.24

Real working-class democracy would have required the creation of formal institutions of working-class rule, such as existed in the Paris Commune or the Russian Revolution—real decision-making bodies directly elected and instantly recallable, making no more than an average worker’s wage. As Argentine socialist Francisco Sobrino notes, “There can be no substantive democracy (one with truly egalitarian features) without it also being a formal democracy.”25 The fact that the old “national institutions were in varying degrees of disrepute”26 meant that the mass of Cubans did not cry when Castro failed to revive bourgeois elections. Yet neither were new organs of popular democracy created from below to replace them. State power was in the hands of a small group around Fidel.

A number of supporters of the Cuban regime point to the existence of mass organizations such as the neighborhood-based Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR) and the Federation of Cuban Women, which, says McInerney, “involved the masses of Cuban workers and peasants in the revolutionary process,” as evidence of democracy in Cuba. But the CDRs are not decision-making organs; their day-to-day function is to act as the eyes and ears of the regime at the neighborhood level. As one author notes, “CDR militants have…hounded ‘nonintegrated’ individuals, denouncing and condemning all forms of parasitic and antisocial behavior, as well as collaborating with local authorities in policing neighborhoods. In 1980, according to eyewitness accounts from Mariel refugees, the CDR sponsored ‘repudiation meetings’ designed to chastise, browbeat, and humiliate citizens who wanted to leave Cuba. Often, these meetings turned into violent and vituperative mob action.”27

The Federation of Cuban Women (FMC), like all state-sponsored “mass organizations” in Cuba, is an instrument for the mobilization of women to fulfill tasks determined by the party rather than collective debate and decision-making. A study of women’s role in Cuba by Alfred Padula and Lois M. Smith found that the FMC “was an intensely hierarchical organization.”

With its top-down lines of command and its use of military terminology, the FMC—like all mass organizations in Cuba—had a certain martial aura. Activities were perceived as battles, struggles, campaigns; members were organized in brigades and detachments. Uniformity was the watchword. In 1974 the FMC launched a campaign to encourage proper sleeping habits in children, which included a contest “to select a figure and a melody that will be used every day at a specific hour [on radio] to urge the children to go to sleep.”28

As with most important gatherings, Fidel Castro was always the last speaker at FMC congresses, and according to Vilma Espín, president of the FMC, “His words constitute a mandate.”29

Even the much-celebrated system of “poder popular” or people’s power, does not in fact confer any real power on ordinary people. Popular power was touted as a means to institutionalize the revolution after a period of years (it wasn’t formed until 1976!) in which the revolutionaries had lost contact with the masses. A system of municipal and regional assemblies, crowned by a National Assembly—popular power, in the words of Sam Farber, offered “the appearance of democracy without the substance.”30

This is true for a number of reasons. One, there is only one legal political party—the Cuban Communist Party. Barred from campaigning, candidates can only present their political biographies. The electoral law of 1992 allowed for the election of all the members of the National Assembly (previously only 55 percent were elected, the rest appointed from above). A “candidacy commission” consisting of leaders of the CCP and leaders of the mass organizations nominates the candidates, resulting in a situation in which the overwhelming majority of candidates are either members of the CCP or its organizations. What’s more, the number of candidates is restricted in such a way that the municipal electors can either vote for “all the candidates, some of the candidates, or none of them.”31

All of this, in any case, is moot because the National Assembly, which meets only twice a year for a few days, is a rubber-stamp body. As Marifeli Pérez-Stable writes, it is “not a permanent legislature and consequently did not have an actual role in governing Cuba.” Its role is to listen to various reports and approve various budgets, economic plans and laws and vote for them. “Debate could modify but never reject proposals. The assembly approved most matters unanimously, or nearly so.… Invariably…once President Castro spoke definitively on an issue, discussion stopped.”32

Scholar Carollee Bengelsdorf, who observed a meeting of the National Assembly in 1978, witnessed a discussion about Cuba’s housing shortage in which some delegates complained that they had lost voters’ confidence because none of the problems affecting people at the municipal level ever seemed to get solved. On the last day of the assembly, Fidel explained,

We cannot simply do things because the electorate says it’s best, that it is good, really beautiful. There are many beautiful things in the world that have to wait to be realized. Unquestionably, there is a yearly plan of work, construction, and when this plan is made, the wishes of the electorate cannot be taken into account.33

Quite simply, the bureaucracy denies democracy because it has decisions it wants to make that it knows Cuban workers won’t accept.
The top CCP leaders are also not accountable to their own party. It held its first congress in 1975—ten years after the party’s founding. Since then there have been only five congresses, the last one being held in 2002. In the party itself, as Maurice Zeitlin, a sympathetic observer, described in 1970, “The Central Committee of the Communist Party was not chosen by the rank and file of the party throughout the country, and there seems to be no inclination to carry out such elections with the Party itself.”34

One might expect that in a workers’ state the working class might have some degree of control over economic priorities, but such is not the case in Cuba. The technical advisory councils established in 1960, for example, were seen as a way to get workers to accept management decisions. “It is not a question of discussing all administrative decisions with the workers,” noted Politburo member Armando Hart, “but of obtaining their enthusiasm to support the principal measures of the administration.”35 Guevara and other leaders were of the same opinion. Writes Pérez-Stable,

Collective decision-making was never their prerogative: the revolutionary government conferred exclusive power over enterprise matters to management. “Collective discussions, one-man decision-making and responsibility,” Guevara contended. Carlos Rafael Rodriguez seconded him: “We hear from many quarters the idea that workers should decide by majority vote…. Collective management is destructive. Administrators should have, have, and will have the last word.”36

The trade unions in Cuba are also adjuncts of management that promote productivity and labor discipline rather than defend workers’ rights. The justification for this new role for the unions was that the interests of the working class and the state were now identical. “One of the principal functions of the trade unions under socialism,” wrote Raúl Castro in 1971,

is to serve as a vehicle for the orientation, directives, and goals which the revolutionary power must convey to the working masses…. The work of the trade unions helps and supports that of the administration…. The principal tasks [in which the unions should be involved] are productivity and work discipline; more efficient utilization of the workday…and most efficient and rational use of both material and human resources.37

Union organizations independent of party (state) control are prohibited, and there is no right to strike. Beginning in 1969, a new law required that “everyone in the labor force carry an identification card listing his occupational and employment record, and making the maintenance of such records on their employees mandatory.”38 This emphasis on the part of the Cuban leadership on the role of unions promoting greater productivity continues today. The September 20, 2006, edition of Granma, an official organ of the CCP, cited a speech by José A. Carrillo Gómez, chief political director of the Cuban armed forces, stating that, “The principal role of the labor unions is to promote productivity and labor discipline.”39

Political opposition to the regime is carefully monitored and frequently suppressed, either through intimidation or imprisonment. And it is not just Miami-funded dissidents who are harassed. Pro-Soviet communists and left-wing critics have also been repressed, as well as various artists. In the 1960s, “The tiny group of Cuban Trotskyists (Posadistas) was in prison for several years after their literature and printing press were seized by the government,” writes Farber. This was a group that supported the Cuban Revolution. “They were eventually released on condition that they cease independent political activity.”40 Ariel Hidalgo spent seven years in prison in Cuba, according to Amnesty International, on the charge of “hostile propaganda,” for writing a pamphlet in 1984 criticizing the “prerogatives” enjoyed by managers but “denied to nearly the whole rank-and-file working population.”41 Where critical opinions that contradict official policy are not permitted one cannot speak of real debate, let alone democracy.

Raúl Castro once said that Cuba is “the most democratic state” in history, “even without representative institutions” because it “represents the interests of the working class, no matter what its form and structure.” It is surely a peculiar democracy whose superiority consists in the fact that the governing party rules in the name of the working class without having to answer to any “representative institutions.”42 The Cuban regime squared this circle by asserting that, “The working class considered as a whole…cannot exercise its own dictatorship.” Why? “Originating in bourgeois society,” the working class is “marred by flaws and vices from the past.”43 (Apparently, Raúl, Fidel, Che, and all the other revolutionaries who “originated in bourgeois society” were somehow unmarked by these vices). Ironically, when Raúl Castro made this statement, the head of the CTC was Lázaro Peña, the same Stalinist bureaucrat who was president of the union federation under Batista’s first dictatorship.

Some socialists who have no problem seeing through the limitations of bourgeois democracy—the choice every four to six years of who will misrepresent the people—seem to wear blinders when it comes to the absence of any democracy at all in Cuba.

The economics of dependency

The Cuban economy has gone through a number of different phases since the revolution, each a response to problems created by the previous phase. In the early 1960s, Cuba attempted to introduce a Soviet-model, centrally planned command economy with the aim of rapidly diversifying the economy and abandoning Cuba’s dependence on sugar. This phase ended in crisis as Cuba found itself increasingly in debt to the Russians, yet with declining foreign exchange from its neglected sugar sector. Cuba found that it had moved from dependence on the U.S. to dependence on the Russians, forced to return to sugar exports as its main source of earnings.

In the late 1960s, Cuba embarked on a “Guevarist” phase of hyper-centralized growth based on “moral incentives,” the demand for “selfless production,” and the use of military-style campaigns and production competitions (“socialist emulation”). The goal was rapid accumulation and industrialization based on an extremely high rate of investment. The period ended in disaster (practically zero growth), as the economy was thrown into dislocation by the attempt to mobilize the entire population to meet the goal of a ten million ton sugar harvest by 1970. At the end of the post-revolution regime’s first decade, per capita income was below what it had been in 1959.44

In the period of the 1970s, Cuba came back into the Russian fold and adopted a more modest development plan involving an emphasis on quotas and monetary incentives, as well as experiments with market mechanisms. Cuba retained its dependence on sugar throughout the 1970s and 1980s, however, receiving “something like a $5 billion annual subsidy from the Soviet Union—about $500 per capita annually—in the form of a relative price for Cuban sugar bartered for Soviet oil that far exceeded prevailing world market price.”45

This did not prevent Cuba from entering a period of economic crisis in the late 1970s, and again in the late 1980s, in which declining sugar prices reduced Cuba’s foreign exchange earnings and drove up its trade deficit and foreign debt. Cuba’s economic troubles, in other words, did not begin in the 1990s.

To respond to the 1980s crisis, Castro initiated the “campaign to rectify errors and negative tendencies” in 1986 and revived a number of features of the late sixties—moral incentives, the expansion of the state’s role and the restricting of various market concession made earlier in the decade, and the reintroduction of work brigades. Castro’s rhetoric spoke of the need to curb “two-bit capitalists” who were “forgetting about the country.”46 But at the same time he began opening up the country to more foreign investment and expanding the tourist industry.

The campaign was devised to increase the available surplus wealth to pay back Cuba’s mushrooming foreign debt. In addition to clamping down on private business transactions and corruption, the government “came out against employment security, wage guarantees, and unemployment and seniority rights,”47 and initiated cuts in the supply of important consumer products like milk and sugar. The government also doubled transportation fares, raised electricity rates by 30 percent, “stopped providing snacks at work centers, and… replaced the afternoon meal (until then offered at child care institutions) with a snack.”48 The rectification campaign was in part Castro’s response to perestroika in Russia and Solidarity in Poland. His attacks on bureaucratic privilege in this context were in large part ideological (though he was concerned to curtail theft at all levels)—to ease public opposition to austerity by presenting it as shared sacrifice.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc in the late 1980s and early 1990s led to post-revolutionary Cuba’s worst economic crisis in its history. The crucial subsidy Russia had provided to Cuba suddenly disappeared. Below market-rate oil shipments, some of which Cuba had resold at a profit, dried up. The Eastern Bloc had accounted for 80 percent of Cuba’s imported machinery, and imported 63 percent of Cuba’s sugar (at higher than world market rates), as well as 73 percent of its nickel exports. The results were catastrophic. Imports fell 70 percent between 1990 and 1993. “Nearly half of all factories were shut down or forced to operate on a much reduced scale, for lack of imported raw materials, spare parts, and petroleum.”49 Cuba’s economy went into a tailspin, declining by 36 percent in the same period. Cuba was forced to import bicycles and use horse-drawn carts, and malnutrition was widespread.50 A UN observer who visited Cuba in 1996, Solon Barraclough, reported rural shortages of basic farm implements like machetes and hoes, clothing, paper, pencils, books, and medical supplies like aspirin and antibiotics.51 Yet the urban economy was even worse off, prompting the state to send urban refugees into the countryside.52

In response to the crisis, Cuba declared itself to be in a “Special Period in Peacetime” and initiated a series of reforms to cope with the crisis: opening up of foreign investment, in particular to joint (50-50) enterprises; decentralization of foreign trade activity; an increase in tourism; a restructuring of land ownership toward cooperatives and small farms (in an effort to increase domestic food production); authorization of licensed self-employment on a limited basis; creation of handicraft markets; greater autonomy and self-financing for state-owned enterprises; and legalization of dollar holdings.
Cuba’s chief economic strategist, Carlos Lage, claims that Cuba’s special reforms are “not an opening toward capitalism, but rather a socialist opening toward a capitalist world.”53 The head of Cuba’s national bank explained that, “We have to think like capitalists but continue being socialists.” Castro defended “creeping privatization,” citing the need for a “practical attitude,” and the slogan became “capital yes, capitalism no.”54

This opening included allowing foreign investors in joint ventures (of which there were 340 in 2003, down from a peak of 540 in 2000)55 to repatriate all of their share of the profits. Whereas the Cuban managers of these concerns are paid salaries comparable to their foreign counterparts, the Cuban workers in these businesses are paid by an agency of the Cuban state, which receives $450 in hard currency per month, but only pays the equivalent of fifteen Cuban pesos per month in wages. In order to attract foreign investment, the Cuban government “exempted investors from compliance with labor laws, and it allowed for unlimited profit repatriation for up to ten years.”56 Not even Cuba’s state-run unions were permitted in the joint ventures. According to Jorge Pérez-López, the special labor regime of workers in joint ventures and the tourist industry allows employers more leeway to apply disciplinary action, requires longer probationary periods, longer hours, and allows more irregular work schedules. Workers also have less job security, as employees can be dismissed if they are not deemed “suitable.”57

In addition, the state began an economic program known as “perfeccionamiento empresarial” (enterprise optimization)—first adopted by enterprises run by Cuba’s armed forces in the late 1980s—allowing some enterprises to buy and sell directly on the world market and set their own labor policies. The aim was to “increase the maximum efficiency and competitiveness” of state enterprises.58

Low world market sugar prices and declining crop yields prompted the state to restructure the industry, shutting down half the sugar mills and diverting fields for cane production to other agricultural products. Tourism revenue grew from $243 million in 1991 to $1.8 billion in 2001, surpassing sugar as Cuba’s main industry and accounting in 2000 for 41 percent of Cuba’s foreign exchange.59 Dollar remittances (estimated at as much as $1 billion) became a crucial source of foreign exchange as well as a lifeline for many Cubans on the island. Cuba expanded its biotechnology industry, and sought foreign investors from Canada and China, to revive its nickel industry. Cuba now gets Venezuelan oil at below-market prices and has developed a series of joint economic ventures with Venezuela and China. Though there had been some recovery, the industrial sector is still far from its 1989 levels, there are shortages of consumer goods, chronic underemployment, and Cuba’s per capita income “is at best marginally better now than in 1957,” according to one left-wing economist.60

The promotion of tourism brought back features that were more redolent of pre-revolutionary Havana, which was not altogether discouraged by the Cuban government:

In its drive to attract tourists the government played on the image of the “old Havana.” Three of the main Cuban organs that operate resorts—Cubatur, Cubanacán, and Cimex—hosted a Playboy trip around the time the Special Period was launched. The government allowed the magazine to feature an article on the “girls of Cuba,” contingent on coverage of the island’s tourist facilities. Even the Ministry of Tourism began to run travel advertisements abroad featuring string bikini-clad sexy Cuban girls. If that were not enough, in 1991 the government opened a Tropicana nightclub in Santiago de Cuba, a club capitalizing on the name of Havana’s most famous prerevolutionary nightspot. The government’s interest in hard currency led it to play on its prerevolutionary reputation and to reverse its earlier puritanical stance on such matters.61

Tourism introduced a sort of economic apartheid in Cuba, with a marked contrast between tourist wealth and extravagance and the austerity and low pay of most islanders. The legalization of the dollar in 1993 created a parallel economy that increased income inequality on the island. Those with access to dollars (about 60 percent) had access to services and goods that others did not. The economy has become so distorted that state-employed professionals like doctors and professors with no access to dollars have a lower income than taxi drivers in the tourist zone, prompting the former to moonlight as cabbies and small restaurant operators. For many young workers, pay is so low that many decide to become self-employed in order to improve their living standards. As in times past (for example, the 1980 Mariel exodus), the regime, though it regularly restricted travel abroad among ordinary Cubans, has allowed the exodus of thousands of poor Cubans, which acts as both an economic and political safety valve.

In 2004, some of these economic reforms were curtailed—for example, small businesses were restricted again and Castro, in retaliation for Bush’s new restrictions on remittances and visits by Cuban Americans to the island—decreed that dollars had to be exchanged for convertible pesos for a 10 percent surcharge, and enterprises’ access to foreign exchange was recentralized through the state. But another motive seemed to be that the state would be able to concentrate more hard currency for imports and debt repayment. Cuba’s hard currency debt stands at almost $14 billion as of 2004, not counting the estimated $22 billion it still owes to the ex-Eastern Bloc countries, a fact that makes it difficult for Cuba to secure, when it can, other than short-term, high-interest loans. Even Cuba’s debt to Venezuela, in spite of paying cheaper than market prices for Venezuelan oil, is estimated at $2.5 billion. According to economist Carmelo Mesa-Lago,

The scarcity of hard currency has been aggravated by several problems: continuous deterioration in the terms of trade; a merchandise trade deficit of about $3 billion from 2000 through 2004; a decline in foreign direct investment from 2001 through 2004; cash purchases of food and agricultural products from the United States that reached a cumulative total of $1 billion at the start of 2005; [and] extensive imports of equipment, spare parts, and goods in 2004 due to the electricity crisis and subsequent paralysis of great parts of the tourist sector.62

These zig-zags do not represent an alternation between capitalist and socialist measures, but rather an effort to overcome the problems that each economic shift creates. Each time the state opens up the economy it runs the risk also of opening things up beyond its control. It then lurches in the other direction, only to find that it creates other problems. The economic rationale for centralization of the economy and banning of private economic activity is that it allows the state to concentrate in its hands greater surplus and prevent “leakage” of wealth. However, the shortages of basic goods and the long lines for goods and services lead to high rates of absenteeism and resentment, lower productivity rates, and economic decline. In response, the state moves toward allowing private market mechanisms to operate more freely, including small service-related businesses, legalization of the black market, and so on. And the cycle begins again.

State (and private) capitalism in Cuba

Marx wrote in Capital that individual capitalists are driven by market competition to maximize profits:

Competition makes the immanent laws of capitalist production to be felt by each individual capitalist, as external coercive laws. It compels him to keep constantly extending his capital, in order to preserve it, but extend it he cannot, except by means of progressive accumulation.63

Defenders of Cuba’s socialist character claim that these laws don’t apply because there is no competition domestically between firms. This purely national view fails to take into account that Cuba is not a self-sufficient entity, but a small island nation that does not even produce all of its own food, let alone the energy, raw materials, machinery, spare parts, and investment funds that it needs to develop. The “external coercive laws” of capitalism impose themselves in the form of the world market, from which Cuba, a country dependent on imports and exports to survive, and which is deeply in debt to international creditors, was not able to escape at any point in its history.

What has guided the investment and production priorities of the Cuban state? In Castro’s 1978 speech to the National Assembly previously referred to, he explained that the overarching need to invest Cuba’s resources in “economic and industrial development” was “an absolute,” and that therefore “the priority given to such investment was not open to discussion, or questioning.”64 Historian Louis Pérez, Jr., tells of how the regime’s drive to reduce Cuba’s sugar dependency led to an economic policy in the 1960s in which “consumption was curtailed to divert investment into industrialization and rapid economic growth.”65

As an economy dependent on exports, and until recently on sugar, the Cuban state has, just like an individual capitalist, been concerned not with what “use value” it produces, but with its value, i.e., what can be gotten in return for as little expenditure as possible. After the initial failures of the Guevarist phase, its entire development strategy rested in large part on the maximization of profit on a single export.

The exigencies of the world market compel the state to engage in “progressive” accumulation—the expansion of surplus value—for the purposes of reinvestment and expansion of the Cuban economy. As with “private” capitalism, in Cuba “living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor.” Of course, as the provider of social services, the state has been responsible for the maintenance of certain minimum living standards for the Cuban working class, but the limits of improvement of this “social wage” are conditioned by the needs of accumulation. That is the meaning of the countless statements by Castro & Co. that workers must sacrifice today for a better tomorrow. “We should not speak of improving living conditions,” Castro said in his speech commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the revolution. “The most sacred duty of this generation is to devote their efforts to the development of the country…. This generation must make sacrifices…. Other generations will live better.”66 It is evident in the fact that the bureaucracy has never been able to solve Cuba’s housing crisis—there was a shortage of one million housing units at the end of the 1970s (and still more than 700,000 today),67 a result not simply of shortages, but reflects “the priority given to construction programs in other sectors.”68
Yet this sacrifice has never been a shared sacrifice. Like any ruling class, the Cuban nomenklatura also reserves special material privileges for itself, though the income disparities in Cuba (reported by Dumont to be about 9.4 to 1 in 196969) are not comparable to those, for example, in the United States. But money is not an adequate indication of the privilege of the ruling class in Cuba. In the Stalinist economies political access to goods and services has always been more important than access to money.

As Louis Pérez, Jr., writes, whereas many durable consumer goods for workers and poor Cubans have been rationed—often goods like refrigerators and TV sets are awarded only to the most “productive” and “conscious” workers—“at a higher level…the government made available to high-level technicians, labor union leaders and ranking state functionaries valued goods and services, including automobiles, better housing, and access to vacations abroad.”70 There are also special shops and clinics for the elite.

Though some Castro supporters may concede these inequalities of wealth, they deny that the Cuban bureaucracy is a ruling class, or that Cuba is capitalist, on the grounds that there are no private owners (although even this view has to be modified in light of the joint ventures). Classes are defined by their relationship to the means of production, and by who thereby controls the surplus. In Cuba, the state owns most of the economy, and the top echelons of the CCP control the state, and therefore the surplus; the working class, which is deprived of control, and therefore ownership, of the means of production, as well as the surplus it produces, is an exploited class.

The Catholic Church was the largest feudal landowner in Europe. It exploited peasants even though no Vatican high officials privately owned Church land. The fact that individual bishops could not inherit or pass on landed wealth did not negate the fact that the church as an institution was an exploiter of the peasantry on the lands it collectively owned.71 The same holds true for Cuba. What makes Cuba capitalist is the pressure of the world market on the priorities and decisions of the Cuban ruling class. Socialism on one island is no more possible than socialism in one factory.

The fact that work discipline must continually be reinforced is strong evidence that Cuban workers do not feel themselves to be owners of the means of production. In response to the wide gap between wages and the scant availability of consumer goods, workers often work only as much as is necessary to buy their rations. Forms of labor coercion are needed to supplement efforts to convince workers to work under conditions of austerity. Absenteeism and theft are recurrent themes in the speeches of state officials. Lacking other means of redress for their low standards of living (such as striking), Cuban workers engage in these more passive forms of resistance. Workers absent themselves from their official jobs to engage in various unofficial activities to supplement their wages. This behavior only accelerated in past years because of the introduction of the parallel dollar economy related to tourism and dollar remittances from the United States.

Conclusion

No country can escape from the effects of the world market, least of all a small island economy. While small nations can achieve political independence from imperialism—Cuba is living proof—the idea of “economic independence” was always a nationalist pipe dream.

Cuba’s inescapable reliance on one or two key exports (sugar, then tourism) its dependence on foreign investment and imports for capital, raw materials, and even food—first from the Eastern Bloc, today from elsewhere—is proof of this truth. If Cuba is able to diversify its exports in biotechnology, nickel, oil, and services (i.e. doctors) it will not have thereby strengthened “socialism” in Cuba. It will have been accomplished by significant investment from Canadian, Chinese, Spanish, Italian, and Venezuelan capital. The use of state planning to develop the products that give Cuba a “comparative advantage” in the world market is a development strategy employed by dozens of once less developed capitalist countries, from South Korea to Singapore. It has no more to do with socialism than Mexico’s national oil company.

The class nature of Cuba must be separated from the question of the defense of Cuba against U.S. imperialism, for they are not identical questions. Too often liberals have historically sided with U.S. aims and failed to defend countries under U.S. assault—witness the failure of the Left to oppose U.S. intervention in Somalia and Panama—because they could not identify politically with the regimes of those states. The uncritical defense of Castro’s rule is the flip side of the same approach.

All sincere anti-imperialists should condemn the cruel U.S. economic blockade of Cuba; but we should have no illusions as to what the lifting of that embargo would mean. The proximity of Cuba to the U.S. and the latter’s size and power will lead to the more or less rapid reintegration of Cuba with the U.S. economy. With special rules that allow it to circumvent restrictive laws against trade and investment with Cuba, U.S. agribusiness has exported $1.6 billion in products to Cuba between 2001 and 2005, making Cuba the third largest U.S. food importer in Latin America.72 The Bush administration has also authorized a San Diego company to market three anti-cancer vaccines developed by the Center for Molecular Immunology in Havana.73 A lifting of the embargo would lead not to the flourishing of socialism, by whatever definition. Cuba’s social services—its free health care and educational system especially—would come under threat.

Fidel’s recent illness had prompted commentators in the U.S. to expect some kind of immediate crisis that the U.S. could take advantage of. They were wrong. It is very possible that Raúl Castro, Fidel’s hand-picked successor, will direct Cuba toward Chinese-style reforms that introduce more private forms of capitalism without loosening up the CCP’s control over the state. State administrators may be more tempted to take this road not only because of China’s enormous growth rates, but also because Cuba has established closer trading ties with China, and Chinese investments on the island, in particular in the nickel industry, have increased dramatically in recent years.

In this context, the tasks of the Left in the U.S. are to oppose the embargo, resist any attempt on the part of the U.S. to impose its will on the island, and to support Cuba’s legitimate resistance to U.S. domination. But working-class discontent is likely to grow in Cuba as a result of the way in which workers in Cuba have borne the brunt of the country’s economic devastation. To the extent that all resistance is denounced as Miami-inspired, and to the extent to which the Left in the U.S. accepts that logic, there will be no space for that resistance to combine opposition to exploitation at home with opposition to U.S. imperialism abroad.

The enduring importance of the Cuban Revolution—and what infuriates the U.S. ruling class—is that it stands as an example of successful resistance, against fearful odds, to U.S. imperialism. The message of the Cuban Revolution is that it is possible to defy Washington and win.

The U.S. continues to embargo Cuba and paint it as a threat to U.S. interests not merely as “payback to Bush’s conservative Florida supporters,” as a recent North American Congress on Latin America analysis notes. Washington is clearly concerned with Cuba’s regional relationship with Venezuela and other Latin American states, and its growing economic partnership with China. Daniel Fisk, National Security Adviser for the Western Hemisphere, “clearly articulated the nature of the perceived threat.”

Ultimately, the threat is political, Fisk explains, because of “Cuban and Venezuelan attempts to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its Caribbean partners.” In effect, he is saying both endanger traditional U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere and are viewed as acting in tandem.74
That is why the defense of Cuba from U.S. meddling remains so important. Moreover, if Cuba goes the way of Eastern Europe (or China), the privatization is going to benefit a small number of former state bureaucrats and administrators, while Cuba’s poor and working class will lose the most important social achievements of the revolution, such as universal health care. These gains must be defended.

Over the past several years, a new political period has opened up in Latin America—a period of mass struggle as well as enormous political transformations in Venezuela, Bolivia, and elsewhere. In this developing context, the kind of politics that will emerge to guide these struggles is crucial to their success or failure. Stalinism (and neo-Stalinism) is a relic of the past—a distorted reflection of the failure of the Russian Revolution and of the substitution of ideas utterly alien to Marxism and the workers’ movement. The importance of this question is not only historical, i.e. about the ex-Stalinist states, but is about the kind of politics and movements that will emerge over the coming years. Those who look to minorities, or states, to bring social transformation are acknowledging that they don’t really believe in the possibility of a revolutionary transformation from below, guided by the masses themselves.

The Cuban Revolution is not the first time that leftists in the U.S. and elsewhere have given “a communist coloring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends.”75 Mr. McInerney defends all of the so-called communist regimes on the grounds that they all have (or had) the same characteristics. But these characteristics—absence of workers’ control, exploitation of wage labor, social stratification, and leader worship—are precisely the things anticapitalists should be struggling to overcome.

Socialism is the self-emancipation of the working classor it is nothing. Years ago, Stalinism was rightly recognized by genuine Marxists as a great tragedy for the world working-class movement. Today such delusions have, to paraphrase Marx, moved from tragedy to farce.

wsws is not my "go-to" site SP- laughs- any more than any site is. So yer wrong there.

Next up Van Auken's analysis (which I had already read) here is moronic- these statements alone would draw any reader to question Van Auken's intelligence on this matter:


The Castro regime blames all of the island's economic problems on the US embargo. Without question the US policy is a brutal and irrational exercise of imperialist power against a small, oppressed country. But this policy has been in effect for 35 years. In the meantime, Cuba had economic relations with virtually every other major country in the world.

Cuba's crisis is fundamentally the outcome of the bourgeois character of the revolution itself

and this comment here is sheer a-historical stupidity of the lowest order;

Pabloite revisionism and its support for Castroism helped to lead a generation of radicalized youth into suicidal adventures for which the working class paid the biggest price.

I guess it's all happening in a vacuum.

In any case where are those 5 examples requested? Should be easy. Or was that piece your way of backing out of that. No hurry- take your time.

Sure... you can debate whether it's shit or not but it isn't only coming from liberals. That's the only point here. Is every other fucking strain of leftist a reactionary tool because they don't agree that autocratic rule is not working class power. What are you asking for Chlams ? 5 examples of what ? Let me review the thread again of what you're asking.

Hey chlams, he doesn't even know that anarchists are liberals. Ha.

Do tell professor Dhalgren are anarcho-communists liberals too ? How bout Lucy Parsons professor Dhalgren ? A liberal ? You're losing it Dhalgren and with each post your motives in this discussion become more suspect. In any case you're obsession with claiming anyone who disagrees with your one true religion (and that's exactly what this has become for you) are liberals is clouding you're mind. Guess you disagree with Anax then too Dhal ?

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

If the term "left" has any meaning other than a purely relative one, it is as that group of political ideas, parties, movements, and organizations which believes that politics is driven less by ideas than by interests and that those interests are based on economic class. Radical republicans (Civil War variety), revolutionary democrats, social democrats (including even a sizable chunk of the British Labor Party and the German SDs of today), socialists, utopian socialists, agrarian socialists, communists, anarchists, anarco-syndicalists, and nihilists - if these do not agree on anything else, they agree on the centrality of social classes even before they divide on what to do about them.

In contrast, "Liberals" explicitly reject the centrality of social classes. If such exist at all, they are assumed to be trumped by a common interest (national or otherwise) and any division is based only on transitory political opinion or policy. They are united with "Conservatives" in their agreement on the fundamental norms of society and on their long-term objectives (most importantly in the defense of private property and the projection of "national interest"). Indeed, for them, the current organization of society is the only one conceivable.

--Anaxarchos

I feel like this is the crux of it. He's seemingly created his own definitions for pretty standard things. He's making things up as he goes based on some trial and error stemming from anecdotal evidence. I truly believe that arguing about Castro is maybe the 12th thing on the list of ways we could get through to SP for a coherent discussion (if that is what we intend to do).

You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about... except the fact that these ARE pretty standard things... and it shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Anarchists are not liberals you gaslighting motherfucker.

Hey chlams, he doesn't even know that anarchists are liberals. Ha.

Cat got your tongue now Dhal ? Let me repeat it for you again in case you didn't get it first time.

"If the term "left" has any meaning other than a purely relative one, it is as that group of political ideas, parties, movements, and organizations which believes that politics is driven less by ideas than by interests and that those interests are based on economic class. Radical republicans (Civil War variety), revolutionary democrats, social democrats (including even a sizable chunk of the British Labor Party and the German SDs of today), socialists, utopian socialists, agrarian socialists, communists, anarchists, anarco-syndicalists, and nihilists - if these do not agree on anything else, they agree on the centrality of social classes even before they divide on what to do about them.

In contrast, Liberals explicitly reject the centrality of social classes. If such exist at all, they are assumed to be trumped by a common interest (national or otherwise) and any division is based only on transitory political opinion or policy. They are united with Conservatives in their agreement on the fundamental norms of society and on their long-term objectives (most importantly in the defense of private property and the projection of "national interest"). Indeed, for them, the current organization of society is the only one conceivable."

I feel like this is the crux of it. He's seemingly created his own definitions for pretty standard things. He's making things up as he goes based on some trial and error stemming from anecdotal evidence. I truly believe that arguing about Castro is maybe the 12th thing on the list of ways we could get through to SP for a coherent discussion (if that is what we intend to do).

Yes, for being an anti-authoritarian, SP sure has a thing for "author"-ities. Still, this is one of the things that he is more than less RIGHT about, although you were also correct in diagnosing the matter as largely a misunderstanding.

The Bell basically has its own parlance where "liberal" is a slur of the highest order that comes to denote all of the non-Communist left as well -- to the point that it is basically a synonym for 'philistine'. This is admittedly imprecise and not something I'm personally invested in (other than fulminating against Useless Liberals in general).

SP has it in his head that we would be more forgiving of non-communist ideas and traditions if they were not falsely/grossly mis-labeled as 'liberal'. He gets this idea from having a better vantage on what we are doing than we have for ourselves. Further, he wants to duke it out over various traditions, tendencies, etc but the whole "liberal" thing is kind of a roadblock (in a weird way that may or may not be semantics -- and it can vary from one post to the next)

You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about... except the fact that these ARE pretty standard things... and it shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Anarchists are not liberals you gaslighting motherfucker.

NOW do you see why I kept telling you that we had to start from the beginning? You already know that there is bitter disagreement between True Americas, Chlamor, Starry Messenger, Nikos, Dhalgren, Blindpig, myself, etc etc. Yet you project this as unanimity (or at least polarities). Collectively we agree about one or maybe two things at a fundamental level. This includes in many cases disagreement what is and is not "fact".

Still, that is not why you are came here, to debate finer points of theory. You came here to argue for any and ALL strains of the non-communist left. You know that the leading members here have been won over to Marxism (however imperfect our understanding may be). You hate that.

But you decided to "engage" with nasty personal invective, highly selective quotations from every tendency under the sun (many subverted to your own ends), a staunch aversion to theory (for the obvious reason that you lose that battle every time) and some genuinely STUPID fixations.

Anarchism, syndicalism, anarcho-syndicalism, Third Worldism -- you've stuck everything in a blender. What is the common theme -- only that your brew rejects one thing (and that thing ain't "authority" in the abstract, it is the right of the proletariat to establish its own dictatorship -- even if/when/inevitably it fails your personal test for acceptability).

There is one other thing. You can only defend your position along very strict lines. For instance, Chomsky joins you in decrying "authority" of all type -- and draws inspiration from such "luminaries" as Bakunin, as you do. But its a pretty tough sell to argue that he isn't fundamentally aligned with liberalism (the guy who basically just declared failing to vote against the "Greater Evil" to be a mortal sin). Point being, things and people aren't so clear cut as you suppose or make them out to be -- you've gotta let in a LOT of deadwood to properly make your case. And that detritus alone is capable of dragging you under.

Is every other fucking strain of leftist a reactionary tool because they don't agree that autocratic rule is not working class power.

Its not that simple and its not the issue du jour, but you know as well as I do that my answer is in the affirmative (and I'm not even that picky about the whole "autocratic rule" thing..even though it is yet another instance of you being stupid)

The reason that its not a straightforward y/n question is that its like a movie plot -- EVERYBODY in the theatre might see the twist coming, but you gotta let it play out for itself onscreen.

Cat got your tongue now Dhal ? Let me repeat it for you again in case you didn't get it first time.

Dhalgren is not the one in the wrong here. At worst he is guilty of being a bit loose with words -- but even then he has backed it up with primary sources (or does your Oppositional Defiance Disorder drive you to tune out Foot Loose Freddie Engels too?). The truth is that Dhalgren has been shoving it in your face from the beginning. The only trouble is he forgot that you are well versed in ignoring what is right in front of your nose.

I guess it's all happening in a vacuum.

Yep, no context. No serious application of history, just Conquest-esque slander.

I suppose that the millions mourning Fidel all got guns to their heads.

List 5 examples to support your thesis.

Ferget it Chlams, he's been avoiding the tough questions the past two days, all he's got is sophistry.

Cuba-Trained Doctors Head to Standing Rock

http://www.telesurtv.net/__export/1480666327159/sites/telesur/img/2016/11/27/cuban_doctors.jpg_1718483346.jpg
Cuban Doctors Arriving on a Mission In Sierra Leone in 2015 | Photo: Reuters

Published 2 December 2016

A delegation of doctors trained at the Latin American School of Medicine in Cuba announced they will head to Standing Rock to “serve in solidarity.”
In a late Thursday Facebook post, a group of U.S.-based medical professionals trained at Cuba’s famous Latin American School of Medicine, or ELAM, announced they will head to Standing Rock “to humbly serve in solidarity with the Sacred Water Protectors on the front lines of the current human rights and ecological crisis occurring right now in North Dakota.”

Dr. Revery P. Barnes, a graduate of ELAM, said in a post on Facebook, “We answer the call to serve in alignment with the mission and core principles of our alma mater and dedication to our commitment to serve underserved communities in our HOME country.” The delegation will work in collaboration with the Standing Rock Medic and Healer Council.

“While Cuba instilled in us an unwavering commitment to internationalism, with the acceptance of a full scholarship to medical school at ELAM, we made the moral commitment to respond to the needs of our most vulnerable communities here at home in the U.S.,” the statement continued.

On Wednesday, the Standing Rock Medic and Healer Council – which has been providing emergency and chronic health care services to the thousands of water protectors gathered at Standing Rock – issued a warning about the grave health and safety threats posed by escalating use of violence by Morton County Sheriff’s Department and Dakota Access Pipeline security personnel, whom they described as creating “war-like conditions.”



While the Facebook statement did not give details about the size of the delegation or when it is expected to arrive, the announcement comes as thousands of U.S. Army veterans are expected to arrive at the Oceti Sakowin camp this weekend in anticipation of the Dec. 5 eviction notice given to the camp by the Army Corps of Engineers and North Dakota Governor, Jack Dalrymple.

Health and safety concerns for the thousands of Water Protectors, who are asserting their Indigenous sovereignty in attempts to block the multi-billion dollar Dakota Access Pipeline project, are also on the rise as harsh winter conditions have been exacerbated by state law enforcement threats to cut off supplies and access to emergency services.

The Latin American School of Medicine was created in 1999 by the Cuban government and is one of the largest medical schools in the world, with approximately 19,550 students from 110 countries. All students receive a full scholarship, including room and board, and preferential treatment is given to applicants from marginalized groups who intend to return and practice in their own communities. The school plays a key part in Cuba’s widely-hailed medical internationalism, which has seen the socialist country send over 80,000 health care workers to over 94 countries to provide treatment and assistance to impoverished or underprivileged populations.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Cuban-Trained-Doctors-Head-to-Standing-Rock-20161202-0003.html

Videos at link.

There is no end to the perfidy of these authoritarians.

"History does not offer us any examples of a truly socialist regime. And I submit that that's because, in part, all of them had eventually embraced authoritarian, centralized governments..."

Let's look at the leading examples -- say, the USSR, Chile, & a few others, just to test out your hypothesis.

Chile under Allende is the simplest & most direct counterexample to your interpretation. First, it was destroyed by a CIA coup, not by any widespread domestic dissatisfaction, based on "excessive authoritarianism" or anything else. Second, after Allende was destroyed, Chile moved to a far MORE authoritarian form of government, not a less authoritarian one. If your thesis held any water, it should have moved to a LESS authoritarian form. (Similar comments could be made about Nicaragua under the Sandinistas.)

The USSR became authoritarian almost immediately, but this was not because of socialism per se. Rather, it was because remnants of the old regime did not give up so easily, & there was a civil war. As in any civil war, the new government had to choose between taking extreme measures to put down its opponents -- or perishing. This dilemma says nothing about socialism per se -- ANY new government (even, say, one based on a rightwing military coup) would have had to defend itself in a similar fashion -- or be driven from power.

Furthermore, the leading capitalist powers all piled into the newborn USSR, trying to destroy it. This happened right from the get-go. Britain, France, the US, & all the rest sent "expeditionary forces" in 1919-20 to try to overthrow the Bolsheviks. This greatly intensified the problems of the civil war. Again, the Bolsheviks had to choose between authoritarian methods & extinction. And again, this was no reflection at all on socialism itself as a mode of economic organization. It's an inherent property of all power struggles, regardless of what they're based on.

Though there was a weak "Provisional Government" in Russia for 8 months between the czar's abdication and the Bolsheviks' ascension to power, the real comparison is between the Bolsheviks & czarism. The Bolsheviks quickly became authoritarian -- but certainly not more so than the czar, whose authority was openly held to be beyond challenge or question. Even in theory, the czar was under no obligation to do anything for "the people," while in contrast the basic Bolvshevik program at least held the initial promise of delivering things badly wanted by major sections of the population: the army, the peasants, & the industrial workers.

Your thesis implies that forms of government which are "too authoritarian" get rejected by popular dissatisfaction. Yet czarism held sway in Russia for 400 years. If authoritarianism really results in downfalls of governments, czarism should have disappeared long before 1917.

Let's note that several communist/socialist experiments still exist -- Vietnam, China, Cuba, & perhaps Venezuela. This is despite every effort of the capitalist countries, especially ours, to destroy them. It can of course be argued how "socialist" those economies really are. But in each case, the pressures of having to survive in a capitalist world only makes them MORE authoritarian than they otherwise might be.

Here's one more interesting case: consider Spain in the 1930's. The democratically elected Republican government was not a full-fledged socialist government, but by Spanish standards, & in comparison to what went before it, it represented a historic & progressive advance (& was supported by leftists of that time period). It was crushed by the fascist Franco, who was aided not only overtly by Hitler & Mussolini, but also quietly by all the other capitalist powers, including the US & UK, who embargoed arms sales to the Republicans, while allowing sales of oil & manufactured goods to Germany & Italy -- who promptly trans-shipped them to Franco.

The point here is that the very progressive Republican government "failed," and was replaced for the next 40 years by the fascist Franco. However, the only reason it "failed" is because all the capitalist powers saw to it that it failed -- & that it was replaced by a vastly MORE authoritarian regime. So once again, your thesis doesn't hold up, because it would predict that the Spanish people themselves would have rejected the Republican government because of its "excessive authoritarianism," & moved to a LESS authoritarian governmental form. That's almost the exact opposite of what actually happened.

While the Facebook statement did not give details about the size of the delegation or when it is expected to arrive, the announcement comes as thousands of U.S. Army veterans are expected to arrive at the Oceti Sakowin camp this weekend in anticipation of the Dec. 5 eviction notice given to the camp by the Army Corps of Engineers and North Dakota Governor, Jack Dalrymple.

This could become a serious flash-point in the struggle against the bourgeois dictatorship. It is a good thing that these folks are well organized and with proper lines of authority - not just the Water Protectors but the veterans, too.



There is no end to the perfidy of these authoritarians.

Yeah, those damned oppressive thralls of anti-worker dictatorship! How dare they help people for no reason!

NOW do you see why I kept telling you that we had to start from the beginning? You already know that there is bitter disagreement between True Americas, Chlamor, Starry Messenger, Nikos, Dhalgren, Blindpig, myself, etc etc. Yet you project this as unanimity (or at least polarities). Collectively we agree about one or maybe two things at a fundamental level. This includes in many cases disagreement what is and is not "fact".

Still, that is not why you are came here, to debate finer points of theory. You came here to argue for any and ALL strains of the non-communist left. You know that the leading members here have been won over to Marxism (however imperfect our understanding may be). You hate that.

But you decided to "engage" with nasty personal invective, highly selective quotations from every tendency under the sun (many subverted to your own ends), a staunch aversion to theory (for the obvious reason that you lose that battle every time) and some genuinely STUPID fixations.

Anarchism, syndicalism, anarcho-syndicalism, Third Worldism -- you've stuck everything in a blender. What is the common theme -- only that your brew rejects one thing (and that thing ain't "authority" in the abstract, it is the right of the proletariat to establish its own dictatorship -- even if/when/inevitably it fails your personal test for acceptability).

There is one other thing. You can only defend your position along very strict lines. For instance, Chomsky joins you in decrying "authority" of all type -- and draws inspiration from such "luminaries" as Bakunin, as you do. But its a pretty tough sell to argue that he isn't fundamentally aligned with liberalism (the guy who basically just declared failing to vote against the "Greater Evil" to be a mortal sin). Point being, things and people aren't so clear cut as you suppose or make them out to be -- you've gotta let in a LOT of deadwood to properly make your case. And that detritus alone is capable of dragging you under.

You see Kid...you can do it if you want. Now this is a coherent response from you devoid of your usual word-salad even though you're wrong as to me coming here to argue for all strains of the the anti-communist left. There are other strains of "reds" that don't tow the Bolshevik line and you know this. Now you can argue that these are not "reds" but that is subjective on your part. This can been discussed because your're clear with what you're saying. Of course you did manage the cheap shot at TA. "True Americas" what the fuck is that ?

Again, the Bolsheviks had to choose between authoritarian methods & extinction. And again, this was no reflection at all on socialism itself as a mode of economic organization. It's an inherent property of all power struggles, regardless of what they're based on.

Clear as day and well put. Thanks for your piece.

Official Obituary from Gramna

http://en.granma.cu/file/img/2016/12/medium/f0015043.jpg
When Fulgencio Batista staged a coup March 10, 1952, Fidel was one of he first to denounce the reactionary, illegitimate nature of the regime and call for its overthrow

Author: Granma | internet@granma.cu
december 1, 2016 10:12:59

Photo: Liborio Noval
Fidel Castro Ruz was born August 13, 1926 in Birán, in the former province of Oriente. His father, Angel Castro Argíz, the son of poor farmers in Galicia, was a landholder and sugarcane colonist. His mother, Lina Ruz González, was from a rural family in the province of Pinar del Río.

He learned to read and write in a rural, public school in Birán, and continued his elementary education in the private Catholic boarding schools of La Salle and Dolores, in the city of Santiago de Cuba. He began his secondary studies at the same Dolores College and concluded them at the Jesuit Belén school, in Havana, from which he graduated in June of 1945.

The Jesuits of Belén said, "Fidel Castro always distinguished himself in all subjects related to Letters… He was a real athlete, and was able to win the admiration and affection of all. He would go on to study law, and we never doubted that he would write brilliant chapters in the book of his life. Fidel had the raw material and the sculptor will not be lacking."

In September of 1945 , he enrolled at the University of Havana, to study Law, Social Sciences and Diplomatic Law. There, he immediately joined the political struggles of the student body and assumed different positions in the University Student Federation. He was an outstanding member of different progressive and anti-imperialist organizations, such as the Pro Puerto Rican Independence Committee; the September 30 Committee, of which he was a founder; and the Pro Democracy in the Dominican Republic Committee, of which he was president.

As part of his political activity during these years, he organized and participated in innumerable protests and denounced the political and social situation in the country. He was beaten and jailed more than once by the repressive forces.

Between July and September of 1947, the third year of his studies, he signed up to participate in an expedition to fight against the regime of Dominican dictator Rafael Leónidas Trujillo. The volunteers trained on Confites Cay. He was promoted to lieutenant, squad leader, and then to head a battalion company. The expeditionaries set off to the sister republic by sea, but were intercepted by the Cuban Navy. Fidel jumped into the water with his rifle, to avoid capture, and always considered it shameful that the fighters ended up arrested without ever joining the struggle.

He came into contact with Marxist ideas as a university student. He sympathized with the Orthodox Party of the Cuban People, a progressive tendency, and participated actively in their electoral campaigns, beginning in 1948, in particular in that of the party's principal leader Eduardo R. Chibás. Within the political organization, he worked to promote the most radical and combative positions among the youngest members. After the death of Chibas, he redoubled his efforts to unmask corruption within the government of Carlos Prío.

After his participation in the expedition against Trujillo, in 1948, he traveled to Venezuela, Panama, and Colombia, as a student leader, with the goal of organizing a Latin American Student Congress, which was to take place in this last country.

He was in Bogotá when the rebellion erupted following the assassination of Colombian leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, in April this year. He threw himself into the struggle, and only survived by pure luck.

In March of 1949, he led a protest in front of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana, to express popular indignation with the disrespect shown by U.S. Marines to Cuban national hero José Martí, at a statue located in the center of Old Havana.

In 1950, Fidel graduated with a PhD in Civil Law, and a bachelor's degree in Diplomatic Law. From his attorney's office, he devoted himself to defending the poor.

When Fulgencio Batista staged a coup March 10, 1952, Fidel was one of the first to denounce the reactionary, illegitimate nature of the regime and call for its overthrow.

He organized and trained a large contingent of almost a thousand young workers and students, fundamentally from the ranks of the Orthodox Party.

With 160 of these comrades, on July 26, 1953, he led the assault on the Moncada Garrison in Santiago de Cuba and one in Bayamo, in an action conceived to detonate the armed struggle against the Batista dictatorship.

The plan for a surprise attack failed, and they were unable to accomplish their objective. Fidel was imprisoned by the tyranny's repressive forces, a few days after the military setback, and was held incommunicado for 76 days. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 15 years in prison, after defending himself in a private hearing, under guard, giving a statement known as "History will absolve me," in which he outlined the future Cuban Revolution's program.

"No weapon, no force is capable of defeating a people that decides to struggle for its rights. There are innumerable historical examples in the past, and in the present. Just recently, in the case of Bolivia, where miners with their sticks of dynamite, defeated and crushed the regular army's regiments," he said on that occasion.

In prison, he continued his work denouncing the oppressive regime, while at the same time perfected his revolutionary plans, and deepened his theoretical and ideological foundation and that of his compañeros.

As a result of popular pressure and a broad campaign, he was released in May of 1955. Over subsequent weeks he carried out an intense effort agitating and denouncing the regime, and founded the July 26 Movement to continue the revolutionary struggle.

In July of 1955, seeing the impossibility of moving forward against Batista via legal means, Fidel departs for Mexico, to organize an armed insurrection in exile. In precarious economic conditions, and subjected to the vigilance and persecution of the dictatorship's agents, the organizational and preparatory work continued, while at the same time, the ideas and goals of the insurrection were disseminated. Fidel traveled to the United States - to Philadelphia, New York, Tampa, Union City, Bridgeport and Miami - where, along with exiled compatriots, he established "patriotic clubs" to build economic and political support for the revolutionary struggle.

Under the banner of Fidel's words: "In 1956, we will be free, or we will be martyrs," he, Raúl, Juan Manuel Márquez, Ernesto Che Guevara, Camilo Cienfuegos, Juan Almeida, and other outstanding revolutionaries trained with long walks through the streets of Mexico City, scaling mountains, self defense, guerrilla tactics, and target shooting.

June 20, 1956, the leader of the July 26 Movement, Che, and others were arrested, the safe houses discovered, and a significant portion of the weapons they had collected confiscated.

After they were released by the Mexican police, plans were accelerated. The Granma yacht was purchased and they set sail for Cuba, during the dawn hours of November 25, 1956, from Tuxpan, with 82 combatants aboard, whose average age was 27.

After seven days at sea, they landed December 2, at Las Coloradas, on the southwestern coast of the former province of Oriente. Batista's forces located the landing site and attacked the expeditionaries. On December 5, Fidel and his comrades were surprised at Alegría de Pío. The revolutionaries were split up, several captured, and many killed in the attack.

With the valiant collaboration of local campesinos, Fidel and Raúl are reunited in Cinco Palmas, and regrouped the revolutionary forces, departing for the Sierra Maestra mountains to continue the struggle.

On January 17, 1957, Fidel led the insurgents' first armed attack on the Batista army, at the Plata Garrison, and won their first victory. The Rebel Army began to grow and become stronger.

In his role as Commander in Chief, Fidel directed the armed struggle of the rebel forces and the work of the July 26 Movement for 25 months, during the war. Under his direct command was the José Martí Column One, and he participated personally in almost all of its operations and the most important battles that took place in the First Rebel Front's territory.

Following a crushing defeat, the principal leaders of the dictatorship's elite troops decided to recognize the rebel victory in the theater of operation in the province of Oriente, on December 28, 1958. During the dawn hours of January 1, 1959, Fidel neutralized a coup attempt in Havana - supported by the U.S. - by calling a general strike, and entered the city of Santiago de Cuba that very day, arriving in Havana with the Freedom Caravan on January 8.

He maintained his role as Comandante en Jefe after the insurrection ended, and on February 13, 1959, was named Prime Minister of the Revolutionary Government.

He directed and participated in all actions undertaken to defend the country and the Revolution, against both military aggression from abroad and attacks by counterrevolutionary bands within the nation. In particular, he led the Cuban forces that defeated the invasion organized by the CIA at Playa Girón, on the Bay of Pigs, in April of 1961.

He led the Cuban people through the dramatic days of the October Crisis in 1962.

In the name of the revolutionary government, he proclaimed the socialist character of the Cuban Revolution on April 16, 1961.

He took the lead as secretary general of the Integrated Revolutionary Organizations of this era, and later in the same position heading the United Party of the Socialist Revolution of Cuba. When the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba was established, he was elected First Secretary, a decision which has been ratified by delegates to five Party Congresses.

He was elected as a deputy to the National Assembly of People's Power, representing a district in Santiago de Cuba, from its creation in 1976, and was chosen by this body as the President of Cuba's Councils of State and Ministers through 2006.

He led official Cuban delegations to more than 50 countries, and received multiple decorations abroad and in Cuba, as well as academic honors from institutions of higher learning in Cuba, Latin America, and Europe.

He strategically directed hundreds of thousands of Cuban combatants on international missions in Algeria, Syria, Angola, Ethiopia, and other countries; while inspiring and organizing tens of thousands of Cuban doctors, teachers, and technicians who have offered their services in more than 40 countries of the Third World, along with the provision of training to tens of thousands of students from these nations. Fidel led the establishment of assistance and cooperation to establish comprehensive healthcare programs in numerous countries in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, and the creation in Cuba of international schools offering studies in medicine, sports, and other sciences and disciplines.

On a global level, he promoted the Third World's battle against the reigning economic order, in particular against crippling foreign debt, the wasting of resources on military spending, and neoliberal globalization, as well as efforts to build unity and integration among Latin American and Caribbean nations.

He has headed the decisive action of the Cuba people to confront the impact of the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States, since its inception, and likewise in confronting the consequences of the collapse of the socialist camp, leading the tenacious efforts of Cubans to overcome the great difficulties that resulted, overseeing the resistance and reinitiating a period of growth and economic development.

Throughout the Revolution's many years, he inspired and directed the Cuban people's struggle for the consolidation of our revolutionary process; its advance toward socialism; the unity of revolutionary forces and the entire people; the country's social and economic transformation; the development of education, health, sports, culture, science, and defense; the country's response to foreign aggression; the country's active, principled foreign policy based on solidarity with world's peoples struggling for their independence; and the deepening of the people's revolutionary, internationalist, communist consciousness.

In 2006, for heath reasons he was obligated to resign from his position as President of the Councils of State and Ministers, and in the 2011 6th Party Congress stepped down as First Party Secretary, retaining his seat as a deputy in the National Assembly of People's Power until his death.

Throughout these last ten years, he has carried out productive work, writing Reflections and hundreds of articles, while with great perseverance conducting experiments related to improving human and animal nutrition.

On the basis of his immense moral authority, until his last breath, he continued to contribute his opinions regarding the most important battles undertaken by the Revolution.

The life of Fidel cannot be reduced to a few lines. His permanent, insoluble ties with the people, his brilliant oratory, his constant teaching, his unlimited dedication to the Revolution have left a indelible mark in the Cuban people and served to inspire millions of men and women on all continents. Future generations of Cuban will have in him, as in Martí, an enduring example and the inspiration to give continuity to his work

http://en.granma.cu/cuba/2016-12-01/fidel-castro-ruz

But, but, what about those billions of dollars Castro stole from blind Cuban orphans?

Here's some vulgar reactionary tripe from a liberal icon.

When one is making assertions as we are seeing in this thread it is quite relevant to see who you align yourself with. That too tells a story.

Adios, Fidel.
By dianeravitch
November 26, 2016

I was in college in 1959 when Fidel Castro and his military overthrew the dictator Batista. College students were excited by this young revolutionary. He came to Cambridge to speak to a large audience and I covered him for my college newspaper. We had high hopes in those days.

It wasn’t long before Castro decided to align himself with the Soviet Union. Thereafter there were frequent reports of trials, imprisonment, executions, including some of his fellow revolutionaries. Disillusionment set in quickly.

I was never a fan of any dictator, including Fidel. I heard that literacy was high, and that people had access to medical care. But there was no freedom. Neighbors spied on neighbors. Cuba under Fidel was a police state.

When I visited Cuba in 2013, I saw the economic mess he had made of the country. By the time I got there, revolutionary fervor had dimmed almost to the vanishing point. There were revolutionary posters on the walls, but they seemed faded, antique. The revolutionaries were old men, the young seem eager to join the world.

The main impression I had was of deep and widespread poverty. From everyone I met, I got the feeling that ordinary Cubans are eager to break free of the stifling orthodoxy of Castroism. Even his brother Raul is. Raul’s daughter Mariela is a rebel against the regime. Although married with children, she has been a crusader for gay rights. Fidel imprisoned and isolated gays (read Reinaldo Arenas’ When Night Falls). Here and there were signs of entrepreneurship, restaurants in homes, bed and breakfast homes, restaurants pretending to be homes.

It struck me that the best way to free Cuba is to lift the embargo, permit normal tourism, and encourage economic development. That’s the process that President Obama started. JetBlue now offers daily flights to Havana. There will be other airlines flying there.When I went to Cuba, my group of four flew on an American Airlines charter flight from Miami. It was a 45-minute trip. Most of those on the flight were Cubans returning home for a visit, carrying appliances.
It is a beautiful and unspoiled country. I urge everyone to visit.

Maybe Castro’s death will encourage greater liberalization of ties between our countries. I hope that Trump doesn’t re-impose the embargo to please the voting bloc of aging Cubans in Florida. The best way to create Cuba Libre is to establish full relations.

https://dianeravitch.net/2016/11/26/adios-fidel/


==============

dianeravitch
November 26, 2016 at 4:17 pm
Ed, all that aside, Fidel made Cuba a vassal state of the USSR, persecuted and imprisoned dissidents, rounded up homosexuals and put them in prison camps, prevented freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression, and impoverished Cuba. He will get his just desserts in the afterlife, if there is one.

================

dianeravitch
November 28, 2016 at 12:29 pm
John,

We agree. Fidel created a vast prison camp and widespread poverty in Cuba. Totalitarianism is always bad, no matter what the ideology. No one person should control a nation for more than 50 years. Term limits are a good idea. So is freedom of the press, religion, assembly, speech, etc.

I hope you read the Walter Russell Mead article about Fidel that appears in an earlier comment I made on this thread.

====================

"History does not offer us any examples of a truly socialist regime. And I submit that that's because, in part, all of them had eventually embraced authoritarian, centralized governments..."

Let's look at the leading examples -- say, the USSR, Chile, & a few others, just to test out your hypothesis.

Chile under Allende is the simplest & most direct counterexample to your interpretation. First, it was destroyed by a CIA coup, not by any widespread domestic dissatisfaction, based on "excessive authoritarianism" or anything else. Second, after Allende was destroyed, Chile moved to a far MORE authoritarian form of government, not a less authoritarian one. If your thesis held any water, it should have moved to a LESS authoritarian form. (Similar comments could be made about Nicaragua under the Sandinistas.)

The USSR became authoritarian almost immediately, but this was not because of socialism per se. Rather, it was because remnants of the old regime did not give up so easily, & there was a civil war. As in any civil war, the new government had to choose between taking extreme measures to put down its opponents -- or perishing. This dilemma says nothing about socialism per se -- ANY new government (even, say, one based on a rightwing military coup) would have had to defend itself in a similar fashion -- or be driven from power.

Furthermore, the leading capitalist powers all piled into the newborn USSR, trying to destroy it. This happened right from the get-go. Britain, France, the US, & all the rest sent "expeditionary forces" in 1919-20 to try to overthrow the Bolsheviks. This greatly intensified the problems of the civil war. Again, the Bolsheviks had to choose between authoritarian methods & extinction. And again, this was no reflection at all on socialism itself as a mode of economic organization. It's an inherent property of all power struggles, regardless of what they're based on.

Though there was a weak "Provisional Government" in Russia for 8 months between the czar's abdication and the Bolsheviks' ascension to power, the real comparison is between the Bolsheviks & czarism. The Bolsheviks quickly became authoritarian -- but certainly not more so than the czar, whose authority was openly held to be beyond challenge or question. Even in theory, the czar was under no obligation to do anything for "the people," while in contrast the basic Bolvshevik program at least held the initial promise of delivering things badly wanted by major sections of the population: the army, the peasants, & the industrial workers.

Your thesis implies that forms of government which are "too authoritarian" get rejected by popular dissatisfaction. Yet czarism held sway in Russia for 400 years. If authoritarianism really results in downfalls of governments, czarism should have disappeared long before 1917.

Let's note that several communist/socialist experiments still exist -- Vietnam, China, Cuba, & perhaps Venezuela. This is despite every effort of the capitalist countries, especially ours, to destroy them. It can of course be argued how "socialist" those economies really are. But in each case, the pressures of having to survive in a capitalist world only makes them MORE authoritarian than they otherwise might be.

Here's one more interesting case: consider Spain in the 1930's. The democratically elected Republican government was not a full-fledged socialist government, but by Spanish standards, & in comparison to what went before it, it represented a historic & progressive advance (& was supported by leftists of that time period). It was crushed by the fascist Franco, who was aided not only overtly by Hitler & Mussolini, but also quietly by all the other capitalist powers, including the US & UK, who embargoed arms sales to the Republicans, while allowing sales of oil & manufactured goods to Germany & Italy -- who promptly trans-shipped them to Franco.

The point here is that the very progressive Republican government "failed," and was replaced for the next 40 years by the fascist Franco. However, the only reason it "failed" is because all the capitalist powers saw to it that it failed -- & that it was replaced by a vastly MORE authoritarian regime. So once again, your thesis doesn't hold up, because it would predict that the Spanish people themselves would have rejected the Republican government because of its "excessive authoritarianism," & moved to a LESS authoritarian governmental form. That's almost the exact opposite of what actually happened.

Authority is nothing more or less than the coercive power of a ruling class exercised through the state. As long as there are states they will use their authority to survive, it would be negligence to do otherwise. In a world of states the important thing is whose state, which class. We seek the end of authority, state, class, this is a historical process that does not happen in the snap of fingers when the revolution is won(which can be iffy to discern..). Anything else is idealism.

Authority is nothing more or less than the coercive power of a ruling class exercised through the state. As long as there are states they will use their authority to survive, it would be negligence to do otherwise. In a world of states the important thing is whose state, which class. We seek the end of authority, state, class, this is a historical process that does not happen in the snap of fingers when the revolution is won(which can be iffy to discern..). Anything else is idealism.

You know, over the last few days I have been trying to work out how any sort of revolution would come about without lines of authority and organized action. It is like trying to hold water in a sieve, it can't be done. It is worse than simple idealism when an "adult" advocates such ridiculous propositions, it is collusion. There is simply no way an intelligent, mature person can advocate for working class power sans authority and hierarchy. A working class revolution is a war that quickly becomes a civil war, a civil war against a rich, organized, powerful and empowered, force that is centrally controlled in all its movements, supply, and strategy. Now, think of confronting this formidable foe with a large (even huge) unorganized mass. A mass with no central coordination, no central strategy, no centralized anything. It is almost impossible to visualize except as total carnage and defeat.

But defeat is the aim of this ... ideology, I suppose you'd call it. For a child to hold such opinions is understandable, for an adult, it is inexcusable. The reason "anarchism" is essentially a liberal ideology is the primacy of individualism at its core. When anarchist says that the means of production must be held in common, but without any lines of authority or responsibility, he/she is saying that there will be no means of mass production. The anarchist view of production is infantile, at best. Anyone who has ever worked in a steel plant cannot possibly believe that it can be operated without lines of authority and responsibility - the idea is not only laughable, but deadly. Think of train-lines, airports, shipping, traffic, food distribution, medical service delivery, and on and on - all without authority or responsibility.

The liberal parents allow their anarchic children this little leeway, it won't amount to anything.

Fidel Castro- How I became a Communist

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q_eFxrvCB1A/WEDFRGrlWiI/AAAAAAAAB8A/ND15EVM-9QsnrBzyRRSGzuE_SuUP7yAAwCLcB/s320/Fidel%2BCastro%2Bcommunismgr.blogspot.com.png

The text is the transcript of a Questions & Answers session between Fidel Castro and students at the University of Concepción, Chile, on November 18 1971.
I was the son of a landowner—that was one reason for me to be a reactionary. I was educated in religious schools that were attended by the sons of the rich—another reason for being a reactionary. I lived in Cuba, where all the films, publications, and mass media were “Made in USA”—a third reason for being a reactionary. I studied in a university where out of fifteen thousand students, only thirty were anti-imperialists, and I was one of those thirty at the end. When I entered the university, it was as the son of a landowner—and to make matters worse, as a political illiterate!

…And mind you, no party member, no Communist, no socialist or extremist got hold of me and indoctrinated me. No. I was given a big, heavy, infernal, unreadable, unbearable textbook that tried to explain political economy from a bourgeois viewpoint—they called that political economy!

And that unbearable book presented the crises of overproduction and other such problems as the most natural things in the world. It explained how in Britain, when there was an abundance of coal, there were workers who didn’t have any, because by the inexorable natural and unchangeable laws of history, of society and nature, crises of overproduction inevitably occur, and when they do, they bring unemployment and starvation. When there’s too much coal, workers will freeze and starve!
So that landowner’s son, who had been educated by bourgeois schools and Yankee propaganda, began to think that something was wrong with that system, that it didn’t make sense…

As the son of a poor man who later became a big landowner, I had the advantage of at least living in the countryside, with the peasants, with the poor, who were all my friends. Had I been the grandson of a landowner, it’s quite possible that my father would have taken me to live in the capital, in a superaristocratic neighborhood and those positive factors at work on me wouldn’t have been able to survive the influence of the milieu. Egoism and other negative traits we humans beings have would have prevailed.
Luckily, the schools I studied in developed some of the positive factors. A certain idealistic rationality; a certain concept of good and evil, just and unjust; and a certain spirit of rebelliousness against impositions and oppression led me to an analysis of human society, and turned me into what I later realized was a utopian Communist. At the time, I still hadn’t been fortunate enough to meet a Communist or read a Communist document.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WHjay9VIsmQ/WEDCaEfljYI/AAAAAAAAB78/LMnksAp-7MIH_25k2ycvRydpXEQlUP49wCEw/s640/FIDEL%2BCASTRO%2BSPEECH%2B1.jpg

Then one day a copy of the Communist Manifesto—the famous Communist Manifesto!—fell into my hands and I read some things I’ll never forget… What phrases what truths! And we saw those truths every day!

I felt like some little animal that had been born in a forest which he didn’t understand. Then, all of a sudden, he finds a map of that forest—a description, a geography of that forest and everything in it. It was then that I got my bearings. Take a look now and see if Marx’s ideas weren’t just, correct, and inspiring. If we hadn’t based our struggle on them, we wouldn’t be here now! We wouldn’t be here!

Now then, was I a Communist? No. I was a man who was lucky enough to have discovered a political theory, a man who was caught up in the whirlpool of Cuba’s political crisis long before becoming a full-fledged Communist…

I went on developing. Afterwards, I had the opportunity to know imperialism more concretely than I had through Lenin’s book. I got to know imperialism—the worst and most aggressive of all… And I believe life has given me a better understanding of reality. It has made me more revolutionary, more socialist, more Communist…

IN DEFENSE OF COMMUNISM ©.

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2016/12/fidel-castro-how-i-became-communist.html

You know, over the last few days I have been trying to work out how any sort of revolution would come about without lines of authority and organized action. It is like trying to hold water in a sieve, it can't be done. It is worse than simple idealism when an "adult" advocates such ridiculous propositions, it is collusion. There is simply no way an intelligent, mature person can advocate for working class power sans authority and hierarchy. A working class revolution is a war that quickly becomes a civil war, a civil war against a rich, organized, powerful and empowered, force that is centrally controlled in all its movements, supply, and strategy. Now, think of confronting this formidable foe with a large (even huge) unorganized mass. A mass with no central coordination, no central strategy, no centralized anything. It is almost impossible to visualize except as total carnage and defeat.

But defeat is the aim of this ... ideology, I suppose you'd call it. For a child to hold such opinions is understandable, for an adult, it is inexcusable. The reason "anarchism" is essentially a liberal ideology is the primacy of individualism at its core. When anarchist says that the means of production must be held in common, but without any lines of authority or responsibility, he/she is saying that there will be no means of mass production. The anarchist view of production is infantile, at best. Anyone who has ever worked in a steel plant cannot possibly believe that it can be operated without lines of authority and responsibility - the idea is not only laughable, but deadly. Think of train-lines, airports, shipping, traffic, food distribution, medical service delivery, and on and on - all without authority or responsibility.

The liberal parents allow their anarchic children this little leeway, it won't amount to anything.

You misunderstand Professor Dhalgren. Leadership within the ranks is an entirely different matter than dictatorship over the ranks with no input from the ranks and no recourse for recall from the ranks. You are very confused as to what is being said and you speak in the tongues of a house slave.

Fidel Castro- How I became a Communist

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q_eFxrvCB1A/WEDFRGrlWiI/AAAAAAAAB8A/ND15EVM-9QsnrBzyRRSGzuE_SuUP7yAAwCLcB/s320/Fidel%2BCastro%2Bcommunismgr.blogspot.com.png

The text is the transcript of a Questions & Answers session between Fidel Castro and students at the University of Concepción, Chile, on November 18 1971.
I was the son of a landowner—that was one reason for me to be a reactionary. I was educated in religious schools that were attended by the sons of the rich—another reason for being a reactionary. I lived in Cuba, where all the films, publications, and mass media were “Made in USA”—a third reason for being a reactionary. I studied in a university where out of fifteen thousand students, only thirty were anti-imperialists, and I was one of those thirty at the end. When I entered the university, it was as the son of a landowner—and to make matters worse, as a political illiterate!

…And mind you, no party member, no Communist, no socialist or extremist got hold of me and indoctrinated me. No. I was given a big, heavy, infernal, unreadable, unbearable textbook that tried to explain political economy from a bourgeois viewpoint—they called that political economy!

And that unbearable book presented the crises of overproduction and other such problems as the most natural things in the world. It explained how in Britain, when there was an abundance of coal, there were workers who didn’t have any, because by the inexorable natural and unchangeable laws of history, of society and nature, crises of overproduction inevitably occur, and when they do, they bring unemployment and starvation. When there’s too much coal, workers will freeze and starve!
So that landowner’s son, who had been educated by bourgeois schools and Yankee propaganda, began to think that something was wrong with that system, that it didn’t make sense…

As the son of a poor man who later became a big landowner, I had the advantage of at least living in the countryside, with the peasants, with the poor, who were all my friends. Had I been the grandson of a landowner, it’s quite possible that my father would have taken me to live in the capital, in a superaristocratic neighborhood and those positive factors at work on me wouldn’t have been able to survive the influence of the milieu. Egoism and other negative traits we humans beings have would have prevailed.
Luckily, the schools I studied in developed some of the positive factors. A certain idealistic rationality; a certain concept of good and evil, just and unjust; and a certain spirit of rebelliousness against impositions and oppression led me to an analysis of human society, and turned me into what I later realized was a utopian Communist. At the time, I still hadn’t been fortunate enough to meet a Communist or read a Communist document.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WHjay9VIsmQ/WEDCaEfljYI/AAAAAAAAB78/LMnksAp-7MIH_25k2ycvRydpXEQlUP49wCEw/s640/FIDEL%2BCASTRO%2BSPEECH%2B1.jpg

Then one day a copy of the Communist Manifesto—the famous Communist Manifesto!—fell into my hands and I read some things I’ll never forget… What phrases what truths! And we saw those truths every day!

I felt like some little animal that had been born in a forest which he didn’t understand. Then, all of a sudden, he finds a map of that forest—a description, a geography of that forest and everything in it. It was then that I got my bearings. Take a look now and see if Marx’s ideas weren’t just, correct, and inspiring. If we hadn’t based our struggle on them, we wouldn’t be here now! We wouldn’t be here!

Now then, was I a Communist? No. I was a man who was lucky enough to have discovered a political theory, a man who was caught up in the whirlpool of Cuba’s political crisis long before becoming a full-fledged Communist…

I went on developing. Afterwards, I had the opportunity to know imperialism more concretely than I had through Lenin’s book. I got to know imperialism—the worst and most aggressive of all… And I believe life has given me a better understanding of reality. It has made me more revolutionary, more socialist, more Communist…

IN DEFENSE OF COMMUNISM ©.

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2016/12/fidel-castro-how-i-became-communist.html

Sounds like a wonderful exercise in self-indulgence and self-improvement. The man who would be King. Nobody gives a shit about his personal journey. He sounds like a communist version of Political Heretic.

This could become a serious flash-point in the struggle against the bourgeois dictatorship. It is a good thing that these folks are well organized and with proper lines of authority - not just the Water Protectors but the veterans, too.




Yeah, those damned oppressive thralls of anti-worker dictatorship! How dare they help people for no reason!

"This thing of ours" had nothing on these Bolshevik cats.

https://socialistworker.org/2016/08/17/the-life-of-an-old-bolshevik

The life of an old Bolshevik

ALEXANDER SHLYAPNIKOV was born in 1885 into a family of "Old Believers" (a puritanical split from the Orthodox Church). They suffered considerable poverty after his father died when he was only three. He had primary schooling, but began working an 11-hour day in a foundry at the age of 10, after lying about his age. By the age of 15 he was an apprentice metalworker and moved to St. Petersburg. He had already begun to read Marxist literature and during a strike he organized his fellow apprentices into squads to harass scabs.

The 1903 split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks made little immediate impression on Shlyapnikov, and he and his comrades continued to distribute literature produced by various tendencies. It was only during the revolution of 1905, when he was twice imprisoned for his activities, that he identified firmly with the Bolsheviks. By 1907 he was a highly skilled metal turner and fitter, but faced with the threat of conscription into the army, he decided to leave Russia and move to Western Europe.

Shlyapnikov was now one of a particular group of activists often referred to as "worker-intelligents" (a "worker intellectual" would do as a rough translation). He was a factory worker, employed in an automobile factory at Asnières-sur-Seine on the outskirts of Paris. He could thus make political propaganda among his fellow workers and develop workplace organization. But at the same time he was developing politically and became a writer. Such people played an absolutely vital role in the building of the party and provided a link between the theoreticians and the rank and file.

Between 1908 and 1916, Shlyapnikov was in Western Europe. As a skilled metalworker he found jobs in France, Germany, England and Scandinavia, and visited the United States. He thus developed a good knowledge of the political traditions of countries outside Russia; in particular he had contact with French syndicalists and learned to appreciate a revolutionary current very different from Bolshevism. He came to Britain in 1915; with the wartime demand for skilled labor, he rapidly got a job at the Fiat car factory in Wembley and became a member of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers.

Of necessity, Shlyapnikov worked closely with Lenin during this period. Yet he was never an unconditional admirer of Lenin, and had many disagreements with him on tactical questions, as well as being very critical of Lenin's support for national self-determination. Sometimes he felt that Lenin's polemics on theoretical questions created unnecessary divisions. In a letter to Zinoviev he wrote that Lenin "should not fly off the handle over trivia. He should support his proposals with evidence, not curses, and should not divide Bolsheviks into sheep and goats."

Lenin, as is well known, traveled to Russia in 1917 by means of the "sealed train" (which Shlyapnikov helped to organize). But between the outbreak of war in 1914 and 1917, Shlyapnikov visited Russia three times, something which involved considerable difficulty and risk. He established routes for smuggling literature into Russia, and was able to get a good understanding of the state of organization and consciousness inside Russia. Without the work of organizers like Shlyapnikov, Lenin's return to Russia would have been far less effective.

Shlyapnikov had become a skilled organizer, and his ability to deal with illegal conditions was greater than that of many Bolshevik leaders more senior than himself. Bukharin was a fine theoretician, but when it was arranged for him to visit the United States, he made his reservations in his real name rather than in the alias on his passport, and it was Shlyapnikov who had to sort out his problems.

Whatever his differences with Lenin, Shlyapnikov welcomed the October Revolution and threw himself into activity. Skilled activists like him were rare and had to take on many tasks. When the first Council of People's Commissars was set up, he became Commissar of Labor, one of only two commissars with a proletarian background.

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

THAT THE Revolution made the working class into a new ruling class was generally accepted. But how would the working class rule? There were a variety of organizations through which the workers could exercise their power. The party, with some legitimacy, could claim to represent the interests of the working class. Then there were the soviets and the factory committees. In addition there were the trade unions, which had traditionally defended the immediate economic interests of the working class. What should be the division of responsibility and power between these various organizations? How should they interact and if possible reinforce each other?

It is fair to say that the Bolsheviks had no answers to these questions. Flung into power in a situation they had neither predicted nor planned for, they were in uncharted waters. Lenin's State and Revolution had celebrated workers' democracy in the tradition of the Paris Commune, but it had not begun to tackle the question of the relative roles of party, soviets and unions. Zinoviev warned trade unionists not to seek national economic leadership, and Bukharin argued that there would be no trade unions in communist society.

The early frenzied years of the revolution threw up many problems, all against a background of civil war and the isolation of Russia. As Commissar of Labor, Shlyapnikov faced situations where workers were pursuing their own interests rather than those of their class. Thus workers at railroad-car plants were turning cars into residences for themselves and employees were stealing supplies. With Shlyapnikov's acquiescence, boards including union representatives were replaced by one-man management.

Things came to a head by 1920 with the formation of the Workers' Opposition, in which Shlyapnikov played a leading role. This advocated an increased role for unions. Unions and factory committees would replace state economic bodies in the management of the economy. Union representatives at all levels would be elected. Factory assemblies would decide important questions facing the factory. The Workers' Opposition were widely accused of being "syndicalist," but as so often, the term was being misused. Syndicalists proper, whom Shlyapnikov had known during his time in France, believed that the unions should take over the running of society, without the need for political parties. Shlyapnikov did not oppose the role of the party, but argued that a bigger role for the unions would mean more direct involvement of workers in running their own state.

The rise of the Workers' Opposition coincided with a crisis in the course of the revolution, which saw the Kronstadt rising and the introduction of the New Economic Policy. So it was no surprise that the Workers' Opposition was defeated. But if Lenin opposed Shlyapnikov's policies, he was also concerned not to lose an able and dedicated comrade. As on other occasions, his aim was not to crush the opposition but to win it over. Shlyapnikov and other Workers' Opposition members were elected to the Central Committee.

Throughout the 1920s, Shlyapnikov did a variety of jobs--despite ill health--and continued to advocate greater involvement of workers in the party and its leadership. But he was swimming against the tide. Apathy and demoralization were growing; in 1922 at a private meeting with comrades from the Metalworkers' Union, Myasnikov reported that at Perm in the Urals, "entire cells of communists were leaving the party, some enticed back only by gifts of boots from party leaders." Shlyapnikov did not support Trotsky, disagreeing with his strategy and doubtless recalling earlier clashes with Trotsky.

Yet until the 1930s Shlyapnikov continued to make his contribution. He responded to various attacks with humor and irony. With the consolidation of Stalin's power, everything changed. Stalin's aim was quite simply to destroy independent-minded revolutionaries. One member of the party purge commission told him that the very fact he was trying to defend himself was a proof of guilt. At one interrogation, he explained his differences with other opposition groups in the '20s; he argued that they "wanted only one thing: return to intra-party democracy as it existed under Lenin. This degree of democracy did not satisfy us, the past for us was not an ideal; we demanded thorough worker democracy."

After repeated interrogation he made some self-criticisms, but refused to confess. Obviously he was not suitable material for a show trial. In September 1937, he appeared before a court in closed session, and was sentenced to death and shot the same day. Stalin had broken one more link with the Bolshevik past.

Sounds like a wonderful exercise in self-indulgence and self-improvement. The man who would be King. Nobody gives a shit about his personal journey. He sounds like a communist version of Political Heretic.

As a historical figure I believe a lot of people would be interested.

You're getting pretty pathetic.

But congrats on your encyclopedic knowledge of this joint, it's almost as though you were here.....

As a historical figure I believe a lot of people would be interested.

You're getting pretty pathetic.

But congrats on your encyclopedic knowledge of this joint, it's almost as though you were here.....

He was - under who knows how many socks.

Edit to add:

You know this is a concerted effort to do...something, not sure. Except that it really does have to do with this year's elections. He came into place this past summer. He could be here to deflect criticism of Clinton or, in this case, to brow-beat for not being adequately anti-Trump. The idea that we were equally antagonistic toward both Trump and Clinton/Obama was not good enough. When I compared Trump to Obama, he let a little of his slip show when he said Trump "won't be benign" - indicating that considered Obama (or perhaps Clinton) as "benign".

The trying to rat-out Allen in order to get on our good side was particularly snotty and blackens his rep more than his Trot-ideology spouting does. I guess we are a tiny little burr under somebody's bonnet...

Roaming Charges: The CIA’s Plots to Kill Castro
by JEFFREY ST. CLAIR


On Thanksgiving night, tripping on tryptophans, I surrendered to a troubled sleep aswirl with strange dreams, and awakened the next morning transformed, like Gregor Samsa, into a cockroach. Well, not a cockroach exactly. But an insect more vile and almost universally feared, the notorious Putin pest (Blattodea putinesca).

“What has happened to me?,” I wondered, staring at the flood of emails swelling my inbox with the heading: “Are you Really a Russian agent?” Even the dog looked at me with suspicion, curious, I guess, if he needed a taste-tester for the Spot’s Stew “wild salmon” nuggets I’d just filled his bowl with.

What had happened was that the Washington Post had just published a scurrilous piece by a heretofore obscure technology reporter named Craig Timberg, alleging without the faintest evidence that Russian intelligence was using more than 200 independent news sites to pump out pro-Putin and anti-Clinton propaganda during the election campaign.

Under the breathless headline, “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say,” Timberg concocted his story based on allegations from a vaporous group called ProporNot, run by nameless individuals of unknown origin, whom Timberg (cribbing from the Bob Woodward stylesheet) agreed to quote as anonymous sources.

ProporNot’s catalogue of supposed Putin-controlled outlets reeks of the McCarthyite smears of the Red Scare era. The blacklist includes some of the most esteemed alternative news sites on the web, including Anti-war.com, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig, Naked Capitalism, Consortium News, Truthout, and, yes, CounterPunch, among many others. (ProporNot has since removed CounterPunch from their blacklist following our demand that they do so and issue a retraction. Their site now claims, falsely again, that we engaged in “constructive conversation” with them, which is a curious way to describe a threat to sue them, a threat which we fully intend to follow through on, hopefully in concert with other media outlets they’ve defamed.)

I now wear this aspersion as a badge of honor on my new carapace and am tempted to venture outside for an six-legged crawl around the block to proclaim the good news to the neighbors, many of them cowering behind their curtains with their fingers poised above the speed dial for the local exterminator. Of course, I’d feel much prouder about our high ranking on such an exalted list, if I had the slightest admiration for Putin and his Russian project.

Alas, neither of these are true either for me or my co-editor Joshua Frank. Or, I suspect, for the editors and writers of Truthdig, Black Agenda Report, Consortium News, Truthout, Naked Capitalism or many of the other publications whose names appeared on this mysterious blacklist. In fact, after I paged through the blacklist, I searched the CounterPunch archives for any positive profile I’d ever written about the burly autocrat. The closest I came was this little tribute: “Down the River With Vladimir Putin.”

Even so, as editor of CounterPunch, I’ve tried not to allow my own views on Putin’s scatological peculiarities warp our coverage of Russia. We’ve published all kinds of articles on Russia in the past decade: critical, sympathetic, analytical, satirical, quizzical and befuddled. We’ve run many different, often conflicting, articles on Russia’s conflict with Ukraine and Crimea. We’ve run hundreds, maybe a thousand of pieces on Russia’s involvement in Syria. More to the point (and no doubt the reason we achieved our illustrious ranking), we’ve run articles about how in the dangerous geopolitical climate of the last 20 years, Russia has often acted as the last hedge against the US’s belligerent and provocative foreign policy, which has nearly brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

All of this could have been explained to the anonymous creeps behind ProporNot and the Post’s hack Craig Timberg. But neither ever called, emailed, texted, Tweeted, faxed, Skyped or hit me up on Snapchat. I’m not that hard to find. I used to write for the Washington Post from time to time. Timberg could have looked me up in his paper’s own database.

Of course, that’s not the point. The point is to find a new scapegoat to blame for the rapid erosion of US imperial ambitions and the new scapegoat is the old scapegoat: Russia, even though Putin’s Russia bears little resemblance to the Soviet Union of yesteryear.

One of the most insidious aspects of this mad affair is that my very own senator, the Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, seems to have been working in collusion with both ProporNot and the Washington Post (See Pam and Russ Martens’ piece in this weekend’s CounterPunch) to lay the groundwork for a new witch hunt. Wyden, one of the most camera-hungry politicians in Washington, seems itching to play the role of Joe McCarthy and haul all of “Putin’s pests” before some new HUAC committee for interrogation.

As for the Post, it has long acted as a service dog for some of the most paranoid Russophobes in American intelligence and politics. Recall, that only a few months ago the editorial page of the paper called for the head of Edward Snowden, the source for stories that won the Post the Pulitzer Prize, who the editors now want extracted from Russia to face charges under the Espionage Act that might have him sent to the death house. The thugs at ProporNot, and their co-conspirators at the Post and in the Congress, apparently want those of us on their hit list investigated for disloyalty by the FBI and Department of Justice, with, I presume, Jeff Beauregard Sessions personally supervising our “enhanced interrogations.”

Winter is indeed coming. In which case, I’m glad to enjoy the protective comfort of my new exoskeleton.

***

When it came to trying to eliminate Fidel Castro, the Central Intelligence Agency spared no effort across a quarter of a century. In 1975, former CIA director William Colby admitted to the US Senate’s Church Committee investigating CIA abuses that the agency had tried and failed to kill Castro several times, but, Colby claimed, not nearly as often as its critics alleged.

“It wasn’t for lack of trying,” Colby observed. “Castro gave McGovern in 1975 a list of the attempts made on his life – there were about thirty by that time – as he said, by the CIA. McGovern gave it to me and I looked through it and checked it off against our records and said we could account for about five or six. The others – I can understand Castro’s feeling about them because they were all ex-Bay of Pigs people or something like that, so he thinks they’re all CIA. Once you get into one of them, then bingo! – you get blamed for all the rest. We didn’t have any connections with the rest of them, but we’d never convince Castro of that.”

Five or six assassination plots is a sobering number, especially if you happen to be the intended target of these “executive actions.” But even here Colby was dissembling. He certainly had the opportunity to consult a secret 1967 report on the plots against Castro by the CIA’s Inspector General John S. Earman, and approved by Richard Helms. The CIA had in fact hatched attempts on the Cuban leader even prior to the revolution. One of the first occurred in 1958, when Eutimio Rojas, a member of the Cuban guerrillas, was hired to kill Castro as he slept at a camp in the Sierra Maestra.

On February 2, 1959, Cuban security guards arrested Allan Robert Nye, an American, in a hotel room facing the presidential palace. Nye had in his possession a high-powered rifle equipped with a telescopic scope, and had been contracted to shoot Castro as he arrived at the palace. A month later Rolando Masferrer, a former leader of Batista’s death squads, turned up at a Miami meeting with American mobsters and a CIA officer. There this deadly conglomerate planned another scenario to kill Castro outside the presidential palace.

The agency tried to devise a way to saturate the radio studio where Castro broadcast his speeches with an aerosol form of LSD and other “psychic energizers.” Another plan called for dousing Castro’s favorite kind of cigars with psychoactive drugs. The doped cigars were kept in the safe of Jake Easterline, who headed the anti-Cuba task force in the pre–Bay of Pigs days, while he tried to find a way to deliver them to Castro without risking “serious blowback” to the Agency. The ingredients for both of these schemes were developed in the labs of Sydney Gottlieb. In 1967, Gottlieb told Inspector General Earman of another scheme in which he was asked to impregnate some cigars for Castro with lethal poisons.

During Castro’s trip to New York for an appearance at the United Nations in 1960, CIA agents attempted to pull off what is referred to as the “depilatory action.” The plan was to place thallium salts in Castro’s shoes and on his night table in the hope that the poisons would make the leader’s beard fall off. In high doses, thallium can cause paralysis or death. This scheme collapsed at the last minute.

By August 1960, the elimination of Castro had become a top priority for the leadership of the CIA. Allen Dulles and his deputy Richard Bissell paid Johnny Roselli, a Hollywood mobster and buddy of Frank Sinatra, $150,000 to arrange a hit on Castro. Roselli swiftly brought two more Mafia dons in on the plot: Sam Giancana, the Chicago gangster; and Santos Trafficante, the overseer of the Lansky/Luciano operations in Havana.

Initially, the CIA recommended a gangland style hit in which Castro would be gunned down in a hail of machine-gun fire. But Giancana suggested a more subtle approach, a poison pill that could be slipped into Castro’s food or drink. Six deadly botulinum pills – “the size of saccharin tablets” – were cooked up in the CIA’s TSD labs, concealed in a hollow pencil and delivered to Roselli. On February 13, 1961, only a month after JFK’s inauguration, Trafficante took the botulinum pills to Havana and gave them to his man inside the Cuban government, Jorgé Orta, who worked on Castro’s executive staff and owed the mobsters large gambling debts.

Along with the pills, Trafficante also delivered a box of cigars soaked in botulinum toxin, which kills within hours. The cigars were prepared by Dr. Edward Gunn, chief of the CIA’s medical division. Gunn kept one of the cigars in his safe as a souvenir. He tested it for the Inspector General in 1967 and found it to have retained 94 percent of its original level of toxicity. The cigar was so deadly, Gunn said, that it need only be touched, not smoked, in order to kill its victim.

Trafficante later reported back that the pills and cigars weren’t given to Castro because “Orta got cold feet.”

In April, Roselli approached his CIA handlers with a new plan, demands for $50,000, and a new batch of pills. This time the operation would be carried out by Trafficante’s friend Dr. Manuel Antonio de Varona, leader of the anti-Castro Democratic Revolutionary Front. Verona and Trafficante had met through Edward K. Moss, the Washington, D.C. political fundraiser and influence peddler. Moss was pushing the cause of the Cuban exiles on the Hill, and he was sleeping with Julia Cellini, sister of the notorious Cellini brothers, Eddie and Dino, who were executives in Meyer Lansky’s gambling operations in the Caribbean. Varona smuggled the botulinum pills to a waitress at a restaurant frequented by Castro. But, according to CIA man Sheffield Edwards, the scheme failed when the Cuban leader suddenly “ceased to visit that particular restaurant.”

These mobsters are often referred to in CIA documents as the Havana gambling syndicate, after the casino hotels they ran there during the Batista regime. But the Mafia dons were also involved in a much more lucrative venture – drugs. Havana had become the key transfer point into the United States for much of the heroin produced by Lucky Luciano and by the Corsican syndicates in Marseilles. Lansky, who was Luciano’s money man in the States, offered to put out a $1 million contract on Castro’s head shortly after the revolution.

Over the next year, in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs disaster, the CIA targeted Castro through its Executive Action Capability program, code-named ZR/RIFLE. This operation was headed by William “the Pear” Harvey, a former FBI man whom some suspected of being J. Edgar Hoover’s mole inside the CIA. Harvey, one of the real characters of the “Agency’s formative years, was known for wearing his pistols to work at the office, slumbering through staff meetings and for his special animus toward Robert Kennedy, who he called “that little fucker.”

It was in late 1961 that Sam Giancana approached his CIA contact, a D.C.-based private detective named Robert Maheu, with a personal problem – he suspected his girlfriend, Phyllis McGuire, one of the McGuire Sisters singing group, of having an affair in Las Vegas with comedian Dan Rowan, of Rowan and Martin. In return for his assistance in the Castro assassination plots, Giancana wanted the Agency to bug Rowan’s Vegas hotel room. Rowan’s phone was duly wiretapped, but the recording device was discovered by a hotel maid, who informed the police. The Vegas police turned the matter over to the FBI, which wanted to prosecute Giancana for wiretapping. Ultimately, Robert Kennedy had to be told of the affair in order to call off the FBI.

Years later, Richard Bissell, the CIA’s deputy director for plans and architect of the Bay of Pigs disaster, said he regretted some of the Cuban ventures. Bissell told Bill Moyers, “I think we should not have involved ourselves with the Mafia. I think an organization that does so is losing control of its information. I think we should have been afraid that we would open ourselves to blackmail.” Moyers asked Bissell if it was only the association with the mobsters that troubled him, not the capability of the CIA to assassinate foreign leaders. Bissell replied: “Correct.”

Robert Kennedy, for one, didn’t share Bissell’s squeamishness. Kennedy, who was obsessed with the elimination of Castro, told Allen Dulles that he didn’t care if the Agency employed the Mob for the hit as long as they kept him fully briefed. Robert Kennedy would go to his grave defending the Agency. “What you’re not aware of is what role the CIA plays in the government,” RFK told Jack Newfield of the Village Voice shortly before his assassination. “During the 1950s, for example, many of the liberals who were forced out of other departments found a sanctuary, an enclave, in the CIA. So some of the best people in Washington, and around the country, began to collect there. One result of that was the CIA developed a very healthy view of Communism, especially compared to State and some other departments. They were very sympathetic, for example, to nationalist, and even socialist governments and movements. And I think now the CIA is becoming much more realistic, and critical, about the war, than other departments, or even the people in the White House. So it is not so black and white as you make.”

By 1963, Robert Kennedy’s friend Desmond Fitzgerald had taken over the Cuba operations from Harvey. Fitzgerald wasted little time in going after Castro. One of Fitzgerald’s first schemes was to have James Donovan, then negotiating the release of the Bay of Pigs prisoners, unwittingly deliver as a gift to Castro expensive scuba-diving gear. Sid Gottlieb treated the lining of the suit with a Madura fungus and implanted tubercle bacilli – a lethal concoction. At the same time Fitzgerald had been reading up on deep sea clams and had asked Gottlieb’s lab to rig some exceptionally attractive specimens with high explosives. The clams would then be dropped in an area were Castro frequently dived and rigged to explode when lifted.

In November 1963, the CIA’s Desmond Fitzgerald was in Paris to meet Rolando Cubela, an anti-Castro Cuban who is referred to in CIA documents as AM-LASH. Fitzgerald portrayed himself as an emissary of Robert Kennedy and asked Cubela for help in killing Castro. On November 22, Cubela was given a ballpoint pen rigged as a syringe filled with deadly Blackleaf-40, a high-powered insecticide composed of 40 percent nicotine sulfate. As the Inspector General’s report dryly notes, “It is likely that at the very moment President Kennedy was shot a CIA agent was meeting with a Cuban agent in Paris and giving him an assassination device for use against Castro.”

Fidel Castro was not the only target. There were also repeated attempts to assassinate his brother Raúl and Che Guevara. The CIA’s J. C. King pleaded with Allen Dulles to adopt a plan that would kill Fidel, Raúl and Che at the same time, “as a package.” Ultimately, Che, whom the Agency chased around the globe, was tracked down in the jungles of Bolivia. Present at his execution in 1967 was the CIA’s Félix Rodríguez, an old Cuba hand who would later become a central figure in the Contras’ drugs-and-weapons operations at Ilopango air base in El Salvador.

(This was adapted from Whiteout: the CIA, Drugs and the Press)

***

***

+ Jill Stein: a couple of weeks ago she was portrayed as Putin’s consort by Hillary’s gang, now she’s the Jeanne d’Arc of the liberals.

Sartre argued that elections are a trap. Stein and Co. have provided the latest proof for this theory, one of many. In an election where both major party candidates were despised by most of the eligible voters and more people than ever before were open to third party candidates, the Stein campaign managed to capture a meager one percent of the vote.

Instead of interrogating themselves about why they performed so abysmally in a year that offered much promise for Greens, they immediately launched a campaign for recounts in states Clinton narrowly won, claiming that the election system was somehow compromised, by inexplicable means, to give Trump the win.

Yet even in the highly unlikely event they prove their case, they will still leave us with a system that offered voters only the false choice between Trump and Clinton, a choice nearly half the country sensibly rejected by not voting.

Instead of shilling for Clinton donors, why not make an effort to organize the nearly 50% of the country that already correctly believes the electoral system is rigged against them?

Let me rephrase that: nearly 50% of registered voters decided that they didn’t have a compelling reason to vote. Why not? That’s the real question and the real promise for a truly independent political movement that wasn’t fixated on general elections.

+ Does the Stein campaign really want us to believe that general elections pitting neoliberals against neofascists have anything to do with opposition to capitalism or racism or environmental destruction?

+ As regards the “reported irregularities” in voting patterns made by “independent election integrity experts” how would you really know how deep and systemic the fraud is unless you also examined states that HRC narrowly lost? Where’s the “control” sample?

+ To date, the Stein campaign has raised more than $7 million to finance the recounts, likely far more than is needed (and $6.65 million more than the annual budget of the Green Party USA). Where will the excess money go? How will it be spent? Not on building up the Green Party, but, according Stein’s website “the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform.”

+ To rephrase the always timely Juvenal, “Who will audit the auditors?”

+ Stein only got around 1 percent of the vote, thus “irregularities” in Green vote wouldn’t be detectible in exit poll variations. So why not investigation the results from New Hampshire and Minnesota as well for the possibility Green votes had been skimmed, redirected or scotched? $$$!

+ There’s no legitimacy to a recount that only focuses on states HRC lost. Why should Greens function as a tool for failure of most bloated and well-financed presidential campaign in history?

+ A snipe hunt for vote “fraud” in an election pitting two ultra capitalists against each other misdirects from the political fraud represented by both.

+ The more Greens obsess on “vote fraud” the less time they spend talking about the big con neoliberal Democrats have perpetrated on the working class, the much-needed exposure of which might lead to the future empowerment of the Greens.

+ The biggest question for Greens: why did Stein campaign perform so abysmally in a year that was tailor-made for independent parties, especially in ‘safe’ states like Oregon, California, New York, Washington, Maryland and Vermont? Why did the Stein campaign capture so little of the Sandernista vote?

+ Stein supporters have said that criticizing the recount is “just one more example of the Left cannibalizing the Left.” The thing about cannibalizing the Left is that there are so many vegans and gluten-free members in a very limited population that no matter how many bodies you consume you just never feel satiated.

+ For the Stein campaign to invoke the “Russians hacked the vote” conspiracy in their recount briefs is almost, but not quite, as offensive as the independent socialist from Vermont voting to bomb the independent socialist nation of Serbia….

Let me try to understand their argument. Nearly all of the elites in the US, from the media to Wall Street, from Silicon Valley to the National Security establishment, were firmly for Hillary. Those are the very people most likely and most able to rig an election–if a presidential election could be “rigged”–but somehow the election was rigged for Trump? What about that devious Scott Walker, gov. of Wisconsin, you ask? Well, Walker deplores Trump and almost certainly wanted him to lose so he could run again in 2020. So that leaves…..PUTIN? Really!

***

+ The story of a populist: son of Master of Universe at Goldman Sach, went to Yale, edited Yale Daily News, inducted into Skull & Bones, elevated to partner at Goldman Sachs, formedown hedge fund, bought failing bank with George Soros, foreclosed on 34,000 homes, moved to Los Angeles, financed movies for Hollywood liberals, nominated to serve as Secretary of Treasury. Just call me Steve, Steve Mnuchin.

+ Net Worth of Trump Cabinet: $35 billion and counting. We’re about to see if Ralph Nader’s novel Only the Super-rich Can Save Us was prophecy or very dark satire….

+ Elizabeth Warren can’t shut up about potential violence under Trump, can’t say a word about ongoing violence at Standing Rock. Perhaps she’s too busy pushing Scott Brown to head the VA.

+ Former McDonald’s executive Jim Delgatti died this week at the age of 98. His creation, a biological weapon called the Big Mac, problem ruined as many lives as the policies of Henry Kissinger.

+ By locking up 3 million Mexican immigrants and 750,000 women a year who get abortions, Trump could end the drug war and still save the prison-industrial complex.

+ The Song Remains the Same: Nancy (Net Worth: $48 million) reconsecrated as Democrats’ Minority-Leader-for-Life….Plus ça change, Nancy!

+ Two-thirds of the shallow water coral in the 430-mile-long northern section of the Great Barrier Reef off the coast Australia has died off this year, bleached to death by warming seas. This is, of course, a huge deal for the fate of the planet that will receive 10 seconds of attention between Trump tweets…

+ Not to worry, argues the New York Times. The planet will survive a Trump administration as long as he pursues of an energy strategy that includes nuclear power, fracking natural gas and shale oil extraction.

+ Trump tweeted this week that he thinks flag-burners should be arrested, jailed and stripped of their citizenship, despite the fact that flag-burning is a constitutional right guaranteed to all Americans. Burn a cross get a cabinet post (Sessions), burn a flag get deported to Gitmo….

+ The FDA just approved clinical trials for the use of Ecstasy in the treatment of PTSD. Six more months of Trump and we’ll all be begging for scripts of X….

+ Lt. General Michael Flynn, Trump’s paranoid pick to serve as National Security Advisor (a position that has featured a rich lineage of paranoids), has his own talking wind-up doll, a chattering Islamophobe named Brigette Gabriel. Parental Warning: press a button and she will spew bigoted bilge on demand until the batteries expire.

+ Give CounterPuncher David Swanson some credit. He tries hard. Scribbles almost every day. But still can’t seem to write news as fake as stories by Judith Miller or Bob Woodward.

+ Back in 2004, Gore Vidal told me and Cockburn that “John Kerry was looking more and more like Lincoln…[pause] after the assassination.” This week long-jawed John was prattling on about the fate of trade deals, like the now dead TPP. Kerry slammed opponents of these job-killing trade pacts for “knee jerk” critiques of his carefully wrought deals. The neoliberals really do believe their own bullshit. Hopefully, they’ll be packing it up with them, as they leave office.

+ Drain the swamp? Giving DC insider Elaine Chow a cabinet post (as Secretary of Transportation) is like putting the Creature from the Black Lagoon in charge of the Army Corps of Engineers. Probably worse.

+ Obama’s approval rating is now at the highest its been since his reelection in 2012. Almost enough to make you think he isn’t all that bummed that Trump won the election after all. Better to have Trump demolish his legacy–what little there is of it–than Hillary.

+ This week, for example, the Peace Prize Prez expanded the use of assassination squads so that Trump doesn’t have to….

+ Last week, he was Josef Goebbles. This week, according to the New York Times, Steve Bannon is merely a “combative populist.” Next week he’ll be a candidate for the Rodney King “Can’t We All Just Get Along” award.

+ Obama’s own administration has now effectively declared war on the Dakota Access Pipeline protesters by sending an eviction notice and warning of dire consequences to those who stay behind. With the exception of Wall St, Obama has repaid almost every sector of his identity politics coalition with either indifference or contempt.

Sound Grammar

Charlie Haden and the Liberation Orchestra: Time/Life (Song for the Whales and Other Beings)
A Tribe Called Quest: We Got It From Here . . . Thank You 4 Your Service
Sao Paulo Underground: Cantos Invisíveis
Soul Basement: What We Leave Behind (featuring Jay Nemor)
Shuggie Otis: In Session

Booked Up

What I’m reading this week.

Karine Tuil: The Age of Reinvention
Ernesto “Che” Guevara: The Awakening of Latin America
Clancy Sigal: Black Sunset: Hollywood Sex, Lies, Glamour, Betrayal and Raging Egos

The Reason for Banks

Flem Snopes explains banking: “Because remember, he didn’t merely know banks could be looted, he believed, it was a tenet of his very being, that they were constantly looted; that the normal condition of a bank was a steady and decorous embezzlement, its solvency an impregnable illusion. Because that-the looting of them-was the reason for banks, the only reason why anybody would go to the trouble and expense of organising one and keeping it running.” –from William Faulkner’s The Town. (Thanks to Paul Whalen)

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/02/roaming-charges-the-cias-plots-to-kill-castro/

Roaming Charges: The CIA’s Plots to Kill Castro
by JEFFREY ST. CLAIR


On Thanksgiving night, tripping on tryptophans, I surrendered to a troubled sleep aswirl with strange dreams, and awakened the next morning transformed, like Gregor Samsa, into a cockroach. Well, not a cockroach exactly. But an insect more vile and almost universally feared, the notorious Putin pest (Blattodea putinesca).

“What has happened to me?,” I wondered, staring at the flood of emails swelling my inbox with the heading: “Are you Really a Russian agent?” Even the dog looked at me with suspicion, curious, I guess, if he needed a taste-tester for the Spot’s Stew “wild salmon” nuggets I’d just filled his bowl with.

What had happened was that the Washington Post had just published a scurrilous piece by a heretofore obscure technology reporter named Craig Timberg, alleging without the faintest evidence that Russian intelligence was using more than 200 independent news sites to pump out pro-Putin and anti-Clinton propaganda during the election campaign.

Under the breathless headline, “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say,” Timberg concocted his story based on allegations from a vaporous group called ProporNot, run by nameless individuals of unknown origin, whom Timberg (cribbing from the Bob Woodward stylesheet) agreed to quote as anonymous sources.

ProporNot’s catalogue of supposed Putin-controlled outlets reeks of the McCarthyite smears of the Red Scare era. The blacklist includes some of the most esteemed alternative news sites on the web, including Anti-war.com, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig, Naked Capitalism, Consortium News, Truthout, and, yes, CounterPunch, among many others. (ProporNot has since removed CounterPunch from their blacklist following our demand that they do so and issue a retraction. Their site now claims, falsely again, that we engaged in “constructive conversation” with them, which is a curious way to describe a threat to sue them, a threat which we fully intend to follow through on, hopefully in concert with other media outlets they’ve defamed.)

I now wear this aspersion as a badge of honor on my new carapace and am tempted to venture outside for an six-legged crawl around the block to proclaim the good news to the neighbors, many of them cowering behind their curtains with their fingers poised above the speed dial for the local exterminator. Of course, I’d feel much prouder about our high ranking on such an exalted list, if I had the slightest admiration for Putin and his Russian project.

Alas, neither of these are true either for me or my co-editor Joshua Frank. Or, I suspect, for the editors and writers of Truthdig, Black Agenda Report, Consortium News, Truthout, Naked Capitalism or many of the other publications whose names appeared on this mysterious blacklist. In fact, after I paged through the blacklist, I searched the CounterPunch archives for any positive profile I’d ever written about the burly autocrat. The closest I came was this little tribute: “Down the River With Vladimir Putin.”

Even so, as editor of CounterPunch, I’ve tried not to allow my own views on Putin’s scatological peculiarities warp our coverage of Russia. We’ve published all kinds of articles on Russia in the past decade: critical, sympathetic, analytical, satirical, quizzical and befuddled. We’ve run many different, often conflicting, articles on Russia’s conflict with Ukraine and Crimea. We’ve run hundreds, maybe a thousand of pieces on Russia’s involvement in Syria. More to the point (and no doubt the reason we achieved our illustrious ranking), we’ve run articles about how in the dangerous geopolitical climate of the last 20 years, Russia has often acted as the last hedge against the US’s belligerent and provocative foreign policy, which has nearly brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

All of this could have been explained to the anonymous creeps behind ProporNot and the Post’s hack Craig Timberg. But neither ever called, emailed, texted, Tweeted, faxed, Skyped or hit me up on Snapchat. I’m not that hard to find. I used to write for the Washington Post from time to time. Timberg could have looked me up in his paper’s own database.

Of course, that’s not the point. The point is to find a new scapegoat to blame for the rapid erosion of US imperial ambitions and the new scapegoat is the old scapegoat: Russia, even though Putin’s Russia bears little resemblance to the Soviet Union of yesteryear.

One of the most insidious aspects of this mad affair is that my very own senator, the Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, seems to have been working in collusion with both ProporNot and the Washington Post (See Pam and Russ Martens’ piece in this weekend’s CounterPunch) to lay the groundwork for a new witch hunt. Wyden, one of the most camera-hungry politicians in Washington, seems itching to play the role of Joe McCarthy and haul all of “Putin’s pests” before some new HUAC committee for interrogation.

As for the Post, it has long acted as a service dog for some of the most paranoid Russophobes in American intelligence and politics. Recall, that only a few months ago the editorial page of the paper called for the head of Edward Snowden, the source for stories that won the Post the Pulitzer Prize, who the editors now want extracted from Russia to face charges under the Espionage Act that might have him sent to the death house. The thugs at ProporNot, and their co-conspirators at the Post and in the Congress, apparently want those of us on their hit list investigated for disloyalty by the FBI and Department of Justice, with, I presume, Jeff Beauregard Sessions personally supervising our “enhanced interrogations.”

Winter is indeed coming. In which case, I’m glad to enjoy the protective comfort of my new exoskeleton.

***

When it came to trying to eliminate Fidel Castro, the Central Intelligence Agency spared no effort across a quarter of a century. In 1975, former CIA director William Colby admitted to the US Senate’s Church Committee investigating CIA abuses that the agency had tried and failed to kill Castro several times, but, Colby claimed, not nearly as often as its critics alleged.

“It wasn’t for lack of trying,” Colby observed. “Castro gave McGovern in 1975 a list of the attempts made on his life – there were about thirty by that time – as he said, by the CIA. McGovern gave it to me and I looked through it and checked it off against our records and said we could account for about five or six. The others – I can understand Castro’s feeling about them because they were all ex-Bay of Pigs people or something like that, so he thinks they’re all CIA. Once you get into one of them, then bingo! – you get blamed for all the rest. We didn’t have any connections with the rest of them, but we’d never convince Castro of that.”

Five or six assassination plots is a sobering number, especially if you happen to be the intended target of these “executive actions.” But even here Colby was dissembling. He certainly had the opportunity to consult a secret 1967 report on the plots against Castro by the CIA’s Inspector General John S. Earman, and approved by Richard Helms. The CIA had in fact hatched attempts on the Cuban leader even prior to the revolution. One of the first occurred in 1958, when Eutimio Rojas, a member of the Cuban guerrillas, was hired to kill Castro as he slept at a camp in the Sierra Maestra.

On February 2, 1959, Cuban security guards arrested Allan Robert Nye, an American, in a hotel room facing the presidential palace. Nye had in his possession a high-powered rifle equipped with a telescopic scope, and had been contracted to shoot Castro as he arrived at the palace. A month later Rolando Masferrer, a former leader of Batista’s death squads, turned up at a Miami meeting with American mobsters and a CIA officer. There this deadly conglomerate planned another scenario to kill Castro outside the presidential palace.

The agency tried to devise a way to saturate the radio studio where Castro broadcast his speeches with an aerosol form of LSD and other “psychic energizers.” Another plan called for dousing Castro’s favorite kind of cigars with psychoactive drugs. The doped cigars were kept in the safe of Jake Easterline, who headed the anti-Cuba task force in the pre–Bay of Pigs days, while he tried to find a way to deliver them to Castro without risking “serious blowback” to the Agency. The ingredients for both of these schemes were developed in the labs of Sydney Gottlieb. In 1967, Gottlieb told Inspector General Earman of another scheme in which he was asked to impregnate some cigars for Castro with lethal poisons.

During Castro’s trip to New York for an appearance at the United Nations in 1960, CIA agents attempted to pull off what is referred to as the “depilatory action.” The plan was to place thallium salts in Castro’s shoes and on his night table in the hope that the poisons would make the leader’s beard fall off. In high doses, thallium can cause paralysis or death. This scheme collapsed at the last minute.

By August 1960, the elimination of Castro had become a top priority for the leadership of the CIA. Allen Dulles and his deputy Richard Bissell paid Johnny Roselli, a Hollywood mobster and buddy of Frank Sinatra, $150,000 to arrange a hit on Castro. Roselli swiftly brought two more Mafia dons in on the plot: Sam Giancana, the Chicago gangster; and Santos Trafficante, the overseer of the Lansky/Luciano operations in Havana.

Initially, the CIA recommended a gangland style hit in which Castro would be gunned down in a hail of machine-gun fire. But Giancana suggested a more subtle approach, a poison pill that could be slipped into Castro’s food or drink. Six deadly botulinum pills – “the size of saccharin tablets” – were cooked up in the CIA’s TSD labs, concealed in a hollow pencil and delivered to Roselli. On February 13, 1961, only a month after JFK’s inauguration, Trafficante took the botulinum pills to Havana and gave them to his man inside the Cuban government, Jorgé Orta, who worked on Castro’s executive staff and owed the mobsters large gambling debts.

Along with the pills, Trafficante also delivered a box of cigars soaked in botulinum toxin, which kills within hours. The cigars were prepared by Dr. Edward Gunn, chief of the CIA’s medical division. Gunn kept one of the cigars in his safe as a souvenir. He tested it for the Inspector General in 1967 and found it to have retained 94 percent of its original level of toxicity. The cigar was so deadly, Gunn said, that it need only be touched, not smoked, in order to kill its victim.

Trafficante later reported back that the pills and cigars weren’t given to Castro because “Orta got cold feet.”

In April, Roselli approached his CIA handlers with a new plan, demands for $50,000, and a new batch of pills. This time the operation would be carried out by Trafficante’s friend Dr. Manuel Antonio de Varona, leader of the anti-Castro Democratic Revolutionary Front. Verona and Trafficante had met through Edward K. Moss, the Washington, D.C. political fundraiser and influence peddler. Moss was pushing the cause of the Cuban exiles on the Hill, and he was sleeping with Julia Cellini, sister of the notorious Cellini brothers, Eddie and Dino, who were executives in Meyer Lansky’s gambling operations in the Caribbean. Varona smuggled the botulinum pills to a waitress at a restaurant frequented by Castro. But, according to CIA man Sheffield Edwards, the scheme failed when the Cuban leader suddenly “ceased to visit that particular restaurant.”

These mobsters are often referred to in CIA documents as the Havana gambling syndicate, after the casino hotels they ran there during the Batista regime. But the Mafia dons were also involved in a much more lucrative venture – drugs. Havana had become the key transfer point into the United States for much of the heroin produced by Lucky Luciano and by the Corsican syndicates in Marseilles. Lansky, who was Luciano’s money man in the States, offered to put out a $1 million contract on Castro’s head shortly after the revolution.

Over the next year, in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs disaster, the CIA targeted Castro through its Executive Action Capability program, code-named ZR/RIFLE. This operation was headed by William “the Pear” Harvey, a former FBI man whom some suspected of being J. Edgar Hoover’s mole inside the CIA. Harvey, one of the real characters of the “Agency’s formative years, was known for wearing his pistols to work at the office, slumbering through staff meetings and for his special animus toward Robert Kennedy, who he called “that little fucker.”

It was in late 1961 that Sam Giancana approached his CIA contact, a D.C.-based private detective named Robert Maheu, with a personal problem – he suspected his girlfriend, Phyllis McGuire, one of the McGuire Sisters singing group, of having an affair in Las Vegas with comedian Dan Rowan, of Rowan and Martin. In return for his assistance in the Castro assassination plots, Giancana wanted the Agency to bug Rowan’s Vegas hotel room. Rowan’s phone was duly wiretapped, but the recording device was discovered by a hotel maid, who informed the police. The Vegas police turned the matter over to the FBI, which wanted to prosecute Giancana for wiretapping. Ultimately, Robert Kennedy had to be told of the affair in order to call off the FBI.

Years later, Richard Bissell, the CIA’s deputy director for plans and architect of the Bay of Pigs disaster, said he regretted some of the Cuban ventures. Bissell told Bill Moyers, “I think we should not have involved ourselves with the Mafia. I think an organization that does so is losing control of its information. I think we should have been afraid that we would open ourselves to blackmail.” Moyers asked Bissell if it was only the association with the mobsters that troubled him, not the capability of the CIA to assassinate foreign leaders. Bissell replied: “Correct.”

Robert Kennedy, for one, didn’t share Bissell’s squeamishness. Kennedy, who was obsessed with the elimination of Castro, told Allen Dulles that he didn’t care if the Agency employed the Mob for the hit as long as they kept him fully briefed. Robert Kennedy would go to his grave defending the Agency. “What you’re not aware of is what role the CIA plays in the government,” RFK told Jack Newfield of the Village Voice shortly before his assassination. “During the 1950s, for example, many of the liberals who were forced out of other departments found a sanctuary, an enclave, in the CIA. So some of the best people in Washington, and around the country, began to collect there. One result of that was the CIA developed a very healthy view of Communism, especially compared to State and some other departments. They were very sympathetic, for example, to nationalist, and even socialist governments and movements. And I think now the CIA is becoming much more realistic, and critical, about the war, than other departments, or even the people in the White House. So it is not so black and white as you make.”

By 1963, Robert Kennedy’s friend Desmond Fitzgerald had taken over the Cuba operations from Harvey. Fitzgerald wasted little time in going after Castro. One of Fitzgerald’s first schemes was to have James Donovan, then negotiating the release of the Bay of Pigs prisoners, unwittingly deliver as a gift to Castro expensive scuba-diving gear. Sid Gottlieb treated the lining of the suit with a Madura fungus and implanted tubercle bacilli – a lethal concoction. At the same time Fitzgerald had been reading up on deep sea clams and had asked Gottlieb’s lab to rig some exceptionally attractive specimens with high explosives. The clams would then be dropped in an area were Castro frequently dived and rigged to explode when lifted.

In November 1963, the CIA’s Desmond Fitzgerald was in Paris to meet Rolando Cubela, an anti-Castro Cuban who is referred to in CIA documents as AM-LASH. Fitzgerald portrayed himself as an emissary of Robert Kennedy and asked Cubela for help in killing Castro. On November 22, Cubela was given a ballpoint pen rigged as a syringe filled with deadly Blackleaf-40, a high-powered insecticide composed of 40 percent nicotine sulfate. As the Inspector General’s report dryly notes, “It is likely that at the very moment President Kennedy was shot a CIA agent was meeting with a Cuban agent in Paris and giving him an assassination device for use against Castro.”

Fidel Castro was not the only target. There were also repeated attempts to assassinate his brother Raúl and Che Guevara. The CIA’s J. C. King pleaded with Allen Dulles to adopt a plan that would kill Fidel, Raúl and Che at the same time, “as a package.” Ultimately, Che, whom the Agency chased around the globe, was tracked down in the jungles of Bolivia. Present at his execution in 1967 was the CIA’s Félix Rodríguez, an old Cuba hand who would later become a central figure in the Contras’ drugs-and-weapons operations at Ilopango air base in El Salvador.

(This was adapted from Whiteout: the CIA, Drugs and the Press)

***

***

+ Jill Stein: a couple of weeks ago she was portrayed as Putin’s consort by Hillary’s gang, now she’s the Jeanne d’Arc of the liberals.

Sartre argued that elections are a trap. Stein and Co. have provided the latest proof for this theory, one of many. In an election where both major party candidates were despised by most of the eligible voters and more people than ever before were open to third party candidates, the Stein campaign managed to capture a meager one percent of the vote.

Instead of interrogating themselves about why they performed so abysmally in a year that offered much promise for Greens, they immediately launched a campaign for recounts in states Clinton narrowly won, claiming that the election system was somehow compromised, by inexplicable means, to give Trump the win.

Yet even in the highly unlikely event they prove their case, they will still leave us with a system that offered voters only the false choice between Trump and Clinton, a choice nearly half the country sensibly rejected by not voting.

Instead of shilling for Clinton donors, why not make an effort to organize the nearly 50% of the country that already correctly believes the electoral system is rigged against them?

Let me rephrase that: nearly 50% of registered voters decided that they didn’t have a compelling reason to vote. Why not? That’s the real question and the real promise for a truly independent political movement that wasn’t fixated on general elections.

+ Does the Stein campaign really want us to believe that general elections pitting neoliberals against neofascists have anything to do with opposition to capitalism or racism or environmental destruction?

+ As regards the “reported irregularities” in voting patterns made by “independent election integrity experts” how would you really know how deep and systemic the fraud is unless you also examined states that HRC narrowly lost? Where’s the “control” sample?

+ To date, the Stein campaign has raised more than $7 million to finance the recounts, likely far more than is needed (and $6.65 million more than the annual budget of the Green Party USA). Where will the excess money go? How will it be spent? Not on building up the Green Party, but, according Stein’s website “the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform.”

+ To rephrase the always timely Juvenal, “Who will audit the auditors?”

+ Stein only got around 1 percent of the vote, thus “irregularities” in Green vote wouldn’t be detectible in exit poll variations. So why not investigation the results from New Hampshire and Minnesota as well for the possibility Green votes had been skimmed, redirected or scotched? $$$!

+ There’s no legitimacy to a recount that only focuses on states HRC lost. Why should Greens function as a tool for failure of most bloated and well-financed presidential campaign in history?

+ A snipe hunt for vote “fraud” in an election pitting two ultra capitalists against each other misdirects from the political fraud represented by both.

+ The more Greens obsess on “vote fraud” the less time they spend talking about the big con neoliberal Democrats have perpetrated on the working class, the much-needed exposure of which might lead to the future empowerment of the Greens.

+ The biggest question for Greens: why did Stein campaign perform so abysmally in a year that was tailor-made for independent parties, especially in ‘safe’ states like Oregon, California, New York, Washington, Maryland and Vermont? Why did the Stein campaign capture so little of the Sandernista vote?

+ Stein supporters have said that criticizing the recount is “just one more example of the Left cannibalizing the Left.” The thing about cannibalizing the Left is that there are so many vegans and gluten-free members in a very limited population that no matter how many bodies you consume you just never feel satiated.

+ For the Stein campaign to invoke the “Russians hacked the vote” conspiracy in their recount briefs is almost, but not quite, as offensive as the independent socialist from Vermont voting to bomb the independent socialist nation of Serbia….

Let me try to understand their argument. Nearly all of the elites in the US, from the media to Wall Street, from Silicon Valley to the National Security establishment, were firmly for Hillary. Those are the very people most likely and most able to rig an election–if a presidential election could be “rigged”–but somehow the election was rigged for Trump? What about that devious Scott Walker, gov. of Wisconsin, you ask? Well, Walker deplores Trump and almost certainly wanted him to lose so he could run again in 2020. So that leaves…..PUTIN? Really!

***

+ The story of a populist: son of Master of Universe at Goldman Sach, went to Yale, edited Yale Daily News, inducted into Skull & Bones, elevated to partner at Goldman Sachs, formedown hedge fund, bought failing bank with George Soros, foreclosed on 34,000 homes, moved to Los Angeles, financed movies for Hollywood liberals, nominated to serve as Secretary of Treasury. Just call me Steve, Steve Mnuchin.

+ Net Worth of Trump Cabinet: $35 billion and counting. We’re about to see if Ralph Nader’s novel Only the Super-rich Can Save Us was prophecy or very dark satire….

+ Elizabeth Warren can’t shut up about potential violence under Trump, can’t say a word about ongoing violence at Standing Rock. Perhaps she’s too busy pushing Scott Brown to head the VA.

+ Former McDonald’s executive Jim Delgatti died this week at the age of 98. His creation, a biological weapon called the Big Mac, problem ruined as many lives as the policies of Henry Kissinger.

+ By locking up 3 million Mexican immigrants and 750,000 women a year who get abortions, Trump could end the drug war and still save the prison-industrial complex.

+ The Song Remains the Same: Nancy (Net Worth: $48 million) reconsecrated as Democrats’ Minority-Leader-for-Life….Plus ça change, Nancy!

+ Two-thirds of the shallow water coral in the 430-mile-long northern section of the Great Barrier Reef off the coast Australia has died off this year, bleached to death by warming seas. This is, of course, a huge deal for the fate of the planet that will receive 10 seconds of attention between Trump tweets…

+ Not to worry, argues the New York Times. The planet will survive a Trump administration as long as he pursues of an energy strategy that includes nuclear power, fracking natural gas and shale oil extraction.

+ Trump tweeted this week that he thinks flag-burners should be arrested, jailed and stripped of their citizenship, despite the fact that flag-burning is a constitutional right guaranteed to all Americans. Burn a cross get a cabinet post (Sessions), burn a flag get deported to Gitmo….

+ The FDA just approved clinical trials for the use of Ecstasy in the treatment of PTSD. Six more months of Trump and we’ll all be begging for scripts of X….

+ Lt. General Michael Flynn, Trump’s paranoid pick to serve as National Security Advisor (a position that has featured a rich lineage of paranoids), has his own talking wind-up doll, a chattering Islamophobe named Brigette Gabriel. Parental Warning: press a button and she will spew bigoted bilge on demand until the batteries expire.

+ Give CounterPuncher David Swanson some credit. He tries hard. Scribbles almost every day. But still can’t seem to write news as fake as stories by Judith Miller or Bob Woodward.

+ Back in 2004, Gore Vidal told me and Cockburn that “John Kerry was looking more and more like Lincoln…[pause] after the assassination.” This week long-jawed John was prattling on about the fate of trade deals, like the now dead TPP. Kerry slammed opponents of these job-killing trade pacts for “knee jerk” critiques of his carefully wrought deals. The neoliberals really do believe their own bullshit. Hopefully, they’ll be packing it up with them, as they leave office.

+ Drain the swamp? Giving DC insider Elaine Chow a cabinet post (as Secretary of Transportation) is like putting the Creature from the Black Lagoon in charge of the Army Corps of Engineers. Probably worse.

+ Obama’s approval rating is now at the highest its been since his reelection in 2012. Almost enough to make you think he isn’t all that bummed that Trump won the election after all. Better to have Trump demolish his legacy–what little there is of it–than Hillary.

+ This week, for example, the Peace Prize Prez expanded the use of assassination squads so that Trump doesn’t have to….

+ Last week, he was Josef Goebbles. This week, according to the New York Times, Steve Bannon is merely a “combative populist.” Next week he’ll be a candidate for the Rodney King “Can’t We All Just Get Along” award.

+ Obama’s own administration has now effectively declared war on the Dakota Access Pipeline protesters by sending an eviction notice and warning of dire consequences to those who stay behind. With the exception of Wall St, Obama has repaid almost every sector of his identity politics coalition with either indifference or contempt.

Sound Grammar

Charlie Haden and the Liberation Orchestra: Time/Life (Song for the Whales and Other Beings)
A Tribe Called Quest: We Got It From Here . . . Thank You 4 Your Service
Sao Paulo Underground: Cantos Invisíveis
Soul Basement: What We Leave Behind (featuring Jay Nemor)
Shuggie Otis: In Session

Booked Up

What I’m reading this week.

Karine Tuil: The Age of Reinvention
Ernesto “Che” Guevara: The Awakening of Latin America
Clancy Sigal: Black Sunset: Hollywood Sex, Lies, Glamour, Betrayal and Raging Egos

The Reason for Banks

Flem Snopes explains banking: “Because remember, he didn’t merely know banks could be looted, he believed, it was a tenet of his very being, that they were constantly looted; that the normal condition of a bank was a steady and decorous embezzlement, its solvency an impregnable illusion. Because that-the looting of them-was the reason for banks, the only reason why anybody would go to the trouble and expense of organising one and keeping it running.” –from William Faulkner’s The Town. (Thanks to Paul Whalen)

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/02/roaming-charges-the-cias-plots-to-kill-castro/

So I guess the CIA and steelpirate are on the same page here, eh?

As a historical figure I believe a lot of people would be interested.

You're getting pretty pathetic.

But congrats on your encyclopedic knowledge of this joint, it's almost as though you were here.....

I'm giving you the business a bit BP. Of course I read it. Point is though it ain't about personal journeys and you know that. Maybe it's reactionary but who gives a shit about changing the people into perfect socialist/communist specimens. That is a fucking religion. Change the system and the levers of power and leave the fucking people as they are. Stepford robots in service to any ideology ain't for me. Creating perfect socialist/communist man/woman is idealism and utopian in it's own right.

He was - under who knows how many socks.

Edit to add:

You know this is a concerted effort to do...something, not sure. Except that it really does have to do with this year's elections. He came into place this past summer. He could be here to deflect criticism of Clinton or, in this case, to brow-beat for not being adequately anti-Trump. The idea that we were equally antagonistic toward both Trump and Clinton/Obama was not good enough. When I compared Trump to Obama, he let a little of his slip show when he said Trump "won't be benign" - indicating that considered Obama (or perhaps Clinton) as "benign".

The trying to rat-out Allen in order to get on our good side was particularly snotty and blackens his rep more than his Trot-ideology spouting does. I guess we are a tiny little burr under somebody's bonnet...

Honestly, chlams has refuted his points every step of the way. I'm not really sure what his endgame is here.

Honestly, chlams has refuted his points every step of the way. I'm not really sure what his endgame is here.

Same here. And he steadfastly refuses to answer questions straightforwardly. So it looks to be a dead end - guess I saw that coming, ha.

I'm giving you the business a bit BP. Of course I read it. Point is though it ain't about personal journeys and you know that. Maybe it's reactionary but who gives a shit about changing the people into perfect socialist/communist specimens. That is a fucking religion. Change the system and the levers of power and leave the fucking people as they are. Stepford robots in service to any ideology ain't for me. Creating perfect socialist/communist man/woman is idealism and utopian in it's own right.

You're flailing, and the simple minded accusations in this post show that you don't understand a goddamn thing. 'Robots, religion, perfect', if you'd you really been reading here you'd know that we do not ascribe to, and reject such simple minded understanding. Indeed, it's just what a liberal would say. Or someone who was stirring shit. If you ain't then start answering some of the questions that Chlamor and myself have proffered these last few days. My bet is that you won't.

So I guess the CIA and steelpirate are on the same page here, eh?

Cuckoo For Cocoa Puffs

Can't make the connection. I will say a few things though in regards to that mess. Putin is a ruling class capitalist scumbag regardless of any wacky conspiracy theories. Who exactly is denying that they tried to off Castro numerous times ? Beyond that...the Green Party is your bag...not mine. I guess Amaju Baraka ain't a communist after all Dhal, eh ? Weren't you plugging voting Cynthia McKinney some time ago as part of the struggle ? LMFAO Further beyond that I put very little stock in much of what comes out of Counterpunch. There are few decent writers that somehow coexist in that cesspool of Neo-Nazi anti-semite racist scum but it ain't many. Perhaps Paul Craig Roberts and that Nazi prick passing as a socialist John Wight is your bag Dhal but it ain't mine. Even further beyond that... BAR offers some good critique but they been in the shit hole for the Green Party frauds for ages. Anything else you want to know Professor Dhalgren ?

You're flailing, and the simple minded accusations in this post show that you don't understand a goddamn thing. 'Robots, religion, perfect', if you'd you really been reading here you'd know that we do not ascribe to, and reject such simple minded understanding. Indeed, it's just what a liberal would say. Or someone who was stirring shit. If you ain't then start answering some of the questions that Chlamor and myself have proffered these last few days. My bet is that you won't.

I ain't flailing at all my friend. Let me enlighten you yet again.

"We are here to confederate the workers of this country into a working-class movement that shall have for its purpose the emancipation of the working-class from the slave bondage of capitalism. The aims and objects of this organization shall be to put the working-class in possession of the economic power, the means of life, in control of the machinery of production and distribution, without regard to capitalist masters."

--Bill Haywood

Your Soviet idols took ol Bill in so I'll give credit where it's do. They probably would have offed him too as a "counter-revolutionary" if he voiced his differences in tactics after Stalin took over. Died in a fucking one room flat in your fucking Soviet workers paradise.

Honestly, chlams has refuted his points every step of the way. I'm not really sure what his endgame is here.

With all due respect to Chlams (which he's earned as a fierce social critic...something you will not get in the least grasshopper) he hasn't refuted shit... but he has blasted a boat load of copy and pastes that speak to nothing but one-sided Idol worship in the realm of Leave Britney Alone!!!

I ain't flailing at all my friend. Let me enlighten you yet again.

"We are here to confederate the workers of this country into a working-class movement that shall have for its purpose the emancipation of the working-class from the slave bondage of capitalism. The aims and objects of this organization shall be to put the working-class in possession of the economic power, the means of life, in control of the machinery of production and distribution, without regard to capitalist masters."

--Bill Haywood

Your Soviet idols took ol Bill in so I'll give credit where it's do. They probably would have offed him too as a "counter-revolutionary" if he voiced his differences in tactics after Stalin took over. Died in a fucking one room flat in your fucking Soviet workers paradise.

Your quote is irrelevant to your attack on communism, your speculation bootless. You're like one of those anti-communist comic books from the Cold War. Flailing.

Your quote is irrelevant to your attack on communism, your speculation bootless. You're like one of those anti-communist comic books from the Cold War. Flailing.

I don't doubt your dedication but the flailing belongs to you BP in defense of your "one true path" to working class power which is an absurd caricature in light of your eco-socialist leanings and ridiculous attempts to reconcile that into some Stalinist fairy tale. No man...you ain't gonna be left alone to plant your cabbages and turnips under Autocratic rule. You will pay tribute to the master with every fiber of your being and you will not dissent in any way or you will become the "collateral damage" on the way to Utopia. Very tragic that you can't come to grips with that.

...he hasn't refuted shit... but he has blasted a boat load of copy and pastes...

To me, that's what it looks like you're doing. Your examples don't really have context, IMO.

You're right, I'll never be a social critic. :( I'm just here to learn!

I don't doubt your dedication but the flailing belongs to you BP in defense of your "one true path" to working class power which is an absurd caricature in light of your eco-socialist leanings and ridiculous attempts to reconcile that into some Stalinist fairy tale. No man...you ain't gonna be left alone to plant your cabbages and turnips under Autocratic rule. You will pay tribute to the master with every fiber of your being and you will not dissent in any way or you will become the "collateral damage" on the way to Utopia. Very tragic that you can't come to grips with that.

Yeah, breaks my heart too, but only that I'll not suffer such abuse in this lifetime. Now piss off with your juvenile angst.

Relevant twitter thread from ✭James Saint-Franc☭ ‏@sirjamesa12

How Cuba's elections are different and more democratic than the United States:

Local elections in the U.S.: Mayor, city council, county commissions, county chair, DA, sheriff, soil and water directors, and school board.

Parties in the U.S. are allowed to nominate and endorse a candidate. In Cuba, *ONLY* locals are allowed to nominate up to eight candidates.

Back to Cuba: A candidate for local office must receive 50% of the vote to win; else, the top two candidates go in a runoff a week later.

Once they are elected, they are now delegates to the Municipal Assembly of People's Power.

Since 1993, these candidates nominated by the Municipal Assembly are directly elected by the locals.

For the National Assembly of People's Power, 1/2 of the candidates selected must have been delegates 2 the Municipal or Provincial assembly.

The other half are nominated through solidarity groups like labor unions, student unions, Black unions, small farmers, and women's unions.

Deputies of the National Assembly of People's Power are up for election every five years. Their sessions meet twice per year.

Same term applies in the provincial assemblies, but in the municipal assemblies, the term is every two-and-a-half years.

Yes, members of these assemblies have jobs outside of the assembly. They do not receive *ANY* compensation for being assembly members.

On the first session of the National Assembly, the deputies elect the President, Vice President, and secretaries *from among their deputies*

(Other offices include the Comptroller and Attorney General)

(This implies that both Fidel was [and Raul is currently] National Assembly members)

(So LOL @ those who imply that they are ruthless dictators, unless you mean dictatorship of the proletariat.)

Candidates are not allowed to promote their own campaigns. Instead, the electoral commission sends a one-page bio for the locals to view.

Anyone 16+ is allowed to vote at ANY of these elections. Election day always falls on a Sunday. Voter turnout is very high at >90%.

Yes, these candidates engage in their communities for issues concerning the locals.

In the U.S., the cycle of parties nominating and endorsing candidates continue at the state and federal level.

Some states require signatures, others require a filing fee; some do both such as Virginia!

Yes, some state legislators and Congressional reps came from their local government; however, some Members of Congress are millionaires.

Matter of fact, half of them:
https://t.co/96VduslkDQ

The annual salary for Members of Congress stands at $174,000. State legislatures vary by state and whether it's full-time or part-time.

+ Decisions from the Supreme Court re: Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. FEC, and McCutcheon v. FEC and how they facilitate Super PACs.

And then the series of unfortunate events happen: ALEC, gerrymandering, assault against voting rights, assault against women's rights, etc.

And then there's the race for President of the United States......

Campaigns in the U.S. usually rely on politics of fear, including slandering workers of color & coronation of a candidate with the most $.

Contrast that in Cuba where campaigning is not allowed and a one-page bio of someone is used instead.

That's because under capitalist, liberal democracies, elections are centered around individualist competition where the top 1% wins.

And we the people lose every time.

Whereas in Cuba, it's elections of, by, and for the people. Just not under the scope of liberal democracy.

FIN!

Not bad, could have edited out the unnecessary but don't like messing with people's stuff.

THE TRUTH ABOUT SOCIALIST CUBA: Refuting the bourgeois slanders against Fidel Castro

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kT7lD6-MHXY/WELBZTjpjwI/AAAAAAAAB9k/vhbd2gbardE5Il9GACJaCTCBc7sMbhkLwCLcB/s640/Fidel%2BCastro%2Bspeech%2Bphoto.jpg
EDITORIAL

The death of Comandante Fidel Castro Ruz on November 25 sparked a barrage of vulgar statements, declarations and comments from various bourgeois sources. Liberals, neoliberals, conservatives, neo-Nazis and other apologists of Capitalism's barbarity tried to vilify Fidel as a "dictator" and Socialist Cuba as a "repressive dictatorship". Of course, the millions of Cuban people, of every age, who took the streets in order to say farewell to Comandante Fidel gave their powerful response to all these anticommunist slanderers. Was Fidel Castro a "dictator", as the bourgeois propaganda argues, or was he a champion of social justice and a hero to millions of people across the world?

What in fact haunts the bourgeoisie is the struggle for Socialism, the perspective of another world, without exploitation of man by man. This is what they fear most. The enmity against Fidel Castro and Cuba has its source in anticommunism. They slander Cuba and Fidel exactly because Cuba and Fidel showed the alternative path to the masses: before 1959 Cuba was the "backyard brothel" of the United States, a huge casino, where people were in severe poverty, while a handful of capitalists were owning the island's wealth. The 1959 Cuban Revolution not only overthrew the power of the capitalists, but, furthermore, paved the way for very important achievements in numerous parts of social life.

The bourgeoisie will never forgive Castro and the Cuban people for these achievements. They will never forgive that Fidel and his Revolution provided free education to all Cuban children, free and high-level heathcare to all Cubans, free access to Culture and Sports. The bourgeoisie, the various pathetic apologists of Capitalism will never forgive Fidel Castro for showing, in practice, that another world, without exploitation, is possible.

Those who call Fidel a "dictator" are those who actually and actively support the real dictatorship: the dictatorship of the Capital, which repress and exploits the masses for the profits of the few. Those who call Cuba a "dictatorship" are those who support the murderous imperialist wars in the Middle East, who close their eyes when thousands of children die from the bombs of the "democratic" NATO.

Contrary to the United States and Europe, in Cuba the real masters of the country are the people; not the monopolies, the large corporations and the big industrialists. Contrary to the United States and Europe, in Cuba you won't see armies of homeless people in the streets. Contrary to the United States and Europe, the people in Cuba are not slaves of money and they don't live with the fear of losing their home due to a bank's order.

The various bourgeois commentators who use the word "dictator" or "dictatorship" purposely hide the fact that this word has actually a class meaning. The major question is "which class is in power"- Is it the bourgeoisie and the Capital or the working class? In capitalist countries, the so-called "western parliamentary democracy" is the "show case" behind which there is the dictatorship of the Capital.

Vladimir I. Lenin had very successfully described the kind of democracy that exists in Capitalism. "Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich — that is the democracy of capitalist society"[..] "The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament" (State and Revolution, 1917). As Lenin states, democracy in capitalist societies is "curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority". Thats the truth.

Comrade Fidel Castro's Cuba showed that a democracy for the people by the people is possible. And that is what the bourgeoisie will never forgive.

Nikos Mottas,
3.12.2016.

* * *

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-av2DYBeFlwk/WEK4WfmEKCI/AAAAAAAAB8o/G_G0UmIx8wQoUUZiM4jR4FZ3tB83_AnYgCLcB/s320/Elections%2Bin%2BCuba.jpg
DEMOCRACY AND ELECTIONS IN CUBA.
Source: Cuba Support Group- Ireland.


Cuban elections are an authentic way for people to participate in the life of the nation, far from the glorified advertising campaigns that pass for elections in many countries.
The Cuban electoral processes take place from the grassroots up in the selection of those who will represent the people at all the levels of government.
Local elections are organized to select the municipal delegates (city council members), and general elections take place to choose provincial assembly delegates and the members of the national Parliament.
According to Cuban law, these elections are called by the Council of State with no less than 120 days notice.
A successful electoral experience that took place thirty years ago in Matanzas province led to a green light for setting up what are called the People’s Power government institutions. These are considered the highest form of truly representative and genuinely democratic government and provide the people with real institutional participation.
An element that makes the Cuban electoral system unique is the way candidates are nominated, a process in which individuals nominate those who they think should be candidates.
The process is not done in the name of Communist Party of Cuba or of any other political, mass or social organization, and takes place at urban and rural community meetings where residents select the nominees by raising their hands.
During these meetings, participants propose candidates for the city councils based on their merits as citizens of the community, and their capacity to act as government representatives.
In each electoral district the maximum number of candidates is eight with a minimum of two. From these, people elect by secret ballot the city council representative from their neighborhood or community.
The correct functioning of the electoral system resides precisely in the high participation at local meetings. This an essential element of the Cuban democracy, sustained by a government of the people, by the people and for the people, as national hero, Jose Marti, and US President Abraham Lincoln proposed.
Voting is not mandatory in Cuba, but it is a right of all eligible citizens, who when going to the polls have only to show their national identity card. According to Cuban law, only the mentally disabled and persons serving time in prisons are not allowed to vote.
Among other aspects of interest to foreign observers is the fact that 16 year olds have the right to elect and be elected and that members of the armed institutions are also able to vote. In the case of the military the right to vote is unique in Latin America, with the exception of Venezuela in 2004.
The absence of military patrols in the streets on election days is something that captures the attention of visiting members of parliaments and other public figures invited to observe elections taking place in Cuba.
Military personnel are not on duty at the polling stations, because school children are the ones that guard the ballot boxes.
At the very moment that elections are called, electoral commissions are created at the national, provincial and municipal levels, formed by citizens known for their praiseworthy work records.
The only pre-condition to be a member of the electoral commissions is to have the right to vote.
Electoral commissions are in charge of determining the electoral districts, they direct the nomination process and the choosing of candidates, and create the proper conditions for the electoral process to take place.
Once the elections are completed they must organize the swearing in of the assemblies and their executive committees at the municipal, provincial and national levels.
Voting is voluntary, secret and direct, and vote counting is done in public. Foreign diplomats and observers can also witness the process.
In order to be elected, a candidate must win more than 50 percent of the votes.

Today’s Cuban electoral system is very different from the one that operated here prior to 1959, when the system of voter registration allowed for “miracles” such as deceased persons voting and for others to cast more than one ballot.


https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JPLbA498v8w/WEK8ajBEy0I/AAAAAAAAB84/cUw2eVL2TbU8m0Pmr8zVmTVbGWzEj-PjwCLcB/s400/Elections%2Bin%2BCuba%2B2.jpg


Elderly Cubans recall the dirty tricks used by politicians who withheld voter registration documents, where you could read a statement saying that voting was mandatory for all citizens.
The elector that didn’t vote could be fined and even banned from assuming government jobs or holding office.
The ethical standards that are part of the Cuban electoral process today explicitly prohibit political campaigns to convince voters to choose a specific candidate or to attack the prestige of an opponent.
The delegates, who form part of the municipal People’s Power Assemblies, have to provide voters with a yearly report of their activities and receive absolutely no payment for their work as council persons.
In the elections of 2003 for example, voter turnout was 95.75 percent to elect the municipal and provincial delegates, and a 97.61 percent turnout when the elections for the national Parliament took place.
The above figures contrast with the situation prevailing before 1959, when, for example, in 1944 Ramon Grau San Martin was elected President of Cuba with only a 44.71 voter’s turnout, and in 1954, a similar situation occurred when Fulgencio Batista was elected with only a 45.61 percent participation at the ballot boxes, this despite all the fraud that took place.
The low abstention in Cuban elections compares very favorably with what happens in many so called First World elections. A shining example is the United States of America, where in order to elect George W. Bush as President in the year 2000, only thirty seven percent of voting age citizens went to the polls, in one of the lowest voter turnouts of recent years.
* * *
Fidel Castro's Legacy and the Hypocrisy of His Detractors.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pCuFb-rcMN0/WEK8QelyqsI/AAAAAAAAB80/WdaAyq1-pDk3AsV3Nc2pvHyVUVxkPz3swCLcB/s320/Comandante%2BFidel.jpg
By John Wight, Sputink International.


Fidel Castro's death, at 90, has sparked a fierce debate in the West over his legacy. I specifically mention the West as elsewhere there is no debate: Castro is lauded as one of history's great emancipators, a man who led a revolution that succeeded in throwing off the yoke of US imperialism.

But in the West the liberal commentariat has united as one in denouncing Castro as an evil tyrant and torturer who ruled Cuba for over five decades with an iron fist, quashing the human rights of the Cuban people, who in the wake of his death can now look forward to the future safe in the knowledge that freedom and democracy beckons.
When we talk about Castro's critics, it is worth pointing out that we are talking here people who live in societies where poverty has been unofficially criminalized and the poor demonized, despised, and abandoned to a fate of destitution and despair.

We are talking, in the main, the kind of men and women who walk or drive past the ever-growing army of homeless who colonize the streets of towns and cities throughout the West, casualties of a neoliberal economic system that is the real tyrant in our world, without batting an eyelid. In other words, we are talking people whose condemnation of Fidel Castro is suffused with hypocrisy, the kind that is common among those who have imbibed the received truths of empire. The most fundamental of those truths is that the West has been divinely ordained with the task of colonizing a Third World — culturally, economically, and geopolitically — that consists of peoples of lower cultures, civilizations and human worth.

The metric by which Castro's legacy should be judged is the transformation of Cuba as a result of the revolution he led and inspired. And in this regard one salient fact shines forth more than any other — namely that the only place in the world where you will find homeless Cuban children today is Miami.

Let us take a moment to examine in detail the legacy of the "tyrant" Fidel Castro:

Cuba is today the only country in the Americas where child malnourishment does not exit (UNICEF).

Cuba has the lowest child mortality rate in the Americas (UNICEF). 130,000 students have graduated from medical school in Cuba since 1961 Cuba has eliminated homelessness (Knoema) 54% of Cuba's national budget is used for social services.

Cuba has the best education system in Latin America Cuba has sent hundreds of doctors and nurses on medical missions across the Third World Cuba was the first country to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV (World Health Organization).

If only the Haitian people or the people of the Dominican Republic had such a tyrant ruling their countries.

If only the poor in the US and UK had such a tyrant at the head of their respective governments. When it comes to the accusation that homosexuals were persecuted in Cuba after the revolution, there is no doubt that LGBT rights were non-existent in Cuba in the sixties and for most of the seventies, just as they were non existent throughout much of the world.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-R3r3SRnUWug/WEK88Saaz_I/AAAAAAAAB88/pbmOZl0ghn0QgGQkc0Y6d4inpbf57Vi_ACLcB/s640/Fidel%2Bwall%2Bmural.jpg

Homosexuality, for example, was decriminalized in Cuba in 1979, which compares favorably to Scotland and Northern Ireland in the UK, where it was decriminalized in 1980 and 1982 respectively. Moreover, same-sex sexual activity was only made legal across the entire United States in 2003. It is also worth bearing in mind that homosexuality today is criminalized in Saudi Arabia — a close UK and US ally and a society in which women are treated as chattel and people are routinely beheaded — where it is punishable by death.

The fact is that the existence of homophobia in Cuba predated Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution by around five centuries. It was entrenched as part of the cultural values of Cuban society, indeed the cultural values throughout the Americas, courtesy of the Catholic Church. Fidel Castro was a product of those values and to his credit later renounced them, awakening to the justice of LGBT rights. Today his own niece, Mariela Castro, plays an active role in the Cuban LGBT community, leading the country's annual gay pride parade in Havana last year.

As for torture, meanwhile, the only place on the island of Cuba where this can be found is at the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

The key point to be borne in mind when it comes to Cuba and its state of development is that countries and societies do not exist on blank sheets of paper. In the Third World their development cannot be divorced from a real life struggle against the huge obstacles placed in their way by histories of colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism, responsible for retarding their progress in service to the exploitation of their human and natural resources. The legitimacy of the Cuban Revolution lies in its survival in the face of the aforementioned US blockade, designed to starve the country to its knees for daring to refuse to be slaves of global capital. To understand what that would look like all we need do is cast our eyes over to the aforementioned Haiti or Dominican Republic, countries of comparable size located in the same region. Compared to them Cuba stands as a beacon of dignity, social and economic justice, and sustainable development.

The lack of political rights in Cuba throughout Castro's lifetime is directly attributable to the US embargo and threat of invasion and subversion by the most destructive superpower the world has ever known, whose record in destroying Third World countries is inarguable. Numerous acts of US-sponsored terrorism have been committed against Cuba and the Cuban people over the years, yet the lack of invective being directed at Washington stands in contrast to the amount unleashed against Castro and his legacy. Funny that.

Fidel Castro was no dictator. On the contrary, he dedicated his life to resisting Washington's dictatorship of the Third World. As a result of the Cuban Revolution the right to be homeless, illiterate, and to go without healthcare no longer exists in Cuba. In their place have come the most fundamental human rights of all — the right to be educated, to healthcare that is free at the point of need, and the right to live with dignity and pride in being the citizen of a small island that has stood over decades as a beacon of justice in an ocean of injustice. This, in truth, is the reason 'they' despise him. And this, in truth, is why millions of Cubans will come out and pay tribute to his life and legacy on the day of his funeral. For them he will forever be 'El Comandante'.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WpJNP_6R9Lo/WEK968fRa9I/AAAAAAAAB9I/He30x92J3M8VKytN9wIflau12YhLCXiYQCLcB/s640/Ninos%2Bcubanos.jpg

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AviZA6wNVRU/WELASy-NUFI/AAAAAAAAB9Y/NBONRcCECmANXws1_gxVQJKoshUqaLW9wCLcB/s640/paso_cenizas_fidel_LT-16.jpg

https://communismgr.blogspot.gr/2016/12/the-truth-about-socialist-cuba-refuting.html

tweet
SACP ‏@SACP1921 1h1 hour ago
Mapaila: In Angola the Cubans took only the fallen bodies of their combatants, no diamond, no gold, no gallon of oil #Solidarity #SACPCastro

Truth which no amount of sophistry can refute.

tweet
SACP ‏@SACP1921 1h1 hour ago
Mapaila: In Angola the Cubans took only the fallen bodies of their combatants, no diamond, no gold, no gallon of oil #Solidarity #SACPCastro

Truth which no amount of sophistry can refute.

That is really the "bottom-line" in all this shit that has been spewing. The anti-Castro, anti-socialist crowd should just shut the fuck up.

He was - under who knows how many socks.

Edit to add:

You know this is a concerted effort to do...something, not sure. Except that it really does have to do with this year's elections. He came into place this past summer. He could be here to deflect criticism of Clinton or, in this case, to brow-beat for not being adequately anti-Trump. The idea that we were equally antagonistic toward both Trump and Clinton/Obama was not good enough. When I compared Trump to Obama, he let a little of his slip show when he said Trump "won't be benign" - indicating that considered Obama (or perhaps Clinton) as "benign".

The trying to rat-out Allen in order to get on our good side was particularly snotty and blackens his rep more than his Trot-ideology spouting does. I guess we are a tiny little burr under somebody's bonnet...

This makes sense.

I will post this here in the event in gets edited out:

From SP:

I was gonna retire from the online fray. I sent a few private obituaries. I can't seem to drag myself away for more than a few days despite an ever-increasing nose dive into a black-hole of personal hell. That's irrelevant to the matters at hand.

No doubt you're absolutely correct here from any leftist perspective...."Ultimately, society needs to be re-organized along lines that do NOT fundamentally lead to ever-increasing concentration of wealth in ever-fewer hands."

Problem is you left something out if the working class is to actually control its own destiny. And that would be this..."Ultimately, society also needs to be re-organized along lines that DO NOT fundamentally lead to an EVER-INCREASING CONCENTRATION OF POWER in EVER-FEWER HANDS."

Yes that is an indictment of top down state socialism under autocratic and vanguard party rule. Dictatorial party rule - over the workers themselves - posing as a "worker's party." Yes..I'm calling you out on this and yes I'm asking you to reconcile this to the multitudes - who seek full emancipation of the working class from the chains of top down state dictatorial rule in any form - who up vote your posts on a daily basis including myself.

Don't give me a f##king mountain of copy and pastes either - because the f##king hypocrisy in such efforts is glaring when you start ruminating on poser a##holes like Parenti and a multitude of intellectual navel-gazing Castro loving f##ks who couldn't find working class with a road map - to make your case. Castro was a autocrat pr##k and a tyrant of the highest order who lived like a f##king king while presiding over a welfare state of slaves posing as "working class emancipation."

Here is your f##cking Marxist/Leninist hero below that you tried to discredit me with over yonder. Yes...your lack of support and paternalistic bullshit ( "Don't be to hard on SteelPirate he is further along the path than most") over there has me seething and seeking full retribution towards your bullshit. Get this through your skull Maxwell. The Marxist/Leninist sect of Marxism is a f##king dead-end in bringing workers on board. That you and those three remaining posers over there don't understand that at this point is a testimony to their utter irrelevance in the struggle. Despite any major differences and less than civil words for Hedges, aprescoup, Debs14 and the like around these parts they were not totally wrong by any stretch. Using Stalin and the Soviet Union as polemics against the right-wing and the capitalist ruling class scum is one thing. Defending that as the only possible path to working class emancipation is quite another because it has proven to be an abject failure in such matters that leads to other forms of vicious oppression and exploitation of the workers.That is "self-criticism" of our f##cking program whether you like it or not.

I'll let you ponder this paraphrase and take it as you wish because you need a wake-up call if your intentions are good (which I still believe they are).

"The best way to control the opposition to capitalism is to LEAD THE OPPOSITION TO CAPITALISM INTO A DEAD-END"

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/truthdig/chris_hedges_the_mafia_state_truthdig/#comment-3037545926

Followed by this curious comment from a Mr.Z:

Yes.

I have so much to say SP. Some of what you reference here I'm well aware of, while some of the other stuff I have a fairly good idea. Until Maxwell responds to you I want to say only this: the impact of this election has been catastrophic. Do not underestimate its impact, emotional and otherwise. As despicable as an HRC presidency would have been, if nothing else, I think we on the left may have been much better prepared to deal with it. Trust me, we are ALL struggling - and even more so doing it within the constraints of the isolation inherent in these technological idiot boxes. Head up, man.

This makes sense.

I will post this here in the event in gets edited out:

From SP:

I was gonna retire from the online fray. I sent a few private obituaries. I can't seem to drag myself away for more than a few days despite an ever-increasing nose dive into a black-hole of personal hell. That's irrelevant to the matters at hand.

No doubt you're absolutely correct here from any leftist perspective...."Ultimately, society needs to be re-organized along lines that do NOT fundamentally lead to ever-increasing concentration of wealth in ever-fewer hands."

Problem is you left something out if the working class is to actually control its own destiny. And that would be this..."Ultimately, society also needs to be re-organized along lines that DO NOT fundamentally lead to an EVER-INCREASING CONCENTRATION OF POWER in EVER-FEWER HANDS."

Yes that is an indictment of top down state socialism under autocratic and vanguard party rule. Dictatorial party rule - over the workers themselves - posing as a "worker's party." Yes..I'm calling you out on this and yes I'm asking you to reconcile this to the multitudes - who seek full emancipation of the working class from the chains of top down state dictatorial rule in any form - who up vote your posts on a daily basis including myself.

Don't give me a f##king mountain of copy and pastes either - because the f##king hypocrisy in such efforts is glaring when you start ruminating on poser a##holes like Parenti and a multitude of intellectual navel-gazing Castro loving f##ks who couldn't find working class with a road map - to make your case. Castro was a autocrat pr##k and a tyrant of the highest order who lived like a f##king king while presiding over a welfare state of slaves posing as "working class emancipation."

Here is your f##cking Marxist/Leninist hero below that you tried to discredit me with over yonder. Yes...your lack of support and paternalistic bullshit ( "Don't be to hard on SteelPirate he is further along the path than most") over there has me seething and seeking full retribution towards your bullshit. Get this through your skull Maxwell. The Marxist/Leninist sect of Marxism is a f##king dead-end in bringing workers on board. That you and those three remaining posers over there don't understand that at this point is a testimony to their utter irrelevance in the struggle. Despite any major differences and less than civil words for Hedges, aprescoup, Debs14 and the like around these parts they were not totally wrong by any stretch. Using Stalin and the Soviet Union as polemics against the right-wing and the capitalist ruling class scum is one thing. Defending that as the only possible path to working class emancipation is quite another because it has proven to be an abject failure in such matters that leads to other forms of vicious oppression and exploitation of the workers.That is "self-criticism" of our f##cking program whether you like it or not.

I'll let you ponder this paraphrase and take it as you wish because you need a wake-up call if your intentions are good (which I still believe they are).

"The best way to control the opposition to capitalism is to LEAD THE OPPOSITION TO CAPITALISM INTO A DEAD-END"

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/truthdig/chris_hedges_the_mafia_state_truthdig/#comment-3037545926

Followed by this curious comment from a Mr.Z:

Yes.

I have so much to say SP. Some of what you reference here I'm well aware of, while some of the other stuff I have a fairly good idea. Until Maxwell responds to you I want to say only this: the impact of this election has been catastrophic. Do not underestimate its impact, emotional and otherwise. As despicable as an HRC presidency would have been, if nothing else, I think we on the left may have been much better prepared to deal with it. Trust me, we are ALL struggling - and even more so doing it within the constraints of the isolation inherent in these technological idiot boxes. Head up, man.

He could not have been more obvious. I for one tried to take him at his word, but I have little experience with these right-wing anarchists in left clothing. This bit is exactly backwards:
"The best way to control the opposition to capitalism is to LEAD THE OPPOSITION TO CAPITALISM INTO A DEAD-END"
The idea that no leadership is pure enough, no organization is "free" enough, all theory and strategy is too complicated and confusing to the poor, stupid workers - that is the way to control opposition to capitalism. We know that Marxism/Leninism won revolutions in a number of countries - and sustained those revolutions against a world full of bourgeois opposition. These are facts that steelpirate and his ilk deny, but their denials are lies aimed at working class subjugation.
The whole idea that "top-down" is anathema to working class power is laughably bourgeois in its nature. As social animals, we have evolved in social groups that were hierarchical, these groups were organized with same class leadership, this is our evolution. It wasn't until relatively very recently that class became superimposed upon our societies - history began and struggle ensued. This primitive, bourgeois concept of the "free" person is comically anti-working class - steelpirate and his ... fellows should read Pisarev. Instead they read (maybe) Turgenev and get all of the class conditions and dichotomies precisely backwards.
Steelpirate world is cratering because of his personal feelings about what had happened over the last few months. He identifies working class with Democratic (oh, he'll deny it, but his words and moans tell a different story). Now that THE EVIL ONE has become emperor, the world is about to end! Yeah, the evil one has always equaled "emperor" regardless of who the title is hung upon. I love the bourgeois historians, echoing the slaver historians, who categorize Roman Emperors as either "good" or "bad", based upon ruling class criteria. Steelpirate and even TA (at least in this last exchange) are classifying bourgeois politicians as "good' or "bad" based upon ruling class criteria; they will say otherwise, but cannot back it up with anything but 'feelings, nothing more than feelings' (stealing that from BP).

This makes sense.

I will post this here in the event in gets edited out:

From SP:

I was gonna retire from the online fray. I sent a few private obituaries. I can't seem to drag myself away for more than a few days despite an ever-increasing nose dive into a black-hole of personal hell. That's irrelevant to the matters at hand.

No doubt you're absolutely correct here from any leftist perspective...."Ultimately, society needs to be re-organized along lines that do NOT fundamentally lead to ever-increasing concentration of wealth in ever-fewer hands."

Problem is you left something out if the working class is to actually control its own destiny. And that would be this..."Ultimately, society also needs to be re-organized along lines that DO NOT fundamentally lead to an EVER-INCREASING CONCENTRATION OF POWER in EVER-FEWER HANDS."

Yes that is an indictment of top down state socialism under autocratic and vanguard party rule. Dictatorial party rule - over the workers themselves - posing as a "worker's party." Yes..I'm calling you out on this and yes I'm asking you to reconcile this to the multitudes - who seek full emancipation of the working class from the chains of top down state dictatorial rule in any form - who up vote your posts on a daily basis including myself.

Don't give me a f##king mountain of copy and pastes either - because the f##king hypocrisy in such efforts is glaring when you start ruminating on poser a##holes like Parenti and a multitude of intellectual navel-gazing Castro loving f##ks who couldn't find working class with a road map - to make your case. Castro was a autocrat pr##k and a tyrant of the highest order who lived like a f##king king while presiding over a welfare state of slaves posing as "working class emancipation."

Here is your f##cking Marxist/Leninist hero below that you tried to discredit me with over yonder. Yes...your lack of support and paternalistic bullshit ( "Don't be to hard on SteelPirate he is further along the path than most") over there has me seething and seeking full retribution towards your bullshit. Get this through your skull Maxwell. The Marxist/Leninist sect of Marxism is a f##king dead-end in bringing workers on board. That you and those three remaining posers over there don't understand that at this point is a testimony to their utter irrelevance in the struggle. Despite any major differences and less than civil words for Hedges, aprescoup, Debs14 and the like around these parts they were not totally wrong by any stretch. Using Stalin and the Soviet Union as polemics against the right-wing and the capitalist ruling class scum is one thing. Defending that as the only possible path to working class emancipation is quite another because it has proven to be an abject failure in such matters that leads to other forms of vicious oppression and exploitation of the workers.That is "self-criticism" of our f##cking program whether you like it or not.

I'll let you ponder this paraphrase and take it as you wish because you need a wake-up call if your intentions are good (which I still believe they are).

"The best way to control the opposition to capitalism is to LEAD THE OPPOSITION TO CAPITALISM INTO A DEAD-END"

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/truthdig/chris_hedges_the_mafia_state_truthdig/#comment-3037545926

Followed by this curious comment from a Mr.Z:

Yes.

I have so much to say SP. Some of what you reference here I'm well aware of, while some of the other stuff I have a fairly good idea. Until Maxwell responds to you I want to say only this: the impact of this election has been catastrophic. Do not underestimate its impact, emotional and otherwise. As despicable as an HRC presidency would have been, if nothing else, I think we on the left may have been much better prepared to deal with it. Trust me, we are ALL struggling - and even more so doing it within the constraints of the isolation inherent in these technological idiot boxes. Head up, man.

One of the first things Dahlgren said to me upon joining was, "Take everything at face value." Surprised he got so mad at you, specifically. After reading through some threads it's obvious that all who's left here are on different pages--more or less--from each other; to group you all together is misleading. Instead, he sort of burned a bridge with you, a potential ally. After catching up with the Allen call-out I'm confused on his opinion of the Bell. The four or so of you have been accepting of Allen's inner-battle and have been willing to deal with personal confusion as long as it's not taken out here. Granted, SP was eventually met with antagonism, he didn't need to be so personal with his criticism when the conversation was attempting to return to civility. There's no reason why someone like him couldn't post here, otherwise.

Steelpirate world is cratering because of his personal feelings about what had happened over the last few months.

This phenom is true for many self-described leftists, not just SteelPirate. It's an ingrained liberalism that some are unwilling to shake. This romantic sense of self, disguising as practical, smacks of the Ayn Rand books I had to read in high school.

One of the first things Dahlgren said to me upon joining was, "Take everything at face value." Surprised he got so mad at you, specifically. After reading through some threads it's obvious that all who's left here are on different pages--more or less--from each other; to group you all together is misleading. Instead, he sort of burned a bridge with you, a potential ally. After catching up with the Allen call-out I'm confused on his opinion of the Bell. The four or so of you have been accepting of Allen's inner-battle and have been willing to deal with personal confusion as long as it's not taken out here. Granted, SP was eventually met with antagonism, he didn't need to be so personal with his criticism when the conversation was attempting to return to civility. There's no reason why someone like him couldn't post here, otherwise.

You're right. Looking back over the debacle of this thread, there were numerous times and attempts at getting back to business, but each was refused.
The most telling aspect of these exchanges were the lack of substance in SP's declarative statements. When asked to substantiate his 'fears' or 'premonitions', his 'critiques' (these were barely "critiques", at all), he would simply become more angry. I think this is because his fears, premonitions, and ideas regarding the current conditions are not based upon analysis and criticisms, but upon feelings and personal reactions to situations. That is the most favorable explanation I can proffer. Another, less generous, one would be that he is consciously disrupting and is intent upon mischief. I am not in a position to make that determination, but either could be reasonably justified if strictly pursued.

This phenom is true for many self-described leftists, not just SteelPirate. It's an ingrained liberalism that some are unwilling to shake. This romantic sense of self, disguising as practical, smacks of the Ayn Rand books I had to read in high school.

This is the primary difference between Turgenev's Fathers and Sons and Nikolay Chernyshevsky's What Is To Be Done (apart from Turgenev's much more lucid prose).

Turgenev could never shake the idea of personal primacy - all of his characters displayed this concept regardless of what their class, status, or ideology was. Chernyshevky's characters, on the other hand, were varied and those who were breaking with the bourgeois past were visibly becoming less and less invested in the personal and more and more embracing of the social or the group. While those characters clinging to the personal were becoming more and more absurd, even ridiculous.

Sorry of the little pedantic aside, but I have been trying to place this difference between these two for a long time and your post just crystalized the issues.

This makes sense.

I will post this here in the event in gets edited out:

From SP:

I was gonna retire from the online fray. I sent a few private obituaries. I can't seem to drag myself away for more than a few days despite an ever-increasing nose dive into a black-hole of personal hell. That's irrelevant to the matters at hand.

No doubt you're absolutely correct here from any leftist perspective...."Ultimately, society needs to be re-organized along lines that do NOT fundamentally lead to ever-increasing concentration of wealth in ever-fewer hands."

Problem is you left something out if the working class is to actually control its own destiny. And that would be this..."Ultimately, society also needs to be re-organized along lines that DO NOT fundamentally lead to an EVER-INCREASING CONCENTRATION OF POWER in EVER-FEWER HANDS."

Yes that is an indictment of top down state socialism under autocratic and vanguard party rule. Dictatorial party rule - over the workers themselves - posing as a "worker's party." Yes..I'm calling you out on this and yes I'm asking you to reconcile this to the multitudes - who seek full emancipation of the working class from the chains of top down state dictatorial rule in any form - who up vote your posts on a daily basis including myself.

Don't give me a f##king mountain of copy and pastes either - because the f##king hypocrisy in such efforts is glaring when you start ruminating on poser a##holes like Parenti and a multitude of intellectual navel-gazing Castro loving f##ks who couldn't find working class with a road map - to make your case. Castro was a autocrat pr##k and a tyrant of the highest order who lived like a f##king king while presiding over a welfare state of slaves posing as "working class emancipation."

Here is your f##cking Marxist/Leninist hero below that you tried to discredit me with over yonder. Yes...your lack of support and paternalistic bullshit ( "Don't be to hard on SteelPirate he is further along the path than most") over there has me seething and seeking full retribution towards your bullshit. Get this through your skull Maxwell. The Marxist/Leninist sect of Marxism is a f##king dead-end in bringing workers on board. That you and those three remaining posers over there don't understand that at this point is a testimony to their utter irrelevance in the struggle. Despite any major differences and less than civil words for Hedges, aprescoup, Debs14 and the like around these parts they were not totally wrong by any stretch. Using Stalin and the Soviet Union as polemics against the right-wing and the capitalist ruling class scum is one thing. Defending that as the only possible path to working class emancipation is quite another because it has proven to be an abject failure in such matters that leads to other forms of vicious oppression and exploitation of the workers.That is "self-criticism" of our f##cking program whether you like it or not.

I'll let you ponder this paraphrase and take it as you wish because you need a wake-up call if your intentions are good (which I still believe they are).

"The best way to control the opposition to capitalism is to LEAD THE OPPOSITION TO CAPITALISM INTO A DEAD-END"

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/truthdig/chris_hedges_the_mafia_state_truthdig/#comment-3037545926

Followed by this curious comment from a Mr.Z:

Yes.

I have so much to say SP. Some of what you reference here I'm well aware of, while some of the other stuff I have a fairly good idea. Until Maxwell responds to you I want to say only this: the impact of this election has been catastrophic. Do not underestimate its impact, emotional and otherwise. As despicable as an HRC presidency would have been, if nothing else, I think we on the left may have been much better prepared to deal with it. Trust me, we are ALL struggling - and even more so doing it within the constraints of the isolation inherent in these technological idiot boxes. Head up, man.

I trust you will fulfill SP's every need....

Mr Z is kinda interesting, " the impact of this election has been catastrophic". Yeah? For who? If we're a bit laconic about the Donald it's cause there is nothing concrete to say, yet. Sure it's coming, many will be hurt and more advances will be trampled, and there ain't no getting around it. The recount is partisan bullshit, though it does serve the good purpose of pissing Trump off.

Had Clinton been elected 'The Left', as Mr Z has it, would continue to do what it has for the last eight years, nothing. Well, this shakes things up, and anyone who suggests closing ranks with 'like-minded' liberals & progressives needs a punch in the nose, been there. Rather we must be the most devastating critics of Trump and will run over any temporizing. As bad as Trump will be he cannot be separated from capitalism, which is what the liberals will do, not a bad apple but the bumper crop. Trump won't be our Louis 16, but he'll be more 'fun' than a barrel of Nihilists. Rather than whining, hair-on-fire or prepping we should recognize a potential opportunity.

I trust you will fulfill SP's every need....

Mr Z is kinda interesting, " the impact of this election has been catastrophic". Yeah? For who? If we're a bit laconic about the Donald it's cause there is nothing concrete to say, yet. Sure it's coming, many will be hurt and more advances will be trampled, and there ain't no getting around it. The recount is partisan bullshit, though it does serve the good purpose of pissing Trump off.

Had Clinton been elected 'The Left', as Mr Z has it, would continue to do what it has for the last eight years, nothing. Well, this shakes things up, and anyone who suggests closing ranks with 'like-minded' liberals & progressives needs a punch in the nose, been there. Rather we must be the most devastating critics of Trump and will run over any temporizing. As bad as Trump will be he cannot be separated from capitalism, which is what the liberals will do, not a bad apple but the bumper crop. Trump won't be our Louis 16, but he'll be more 'fun' than a barrel of Nihilists. Rather than whining, hair-on-fire or prepping we should recognize a potential opportunity.

One of things you hear from so many liberals (closet or out) is that the working class "moved" from supporting Obama to supporting Trump. This is a lament and an accusation, a castigation of working class racism and chauvinism. But the real thing to grasp is that the working class moved, in large percentages and together! This is a good thing (or can be); the working class is moving together, seeing class advantages in movement as a class. This could be taken advantage of as at least a preamble to consciousness, if nothing else. If we had a vanguard party - hell, just an organized, active, conscious working class party - this movement could be seen for the opportunity that it is.

“A more humane society is possible!” – Speech by Fidel Castro on May 1st, 2002 at the Plaza de la Revolución

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2016/12/a-more-humane-society-is-possible.html

Speech by Comandante Fidel Castro Ruz at the International Workers’ Day celebration at the Plaza de la Revolución, in Havana, on May 1, 2002.

Distinguished guests;

Dear countrymen:

We were condemned in Geneva by those who believe that this sea of people gathered here, which can be seen from every corner of the globe, has been deprived of its human rights. I am certain that not one of those Latin American countries that promoted, co-sponsored or supported this project could gather even 5 % of the number here in their respective capitals.

Are these fanatic, ignorant and uncultured individuals who lack any historical or political knowledge? If we were to ask this mass of people if there were any amongst them who could not read or write; or if there were any functional illiterate people who had never studied beyond grammar school, not one person could raise their hand. But if we were to ask how many of this same mass have the education of a ninth grader or above, more than 90 %, would raise their hands. The only ones who wouldn’t raise their hands would be the students who haven’t yet reached their 15thbirthdays.

Our people’s glorious tradition of rebellion and patriotic struggle, to which we must today add a full and profound understanding of freedom, equality and human dignity; their solidarity and internationalist spirit; their self-confidence and heroic conduct; 43 years of tenacious and unrelenting struggle against the powerful empire; a broad and solid political culture and an extraordinary humanism –all of these qualities cultivated by the Revolution– have made Cuba a unique country.

Wretched indeed is the destiny of hundreds of millions of people in this part of the world who, from a truly human perspective, have been as yet unable to emerge from humanity’s prehistory. And it will not be possible for them to escape such condition while the pillage that slaughtered tens of millions of their native ancestors, successively turning their countries into colonies, neo-colonies and economically dependant and underdeveloped countries, continues to govern their destiny.

Events prior to, during and after Geneva are barely distinguishable from the shameful history with which our people have been more than familiar since the very first days after the triumph of the Revolution on January 1st, 1959.

Cuba was the last Latin American country to free itself from Spanish colonialism after a heroic and lone struggle. Yet, it was unable to enjoy that victory, as it immediately fell in the hands of the fledgling North American empire, from which it once again liberated itself with the same determination and heroism 61 years later although it would be disgracefully abandoned and betrayed by every other Latin American government.

No book by Marx or Lenin could illustrate the anti-national, submissive and treacherous nature of the Latin American oligarchies and the true significance of imperialism for the destiny of our people as clearly as the last 43 years of our Revolution’s history. Every oligarchic and bourgeois government joined in the imperialist policy of isolation, blockade and aggression against Cuba, the sole exception being a country that had experienced its own great social revolution some decades before, the same that brought justice and real progress to the people of a nation mutilated by the insatiable expansionism of its northern neighbor and made the martyr on numerous occasions throughout its hazardous and painful history of foreign intervention and conquest. Tragically, this time the exception has become rule.

Cuba is no longer the illiterate, uncultured and inexperienced country of those early days. Today, the Latin American population, that numbered 208 millions at that time including the English-speaking Caribbean nations, have swelled to 526 millions. They have also had the opportunity to learn firsthand the meaning of imperialist domination, exploitation, injustice and pillage. Despite the deluge of slander and lies against our exemplary people and their admirable struggle, and in the face of countless capitulations across the globe, there are ever more people who realize that Cuba is a powerful moral force, that defends the truth and shows its solidarity with other people of the world.

Our Latin American brothers have repeatedly been told stories as fantastic as those in the “Arabian nights”, in which they believe less and less every day. For 50 years they have been told that the hundreds of thousands of children that die every year due to neglect and hunger; the millions that work for pitiful salaries cleaning car windshields or shoes, or being traded or sexually exploited instead of going to school, represent democracy and respect for human rights. That the hundreds of millions of human beings living in poverty despite the immense wealth and natural resources that surround them; the vast number of unemployed and underemployed people and informal laborers who survive without the slightest aid, social security or protection; the medical neglect of mothers, children, old people and the poor population in general; the marginalization, drugs, lack of security and crime, are called democracy; are called respect for human rights. That the death squads, summary executions, torture, and the vanishing and murder of people; that the bribery, misappropriation, diversion and bare-faced robbery of public funds while schools and hospitals are closed, national assets and resources are privatized or often given away to domestic and foreign friends and partners in crime and corruption, constitute the fullest expression of democracy and human rights. It doesn’t occur to them that the economic, political and social system that they defend is a total negation of all possibility of equality, freedom, democracy, human dignity and justice.

An illiterate person or one whose education barely surpasses 4th grade, or one who lives in poverty or extreme poverty, or is unemployed or lives in shanty towns where the most unimaginable conditions are rife, or a person who wanders the streets exposed to the constant poison of commercial advertising sowing the seeds of fantasies, illusions and the desire for impossible consumption, a person such as this, that indeed could include vast numbers of people in the desperate daily fight for survival, could be the victim of every kind of abuse, blackmail, pressure and deceit and could lack any representative organization or see these crushed. It is certainly unlikely that such a person could be in a position to understand the complex problems of the world and the society in which they live. They are in no position to exercise their democratic rights, nor decide which is the most honest or demagogic or hypocritical candidate, this under a torrent of propaganda and lies where those with the most resources spout the most lies and deceit.

No freedom of expression can exist where the principal and most effective media are an exclusive monopoly in the hands of the richest and most privileged sectors, sworn enemies of any economic, political or social change. The enjoyment of wealth, education, knowledge and culture are the preserve of those who, accounting for a tiny fraction of the population, receive the larger part of the goods produced in their countries. It is no coincidence that Latin America exhibits the greatest differences between the richest and the poorest.

What kind of democracy and human rights could exist in these conditions? It would be like trying to grow flowers in the middle of the Sahara desert.

On the other hand, when the total stripping of natural resources and the appropriation of human labor is presented as the ideal social and development model and the FTAA, i.e. the annexation and absorption of Latin America by the United States and dollarization are offered as the only way, it is clear that the prevailing political and economic system is approaching total crisis.

Events in Argentina, that is today embroiled in an unbelievable economic and political chaos that has reduced the country to hunger, with more than 20% unemployment among the working population and where the people’s bank savings –especially those of the middle and lower income classes– have been practically confiscated, point to nothing less than the swan song of neoliberal globalization. Such a crisis inevitably produces a complete lack of ethics and values.

The behavior of many leaders as they watch their model economies collapse like so many houses of cards is truly obnoxious.

People’s protests are crushed with amazing violence. Tear gas, people dragged through the streets, brutality exercised against masses by the police armed with shields and swathed in the strangest helmets and outfits giving them the appearance of recent arrivals from a distant planet, are the methods used to defend that democracy and their citizen’s human rights.

Similar scenes have never been witnessed in our country. Never, over more than four decades, has force been used against our people. The revolutionary process grows out of the closest unity and cooperation of all our people, under a consensus without precedent in any other country in the world, unworkable and even unimaginable in a society of exploiters and exploited.

A cultured, rebellious, brave and heroic people such as the Cuban could never be ruled by force, nor a force exist that would rule it because the Cuban people is the force. Never would our people stir up rebellion against themselves because they are the revolution, they are the government, they are the power. It is with their courage, intelligence and ideas that they have defended themselves from the most powerful empire the world has ever known.

Such a political phenomenon had never before occurred in our hemisphere.

Force has always been used by the oligarchs and the empire against the people.

Each and every one of the Latin American countries that condemned us in Geneva or co-sponsored the draft resolution against Cuba are well below achieving the educational, cultural and social rates that are essential for a healthy, decent and just life of their citizens. Not one can match Cuba in a single one of these rates.

For the sake of time, I will outline just a few figures for Latin America as a whole as compared to Cuba.

Illiteracy rate: Latin America, 11.7 %; Cuba, 0.2 % Inhabitants per teacher: Latin America, 98.4; Cuba, 43, in other words, 2.3 times as many teachers per capita Primary education enrolment ratio: Latin America, 92 %; Cuba, 100% Secondary education enrolment ratio: Latin America, 52 %; Cuba, 99.7 % Primary school students reaching Fifth Grade: Latin America, 76 %; Cuba, 100 % Infant mortality per thousand live births: Latin America, 32; Cuba, 6.2 Medical doctors per hundred thousand inhabitants: Latin America, 160; Cuba, 590 Dentists per hundred thousand inhabitants: Latin America, 63; Cuba, 89 Nurses per hundred thousand inhabitants: Latin America, 69; Cuba, 743 Hospital beds per 100 thousand inhabitants: Latin America, 220; Cuba, 631.6 Medically attended births: Latin America, 86.5 %; Cuba, 100 % Life expectancy at birth: Latin America, 70 years; Cuba, 76 years Population between 15 and 49 years of age infected with HIV/AIDS: Latin America, 0.5 %; Cuba, 0.05 % Annual AIDS infection rate per million inhabitants, i.e. those who develop the disease: Latin America, 65.25; Cuba, 15.6 The first international study of the Latin American Laboratory of Evaluation of educational quality, carried out in 12 Latin American countries including Cuba, produced the following results. Although these data have been already mentioned, I would like to briefly refer to them in detail:

In Language, 3rdGrade: Cuba, 85.74 points; the remaining 11 countries, 59.11 points
In Language, 4thGrade: Cuba, 87.25; the rest, 63.75
In Mathematics, 3rdGrade: Cuba, 87.75; the rest, 58.31
In Mathematics, 4thGrade: Cuba, 88.25; the rest, 62.04
What is or will be the future of those countries?

According to these figures, of the seven Latin American countries that voted against Cuba, four –Costa Rica, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay– that had boasted in the past of being the most advanced in the region, fall well behind Cuban figures. In some of these, they reach or scrape past the half way mark in comparison to Cuba, but in others they are very well below. This is the case of pre-school education for 0-5 year olds, for example, that only reaches 15.8 % of the children in that age group in Chile as compared to Cuba’s 99.2 %.

It requires a truly cynical person to join such a Mafia-style adventure, in which they have been involved at the urge of the imperial overlords.

The response to the emergence of the Bolivarian Revolution in which the people and the military joined together to unleash a revolutionary and democratic process that is also unprecedented, was a fascist coup d’état.

The privileged oligarchy, that enjoys the bulk of the country’s income and owns the most powerful media, set its followers on the Bolivarian people and the headquarters of the President himself under the influence and support of imperialism. Their goal was a bloody encounter that could be used to justify the coordinated actions of a small but extremely well-placed military force. Miraculously a bloody civil war was averted, thanks to the reasonable and sensible behavior of President Chávez, the support of the Bolivarian people and the loyalty of the vast majority of the officers and men of the Armed Forces in that sister nation. A new page in America’s complex and arduous history has been turned by the very people that began the process of independence from Spain in this hemisphere.

The stripping of Cuba’s right to representation in Monterrey, the fascist coup in Venezuela and the disgraceful behavior in Geneva in the order in which they occurred have exposed and offered evidence of the dirty and hypocritical politics of the empire’s lackeys. I must point out that the Presidents of Brazil, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and the English-speaking Caribbean countries did not join the celebrations of the coup. In the same way, Bolivia and Colombia joined the above countries in rejecting the deplorable behavior in Geneva.

As for the fascist coup, not one condemned it except for the Argentinean President who was perhaps nervous considering his delicate political situation in which even a police Sargent could easily overthrow him.

One month later, when the scandal broke out after the shameful Monterrey episode, some leaders maintained a decent silence. Not so the distinguished Secretary General of the discredited and repulsive OAS, as if that organization really existed. He threw poison darts with his support for the abuse sustained by Cuba.

What a trash are many of those who pretend to be sovereign governors!

The honorable history of our Motherland, that once stood alone in battle against practically every one of the predecessors to those governments that voted against Cuba, who had allied themselves to the United States at that time in support of the Bay of Pigs invasion; that heroically resisted without a moment’s weakness on the brink of being wiped off the face of the Earth in the October Crisis of 1962; should shame those conspiring with the United States in Geneva, if they still have at least, the freedom to be ashamed of themselves. Neither will they be able to deny without blushing that when the socialist camp collapsed, the USSR disintegrated, the Yankee blockade was tightened to include the sale of medicines and food, classified as a crime of genocide by the 1948 and 1949 Conventions, and all believed that the Cuban Revolution would be on its knees in just a few weeks, our people endured with unprecedented heroism and resilience.

Cuba, after withstanding the most unbelievable difficulties and threats, terrorist attacks and risks of all kinds has never and will never put down its flags before the hegemonic superpower that today hands out orders to its lackeys and bootlickers in this unfortunate hemisphere through a terrorist made Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, showing an utter lack of respect by the United States government and an utter lack of modesty by its lackeys.

When Cuba’s honor, morale and credibility were called into question by the disagreement with the host country, it became very clear that hypocrisy and lies are inseparable and almost unique tools of the prevailing political and economic system in Latin America.

My decency and ethics were under question when, placed in the dilemma of being loyal to a lie or loyal to the truth; loyal to deceit and slandering manipulation of the facts, or loyal to our people and all peoples of the world, I was loyal to the truth and to the people. The vestal virgins of the temple of hypocrisy tore their clothes in the name of privacy. Even honest men who had been outraged witnesses in the past to electoral incidents and dishonest traps of political adversaries were led to believe that my behavior was inappropriate.

I did not invent anything, I called no-one nor laid any trap for anyone. I gave as much warning as I could to those who had challenged me for more than a month with their demands for evidence, evidence and more evidence. Although by no means did I feel bound by what was later proved, in the course of events, to be a deceitful trick to force me into silence and confidentiality over such a significant issue, I clearly demanded the cessation of all offences. Then, when the lies, slander and demands for proof continued over several weeks, I fulfilled the warning I had made.

I was also accused of being vengeful because of the unfulfilled promise related to Geneva. All my life I have been a gentleman to my adversaries, even in war situations surrounded by death. I’ve never humiliated, offended nor wreaked revenge on a single prisoner, not even in the case of the Bay of Pigs while my comrades lay mortally wounded or dead around me. But I do know how to distinguish the ethical from the unethical. I delayed presentation of the evidence demanded from me only out of the desire to cause no harm to a sister country I admire and respect. Representatives from some friendly governments that participated in the Summit chastised me for not having presented the evidence in the conference itself.

Lying is and will always be unjustifiable from a political, ethical and religious perspective. From what I remember of the catechism lessons I received in 1st Grade in a catholic school, it violates the eighth commandment of God’s law. One must be honorable.

I did not seek any pretexts, and I did not hesitate in expressing the need and duty to leave a historical record of that conversation which they asked me to keep private only once it had already begun. My personal letter to the President was also private, however, it was published without consulting me 48 hours later, on the very same day I left Monterrey.

I truly regret having to include this issue in my speech, but I felt it was my duty to do so. High ranking officials from that country continue to attack us on a daily basis over this subject, which is still too fresh to consign it to the wastebasket of forgetfulness.

To those who so foolishly speak and repeat the imperialists slogan that no democracy and no respect for human rights exist in Cuba, let me repeat: no-one can question the fact that, despite being very small, our country today is the freest, fairest and most supportive country on the planet. It is also by far the most democratic. There is only one Party, but this neither nominates nor elects candidates. This is completely forbidden: it is the citizens from the grassroots level who propose, nominate and elect candidates. Our country enjoys an enviable and ever more solid and indestructible unity. The media is public and does not and cannot belong to private individuals. It carries no commercial advertisements and it does not promote consumerism; it entertains and informs, educates and never alienates.

Cuba already occupies world-wide outstanding and hard-to-surpass positions in a growing number of fields essential to guarantee life and the most fundamental political, civil, social, and human rights to ensure the well-being and future of our people. The mass political knowledge of the Cuban people is unrivalled in any other country. Its cultural and social programs and achievements advance at an unprecedented pace.

Our dreams become reality. A more humane society is possible, lies and slander notwithstanding. History will bear this out.

Long live Socialism!

Motherland or Death!

We shall overcome!

http://houstoncommunistparty.com/a-more-humane-society-is-possible-speech-by-fidel-castro-on-may-1st-2002-at-the-plaza-de-la-revolucion/

"Our dreams become reality. A more humane society is possible, lies and slander notwithstanding. History will bear this out.

Long live Socialism!

Motherland or Death!

We shall overcome!"

It just needs to be said, often and loudly.

This makes sense.

I will post this here in the event in gets edited out:

From SP:

I was gonna retire from the online fray. I sent a few private obituaries. I can't seem to drag myself away for more than a few days despite an ever-increasing nose dive into a black-hole of personal hell. That's irrelevant to the matters at hand.

No doubt you're absolutely correct here from any leftist perspective...."Ultimately, society needs to be re-organized along lines that do NOT fundamentally lead to ever-increasing concentration of wealth in ever-fewer hands."

Problem is you left something out if the working class is to actually control its own destiny. And that would be this..."Ultimately, society also needs to be re-organized along lines that DO NOT fundamentally lead to an EVER-INCREASING CONCENTRATION OF POWER in EVER-FEWER HANDS."

Yes that is an indictment of top down state socialism under autocratic and vanguard party rule. Dictatorial party rule - over the workers themselves - posing as a "worker's party." Yes..I'm calling you out on this and yes I'm asking you to reconcile this to the multitudes - who seek full emancipation of the working class from the chains of top down state dictatorial rule in any form - who up vote your posts on a daily basis including myself.

Don't give me a f##king mountain of copy and pastes either - because the f##king hypocrisy in such efforts is glaring when you start ruminating on poser a##holes like Parenti and a multitude of intellectual navel-gazing Castro loving f##ks who couldn't find working class with a road map - to make your case. Castro was a autocrat pr##k and a tyrant of the highest order who lived like a f##king king while presiding over a welfare state of slaves posing as "working class emancipation."

Here is your f##cking Marxist/Leninist hero below that you tried to discredit me with over yonder. Yes...your lack of support and paternalistic bullshit ( "Don't be to hard on SteelPirate he is further along the path than most") over there has me seething and seeking full retribution towards your bullshit. Get this through your skull Maxwell. The Marxist/Leninist sect of Marxism is a f##king dead-end in bringing workers on board. That you and those three remaining posers over there don't understand that at this point is a testimony to their utter irrelevance in the struggle. Despite any major differences and less than civil words for Hedges, aprescoup, Debs14 and the like around these parts they were not totally wrong by any stretch. Using Stalin and the Soviet Union as polemics against the right-wing and the capitalist ruling class scum is one thing. Defending that as the only possible path to working class emancipation is quite another because it has proven to be an abject failure in such matters that leads to other forms of vicious oppression and exploitation of the workers.That is "self-criticism" of our f##cking program whether you like it or not.

I'll let you ponder this paraphrase and take it as you wish because you need a wake-up call if your intentions are good (which I still believe they are).

"The best way to control the opposition to capitalism is to LEAD THE OPPOSITION TO CAPITALISM INTO A DEAD-END"

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/truthdig/chris_hedges_the_mafia_state_truthdig/#comment-3037545926

Followed by this curious comment from a Mr.Z:

Yes.

I have so much to say SP. Some of what you reference here I'm well aware of, while some of the other stuff I have a fairly good idea. Until Maxwell responds to you I want to say only this: the impact of this election has been catastrophic. Do not underestimate its impact, emotional and otherwise. As despicable as an HRC presidency would have been, if nothing else, I think we on the left may have been much better prepared to deal with it. Trust me, we are ALL struggling - and even more so doing it within the constraints of the isolation inherent in these technological idiot boxes. Head up, man.


Edit it ? Why would I edit it Chlams ? I meant every word of it as is. I don't edit shit over there and never have. My posting history is an open book. Seems you did a little editing yourself and didn't post the whole thing over here. You failed to respond over there and brought it here instead. TA just asked me not to burn bridges. In light of your agreement with Professor Dhalgren that I just happened upon the scene out of nowhere just recently (you know this to be an utterly laughable claim) maybe I should have. Care to respond to this little tidbit from this bastion of Marxist/Leninist thought Parenti ? Man the hypocrisy is thick Chlams.

"AMY GOODMAN: Michael Parenti, what do you think has to be done this year? What do you think needs to be done to turn this country around, since clearly that's
what you would like to see?

MICHAEL PARENTI: Massive demonstrations, agitations at all levels on all of these basic issues, and more and more pressuring of the mainstream media to expose the kinds of nefarious things that are being perpetrated by the white house, which not only are bad for the country, but as one of your opening reports pointed out, may even jeopardize the very survival of our globe with global warming. I also believe electoral strategy is not irrelevant. Elections do matter. It does matter who gets elected, contrary to what some people on the militant left will say. It does matter who gets elected.

AMY GOODMAN: You might have been described in that place before, the militant left?

MICHAEL PARENTI: Yeah. I think of myself as a militant leftist, and I disagree with other people on the militant left who say it doesn't matter who gets elected. I mean, I have heard people in A.N.S.W.E.R. say this.

AMY GOODMAN: Do those who say that John Kerry voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, supported NAFTA, supported…

MICHAEL PARENTI: He still does.

AMY GOODMAN: …supported the USA Patriot Act.

MICHAEL PARENTI: Ralph Nader said it correctly. He is better than Bush, but there's a lot wanting. As a candidate, I think he will be a very poor candidate. I have never seen John Kerry give anything but an engineered response. “Hello, New Hampshire.” The guy
is wooden. He's another Al Gore.

AMY GOODMAN: John Edwards?

MICHAEL PARENTI: John Edwards is vastly better. I have been supporting Dennis Kucinich. If Dennis pulls out of the race, I will definitely go with John Edwards, yeah. I think he would actually make ultimately a stronger candidate than John Kerry."

He was - under who knows how many socks.

Edit to add:

You know this is a concerted effort to do...something, not sure. Except that it really does have to do with this year's elections. He came into place this past summer. He could be here to deflect criticism of Clinton or, in this case, to brow-beat for not being adequately anti-Trump. The idea that we were equally antagonistic toward both Trump and Clinton/Obama was not good enough. When I compared Trump to Obama, he let a little of his slip show when he said Trump "won't be benign" - indicating that considered Obama (or perhaps Clinton) as "benign".

The trying to rat-out Allen in order to get on our good side was particularly snotty and blackens his rep more than his Trot-ideology spouting does. I guess we are a tiny little burr under somebody's bonnet...


One thing's for certain Professor Dhalgren. You share a strong bond with reactionary middle-class progressives and goofball posers like Parenti in a lust for conspiracy theories and doom porn. Some delusional goofballs stand on home plate with a tennis racket thinking they just hit a home run. You ain't even made into the ballpark with your delusions. Let me refresh your memory. I'm sure it was the case that I had "so many socks here" and it's about "this years election" that I just happened to ask permission well over two years ago to use the leftist material in the archives (including yours you dunce) here as agitation on other sites. Beyond that...the idea that you think these disputes are about elections or support of the Democratic Party is so utterly laughable to not even be worthy of further discussion.

Here ya go professor goofy.

http://www.thebellforum.com/showthread.php?t=117559

One thing's for certain Professor Dhalgren. You share a strong bond with reactionary middle-class progressives and goofball posers like Parenti in a lust for conspiracy theories and doom porn. Some delusional goofballs stand on home plate with a tennis racket thinking they just hit a home run. You ain't even made into the ballpark with your delusions. Let me refresh your memory. I'm sure it was the case that I had "so many socks here" and it's about "this years election" that I just happened to ask permission well over two years ago to use the leftist material in the archives (including yours you dunce) here as agitation on other sites. Beyond that...the idea that you think these disputes are about elections or support of the Democratic Party is so utterly laughable to not even be worthy of further discussion.

Here ya go professor goofy.

http://www.thebellforum.com/showthread.php?t=117559

This is idiotic - even by your standards. In the post you site, YOU are DU. You are the one who is against working class struggle. You simply couch it in your ridiculous "stand against any hierarchies!" - the quintessential façade of the liberal troll. You claim not to see the liberal in the anarchist, another lie, no doubt. To use quotations from Anaxarchos as a shill for your adolescent utopianism should be beneath even you, but obviously it isn't. He isn't here to wad you up and throw you away - and there is no doubt among the people who know his work best that that is what he'd do with you.
This dumb-ass use of name calling and shitting on other peoples things, coming in and trying to belittle everything working class is going to stop, either being posted or being read.

This is idiotic - even by your standards. In the post you site, YOU are DU. You are the one who is against working class struggle. You simply couch it in your ridiculous "stand against any hierarchies!" - the quintessential façade of the liberal troll. You claim not to see the liberal in the anarchist, another lie, no doubt. To use quotations from Anaxarchos as a shill for your adolescent utopianism should be beneath even you, but obviously it isn't. He isn't here to wad you up and throw you away - and there is no doubt among the people who know his work best that that is what he'd do with you.
This dumb-ass use of name calling and shitting on other peoples things, coming in and trying to belittle everything working class is going to stop, either being posted or being read.

You won't get anywhere classifying everyone not on the Marxist/Leninist path as the enemy. That is the point. I've had some squabbles with both Starry and Allen. I've come to view both as not the enemy regardless of differences. I don't consider TBF the enemy because she supported Sanders. That's her business. I know what what side she's on. I've never cast a vote in my f##king life.

Beyond that you know nothing about me you motherfucker. You have no idea you fucking jackass. You are so far off in your assumptions that it's laughable. The daily struggles of the workers on the ground matter and continue to matter while you immerse yourself in your fucking one true religion. That you have the gall to lecture blue-collar people on working class struggle is a testament to your disconnect from that struggle. The utopian bullshit belongs to you. Maybe you are or maybe you're not but you speak in the tongues of upper middle class "Marxists." No struggle on the ground is good enough for you. No strike is good enough for you. No demonstration is good enough for you. No fight for reforms is good enough for you. The ironic part of that is that Marx and Engels would laugh at you.

With all that said you dumb motherfucker...unlike you...I don't consider you the enemy. I know where you stand. If I'm wrong that would make you an insidious spook of unimaginable talents.

One thing's for certain. Anax would not treat any differences like you do. You ain't no Anax and neither am I. I've no doubt he could work with people without losing patience. I have no idea what the fuck you're even talking about on this post. The link I gave you were simple responses from both Anax and TA after asking permission to use their work at other venues to prove I didn't just happen upon the scene to troll you about this election as you claim. I fully admit that I could not do their work justice and never claimed otherwise. What the fuck is wrong with you.

The problem, Inspector Pirate, with checking everyone's bona fides down to the umlaut is two-fold:

1. It personalizes something in the worst possible manner and leads to highly charged exchanges that invariably descend into ego-driven Philistinism and tirades. We can't afford to go there. The insistence of cross-checking by exchanging little black books adds an element of sheer ridiculousness to the proceedings ("what's this..Parenti?! Heretic!")

2. No discussion is truly possible because all parties are at liberty to deny the legitimacy of any person or idea that defies their own position/stance/contention.

2a. EVERYBODY is full of shit (me, you, literally everybody). We can expand on this thought sometime, but without the mudslinging and the pretension of "high ground"

Let me lead by example on all counts here:

You're an anarchist, trade unionist, syndicalist, anti-Lenin/Stalin-ist, who puts the "mensch" in Menshevik (yeah, yeah that line doesn't really work..sue me). Got it.

You hate "totalitarianism", demagogues, all things doctrinaire, zealotry, etc etc. Got it.

I will not lift a finger, even a digital one, to engage with any of the above because none of it matters except in that it poses a major problem of becoming a running sideshow that devolves everything and everyone it touches. Presumably, that is the opposite of your intention(s).

To elevate the discussion, it is now incumbent upon you to cut out what you are doing and post something which is not designed to piss someone else off because they subscribe to abc while you are certain of xyz which discredits all other three letter combinations. Oh, and you are always lookin' to pick a fight with AGCT adherents as well (although you are rather partial to four letter words in general).

If you really want to argue Bakunin or whothefuckever, play it straight and do so. Cut the monologues, cut the diatribes, Cut The Shit. If you think so little of The Bell as a whole that you think no one will reciprocate, then I fail to grasp any possible rationale for you (unless you are here to tell each and every member you dislike to kiss off in which case just tell me where to plant one and let's all move on in our lives already)

SP the reason I did not and will not respond, at any great length, is that your "comment" is a rambling claptrap of personal invective and tedious accusations. It seems you're in a loop.

Another thing you might consider is that nobody owes you anything- zero, nada, zilch. Nobody owes you an explanation, a response or an answer. That you are openly hostile and reply with little more than reactionary jargon makes it all the more breathtaking that you would expect anyone to respond to such tedium.

And why would I answer any of your questions when you have repeatedly refused to do the same?

Despite that I will answer your ridiculous query about Parenti (that's really it?) which is pure sophistry. Parenti was being stupid and was wrong right there. TA was as well when it came to Edwards. That was pointed out repeatedly during that time. And so have those who had "faith" in Kucinich. Now what? This is smashing news?

As far as any future conversations where you are focused on the myriad of personal baggages that you are bringing to the table count me out. Not interested in that sort of thing in an online political discussion. It's boring as hell.

If I'd known chlamor was going to post this I would have skipped post 207. Disciplined and to the point.

Here is Plekhanov's take on Proudhon (of course there is much more to all this, but it seems to contain a sharp point of Georgi's view:


In a society of producers of commodities, the exchange of commodities is carried out according to the labor socially necessary for their production. Labor is the source and the measure of their exchange-value. Nothing could seem more “just” than this to any man imbued with the ideas engendered by a society of producers of commodities. Unfortunately this justice is no more “eternal” than anything else here below. The development of the production of commodities necessarily brings in its train the transformation of the greater part of society into proletarians, possessing nothing but their labor-power, and of the other part into capitalists, who, buying this power, the only commodity of the proletarians, turn it into a source of wealth for themselves. In working for the capitalists the proletarian produces the income of his exploiter, at the same time as his own poverty, his own social subjection. Is not this sufficiently unjust? The partisan of the rights of the producer of commodities deplores the lot of the proletarians; he thunders against capital. But at the same time he thunders against the revolutionary tendencies of the proletarians who speak of expropriating the exploiter and of a communistic organization of production. Communism is unjust, it is the most odious tyranny. What wants organizing is not production but exchange, he assures us. But how organize exchange? That is easy enough, and what is daily going on before our eyes may serve to show us the way. Labor is the source and the measure of the value of commodities. But is the price of commodities always determined by their value? Do not prices continually vary according to the rarity or abundance of these commodities? The value of a commodity and its price are two different things; and this is the misfortune, the great misfortune of all of us poor, honest folk, who only want justice, and only ask for our own. To solve the social question, therefore we must put a stop to the arbitrariness of prices, and to the anomaly of value (Proudhon’s own expressions). And in order to do this we must “constitute” value; i.e., see that every producer shall always, in exchange for his commodity, receive exactly what it costs, private property not only cease to be theft, it will become the most adequate expression of justice. To constitute value is to constitute small private property, and small private property once constituted, everything will be justice and happiness in a world now so full of misery and injustice. And it is no good for proletarians to object, they have no means of production: by guaranteeing themselves credit gratis, all who want to work will, as by the touch of a magic wand, have everything necessary for; production.

(My emphases)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1895/anarch/ch04.htm

This seems to be the crux of the anarchist "dilemma" - they want no authority over society, but want to, somehow, ensure equality and fairness and zero exploitation and expropriation. They just have no ideas of how to theoretically attain any of this. On the 'other side', socialists have several instances of prolonged working class dominant societies that functioned (and some still do) for decades, greatly benefiting the dominant working class to look to for examples of both 'how to' and 'how not to' achieve results. The anarchists only complaints against these socialist governments are sourced from capitalist propaganda, and liberal bourgeois animus. The real problem with modern anarchism is that it has no real theoretical underpinnings, at all. And on top of that it doesn't appear to have any real social criticism behind it, at all. I would ask the anarchist a series of questions.
What constitutes our current society?
How would he/she describe the make-up of our society?
How will the food, clothing, shelter, medicine, protection/safety, education, transportation, etc. that the entire society must have manifest if the bourgeois government and society are overturned in some sort of spontaneous, anarchic, general strike?
How would the things necessary for human survival be obtained and delivered?
In an anarchic, non-authoritative democracy how would decisions be made? Would it be something like OWS?

Notice that all these questions are "how" questions, not "what" questions. The conditions present at such an event would be impossible to predict or even anticipate beyond obvious, overall conditions. But the "how" questions are where theory and social analysis can come into play. Questions that a highly disciplined, well organized, and structured hierarchy would be able, though theory, alone, to answer.

Its easy to see why Lenin was so taken with him

The problem, Inspector Pirate, with checking everyone's bona fides down to the umlaut is two-fold:

1. It personalizes something in the worst possible manner and leads to highly charged exchanges that invariably descend into ego-driven Philistinism and tirades. We can't afford to go there. The insistence of cross-checking by exchanging little black books adds an element of sheer ridiculousness to the proceedings ("what's this..Parenti?! Heretic!")

2. No discussion is truly possible because all parties are at liberty to deny the legitimacy of any person or idea that defies their own position/stance/contention.

2a. EVERYBODY is full of shit (me, you, literally everybody). We can expand on this thought sometime, but without the mudslinging and the pretension of "high ground"

Let me lead by example on all counts here:

You're an anarchist, trade unionist, syndicalist, anti-Lenin/Stalin-ist, who puts the "mensch" in Menshevik (yeah, yeah that line doesn't really work..sue me). Got it.

You hate "totalitarianism", demagogues, all things doctrinaire, zealotry, etc etc. Got it.

I will not lift a finger, even a digital one, to engage with any of the above because none of it matters except in that it poses a major problem of becoming a running sideshow that devolves everything and everyone it touches. Presumably, that is the opposite of your intention(s).

To elevate the discussion, it is now incumbent upon you to cut out what you are doing and post something which is not designed to piss someone else off because they subscribe to abc while you are certain of xyz which discredits all other three letter combinations. Oh, and you are always lookin' to pick a fight with AGCT adherents as well (although you are rather partial to four letter words in general).

If you really want to argue Bakunin or whothefuckever, play it straight and do so. Cut the monologues, cut the diatribes, Cut The Shit. If you think so little of The Bell as a whole that you think no one will reciprocate, then I fail to grasp any possible rationale for you (unless you are here to tell each and every member you dislike to kiss off in which case just tell me where to plant one and let's all move on in our lives already)

It ain't me checking anyone's credentials at this point. I think that's pretty obvious. Color me stupid but what are AGCT adherents ?

Naturally, the only thing that people who dread the facts can do is to keep on uttering phrases.


Now these are not phrases, not fables, not anecdotes about goitres and savages (Plekhanov is still retailing old jokes!) but facts. This is real unity, unity of the workers, who have tested their tactics by experience.


With the example of Trotsky’s Borba and Plekhanov’s Yedinstvo before our eyes, we shall show the deplorable and ridiculous vacillations of the intellectualist grouplets which, cut off from the working-class movement, keep on vacillating, swing to one side one day and to the other side the next, from the weak-kneed intellectual Potresov to the weak kneed intellectual Himmer.


Mr. Plekhanov’s “theoretical” reasoning is another example of the substitution of liberalism for Marxism. Mr. Plekhanov reduces the matter to the question of whether the “strategic conceptions” of the advanced elements were “right” or wrong. Marx’s reasoning was different. He noted a fact: in each case the revolution proceeded in a different fashion; he did not however seek the explanation of this difference in “strategic conceptions”. From the Marxist point of view it is ridiculous to seek it in conceptions. It should be sought in the difference in the alignment of classes. Marx himself wrote that in 1789 the French bourgeoisie united with the peasantry and that in 1848 petty-bourgeois democracy betrayed the proletariat. Mr. Plekhanov knows Marx’s opinion on the matter, but he does not mention it, because he wants to depict Marx as looking like Struve. In the France of 1789, it was a question of overthrowing absolutism and the nobility. At the then prevalent level of economic and political development, the bourgeoisie believed in a harmony of interests; it had no fears about the stability of its rule and was prepared to enter into an alliance with the peasantry. That alliance secured the complete victory of the revolution. In 1848 it was a question of the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. The proletariat was unable to win over the petty bourgeoisie, whose treachery led to the defeat of the revolution. The ascending line of 1789 was a form of revolution in which the mass of the people defeated absolutism. The descending line of 1848 was a form of revolution in which the betrayal of the proletariat by the mass of the petty bourgeoisie led to the defeat of the revolution.

Mr. Plekhanov is substituting vulgar idealism for Marxism when he reduces the question to one of “strategic conceptions”, not of the alignment of classes.


- Lenin

SP the reason I did not and will not respond, at any great length, is that your "comment" is a rambling claptrap of personal invective and tedious accusations. It seems you're in a loop.

Another thing you might consider is that nobody owes you anything- zero, nada, zilch. Nobody owes you an explanation, a response or an answer. That you are openly hostile and reply with little more than reactionary jargon makes it all the more breathtaking that you would expect anyone to respond to such tedium.

And why would I answer any of your questions when you have repeatedly refused to do the same?

Despite that I will answer your ridiculous query about Parenti (that's really it?) which is pure sophistry. Parenti was being stupid and was wrong right there. TA was as well when it came to Edwards. That was pointed out repeatedly during that time. And so have those who had "faith" in Kucinich. Now what? This is smashing news?

As far as any future conversations where you are focused on the myriad of personal baggages that you are bringing to the table count me out. Not interested in that sort of thing in an online political discussion. It's boring as hell.

I answered your questions in this thread. That you didn't care for the sources is your problem and not mine. That your sources are gospel and mine are reactionary in your mind doesn't mean your questions weren't answered.

Beyond that...and this is where it gets you off the tracks. In truth... whether Parenti is "wrong" or not in taking part in elections is subject to discussion and has no bearing on which side he's actually on. Neither Marx, Engels, Lenin, Foster nor most communists denounce working within the bourgeois electoral arena as a tactic as you so vehemently do at every venue you post at. I'm more with you than not on that but then again I'm an "anarchist" :)

It ain't me checking anyone's credentials at this point. I think that's pretty obvious. Color me stupid but what are AGCT adherents ?

I'm counting this as (4000 untyped words of) progress. AGCT is just a little joke about DNA.

In truth... whether Parenti is "wrong" or not in taking part in elections is subject to discussion and has no bearing on which side he's actually on. Neither Marx, Engels, Lenin, Foster nor most communists denounce working within the bourgeois electoral arena as a tactic as you so vehemently do at every venue you post at.

You shoulda went with instinct on this one. Parenti says that his problem with Kerry is that he is more wooden than George Washington's teeth and he dislikes Edwards because he is not Dennis Kucinich. That reads like an undisclosed heroin addiction.

Work within the bourgeois electoral arena? Ok. Swoon over the hair and the "Bask in my asshole-y radiance" smile (second preference, but still..)? You don't need "theory" to figure this one out..

- Lenin

I'm going to give Dhalgren first crack at this, but even the first part of the article already says much:


Plekhanov, as we know, has often found himself in an awkward fix on questions of tactics and organisation. During the past eleven years (since the autumn of 1903, when he went over from the Bolsheviks to the Mensheviks) he has repeatedly and comically made a muddle of these questions.He is beginning to get muddled again, a sad circumstance we feel obliged to acquaint our readers with. But first of all, we will recall the great service that Plekhanov rendered during the difficult years (1909–11). He praised the “underground” and staunchly supported the Party decisions on combating liquidationism. He exposed the, opportunism of the liquidators and their revival of Economism (a bourgeois trend in Marxism in 1894–1902). He showed that, by repudiating the “underground”, the liquidators were betraying the Party. He quite rightly explained that “Mr. Potresov” was a Judas, and that the apostles were stronger without Judas than with him.These were clear, definite and integral ideas, fully in keeping with the decisions of 1908 and 1910.

SP is trying to lure you into thinking personal story arcs have any bearing on anything. They really and truly DON'T. Very important.

I'm going to give Dhalgren first crack at this, but even the first part of the article already says much:

SP is trying to lure you into thinking personal story arcs have any bearing on anything. They really and truly DON'T. Very important.

I will clarify that I wasn't attempting to refute any importance of Plekhanov. Just that these sorts of slips into liberalism aren't uncommon and must be criticized, regardless of alienating an "ally."

- Lenin

I'll just add to The Kid's post a little (even this is unnecessary).

Many good comrades are wrong sometimes. When they are they should be criticized and corrected, not just for their own benefit but for the benefit of all. Georgi Plekhanov contributed greatly to the advancement and understanding of Marxism and historical materialism - you should really read his works, they are immensely valuable.

One of the reasons Lenin when so hard at Plekhanov when he had strayed off the rails is precisely because of Plekhanov's background and standing within Social Democracy at the time.

None of this should be personal or have anything to do with "scoring" one way or the other. It is analytical, critical, and material - period. That is one of the reasons I get so frustrated with posters who come in and just start attacking every one who disagrees with them. They will tear apart a post to find any excuse to personally attack the poster. If you challenge their ideas they become personally incensed and go into attack mode. This seems to be the typical mode of operation for posting on liberal boards. That's why several of us continued to try and understand where SP was coming from and what he was actually saying. When all comments are simple declarations or admonitions, with no substantiation, it is difficult to follow the thread. Again that appears to be the way things are done on liberal boards (maybe conservative ones, as well. I am not very familiar with either). This one of the reason why I could never post or follow along on any of the liberal boards like Old Elm Tree or Jack Pine Radical, etc. - it was all just chess thumping and declarations of standing. Got no time for it.

I'll just add to The Kid's post a little (even this is unnecessary).

Many good comrades are wrong sometimes. When they are they should be criticized and corrected, not just for their own benefit but for the benefit of all. Georgi Plekhanov contributed greatly to the advancement and understanding of Marxism and historical materialism - you should really read his works, they are immensely valuable.

One of the reasons Lenin when so hard at Plekhanov when he had strayed off the rails is precisely because of Plekhanov's background and standing within Social Democracy at the time.

None of this should be personal or have anything to do with "scoring" one way or the other. It is analytical, critical, and material - period. That is one of the reasons I get so frustrated with posters who come in and just start attacking every one who disagrees with them. They will tear apart a post to find any excuse to personally attack the poster. If you challenge their ideas they become personally incensed and go into attack mode. This seems to be the typical mode of operation for posting on liberal boards. That's why several of us continued to try and understand where SP was coming from and what he was actually saying. When all comments are simple declarations or admonitions, with no substantiation, it is difficult to follow the thread. Again that appears to be the way things are done on liberal boards (maybe conservative ones, as well. I am not very familiar with either). This one of the reason why I could never post or follow along on any of the liberal boards like Old Elm Tree or Jack Pine Radical, etc. - it was all just chess thumping and declarations of standing. Got no time for it.

Yeah, I'm with ya. No one is safe, not even Plelhanov who was pivotal to the Russians.

I'm counting this as (4000 untyped words of) progress. AGCT is just a little joke about DNA.

I googled it and still don't get the punchline but I ain't all that bright as I told you. In any case... get yourself a fucking reputation Kid. I expected much more from you in the vulgarian department :)

I googled it and still don't get the punchline but I ain't all that bright as I told you. In any case... get yourself a fucking reputation Kid. I expected much more from you in the vulgarian department :)

throwaway joke to lighten the mood. Or did you forget that I'm the Good Humor Man?


The possible letters are A, C, G, and T, representing the four nucleotide bases of a DNA strand — adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine — covalently linked to a phosphodiester backbone.

Reputation? Man reputations are being built here and now. So far you've brought out some of the best work from Dhalgren, Chlamor, Blindpig and also strong contributions from our newest member soldigold. As Mr Nice Guy I can just sit back and pass out gum drops..

throwaway joke to lighten the mood. Or did you forget that I'm the Good Humor Man?


throwaway joke to lighten the mood. Or did you forget that I'm the Good Humor Man?

The possible letters are A, C, G, and T, representing the four nucleotide bases of a DNA strand — adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine — covalently linked to a phosphodiester backbone.

Thank gawd, anything but Hegel.

throwaway joke to lighten the mood. Or did you forget that I'm the Good Humor Man?



[/B]Reputation? Man reputations are being built here and now. So far you've brought out some of the best work from Dhalgren, Chlamor, Blindpig and also strong contributions from our newest member soldigold. As Mr Nice Guy I can just sit back and pass out gum drops..

Can we discuss quantum physics from a materialist viewpoint too good humor man :)

You shoulda went with instinct on this one. Parenti says that his problem with Kerry is that he is more wooden than George Washington's teeth and he dislikes Edwards because he is not Dennis Kucinich. That reads like an undisclosed heroin addiction.

Work within the bourgeois electoral arena? Ok. Swoon over the hair and the "Bask in my asshole-y radiance" smile (second preference, but still..)? You don't need "theory" to figure this one out..




Parenti's stance isn't all that unusual for communists. You seemed to take a similar stance in a previous thread. Correct me if I'm wrong. A question with three choices. What is the Marxist/Leninist stance on participation in elections. Try not to answer the question with riddle questions of your own as answers Kid as you often do.

1)no involvement whatsoever, boycotts, ect...if so why.

2)involvement in the electoral process...if so why

3) it depends...if so explain

I will clarify that I wasn't attempting to refute any importance of Plekhanov. Just that these sorts of slips into liberalism aren't uncommon and must be criticized, regardless of alienating an "ally."

This is one of the bothersome themes to emerge from recent happenings here because it strikes me as very misleading. I think our allies are the people who line up with us (the workers) when the chips are down. I think "potential" allies are everyone who places challenging the political supremacy of the bourgeoisie at the center of their analysis/agitation/activity.

Everything else is so much sound and fury (as you put it "who in this world cares what one kid of the black hole or solidgold thinks?")

Lenin's criticism of Plekhanov is strictly business -- no quarter is asked or given politically. Its not a repudiation of Georgi's earlier works/contributions or him as a person. Anybody can lose their grip and it don't really mean nothin'.

Anaxarchos once told me something like (total paraphrase here): if you want to sit in judgment, go build a courthouse somewhere.

What is the Marxist/Leninist stance on participation in elections

Its tactical and I don't for a second think there is a "Marxist-Leninist stance" in general. At the moment you are asking a question that is hardly relevant to the United States unless you define "participation" as voting in bourgeois elections for bourgeois candidates. I think showing up and casting a ballot matters in the context of the vicious history of voter suppression in the US which directly traces back to the race/class dynamic woven right into the fabric of US society. But part of the reason that it matters is that They are ultimately not going to let us do so -- and that can't but crystallize social relationships.

If you're seriously asking my thoughts on "effecting change through the ballot box" you already know I think it is a load of shit. The Big Orange Chicken was coming home to roost one way or another and I doubt it could've been forestalled by four years even in total electoral defeat. Or do you think we should abandon principle simply because the Big Orange seems bad even compared to the stooges normally foisted on us (and "us" = the worldwide proletariat since no one escapes the sphere of American influence).

Can we discuss quantum physics from a materialist viewpoint too good humor man :)

In the natural sciences, strange and backwards as it may seem, the distinction between materialism and idealism is much more blurred than in social science (notice I say 'blurred', leaving open the exception for obscurantism on both counts). We would first have to talk about positivism (there was some serious research on this in the SU of which I have access to only a small sampling). Anaxarxchos apparently thought even Lenin missed the boat on the topic of positivism (he and I never discussed it in depth) but I will defend the honor of Lenin -- with the understanding that positivism is ubiquitous in bourgeoisie thinking/scholarship (and has everything to do with "Empirio-Criticism" obviously).

PS I am half joking about Lenin's "honor". He doesn't need defense counsel from the likes of me..

PSS Let me add that I think all brands of idealism eventually dovetail together into Solipsism (where it directly intersects with egoism).

This probably shouldn't be an omnibus thread but:


“The recognition of immutable elements, ’of the immutable substance of things,’ and so forth, is not materialism, but metaphysical, i.e., anti-dialectical, materialism.” (Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Chapter Five, section “Matter Has Disappeared” p. 249)


“Engels says explicitly that ‘with each epoch-making discovery even in the sphere of natural science … materialism has to change its form’. Hence a revision of the “form” of Engels’ materialism, a revision of his natural-philosophical [i.e. scientific] propositions is not only not “revisionism”, in the accepted meaning of the term, but, on the contrary, is an essential requirement of Marxism.” (Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Chapter Five, p. 239)

Its tactical and I don't for a second think there is a "Marxist-Leninist stance" in general. At the moment you are asking a question that is hardly relevant to the United States unless you define "participation" as voting in bourgeois elections for bourgeois candidates. I think showing up and casting a ballot matters in the context of the vicious history of voter suppression in the US which directly traces back to the race/class dynamic woven right into the fabric of US society. But part of the reason that it matters is that They are ultimately not going to let us do so -- and that can't but crystallize social relationships.

If you're seriously asking my thoughts on "effecting change through the ballot box" you already know I think it is a load of shit. The Big Orange Chicken was coming home to roost one way or another and I doubt it could've been forestalled by four years even in total electoral defeat. Or do you think we should abandon principle simply because the Big Orange seems bad even compared to the stooges normally foisted on us (and "us" = the worldwide proletariat since no one escapes the sphere of American influence).


Marxism/Leninism has pretty much been liquidated over here... for good or bad... depending on political ideology. I don't think that's a point that has little relevance to the struggle and can be pushed to the back burner like it doesn't exist. It's one of the points I'm trying to make and nobody here or elsewhere seems to want to admit it or hear it. This is subject to criticism and analysis of course.

You know I'm not asking if it's possible to effect any lasting change that benefits the workers as a whole solely through the ballot box. Of course it's a load of shit but there is in fact some tactics in theory that can be applied. Marx, Engels, Lenin, and others never said otherwise. The stance that some take on this is to reject any tactical openings that might exist for political work within the electoral framework as reactionary, counter-revolutionary, and the work of liberals. Ideology can go so far left in rejecting everything as to render it utterly irrelevant and totally disconnected from the every day struggles on the ground. Proselytizing and droning on endlessly about the complicity of the Democratic Party and Liberals does not in any way advance a full leftist program of "what is to be done." Of course... using the term leftist as a generic as you say presents another whole set of obstacles as you can readily see by the differences. I'm not disagreeing with you on that in the least.

More to say but as always a block sets in when putting it to words.

Marxism/Leninism has pretty much been liquidated over here... for good or bad... depending on political ideology. I don't think that's a point that has little relevance to the struggle and can be pushed to the back burner like it doesn't exist. It's one of the points I'm trying to make and nobody here or elsewhere seems to want to admit it or hear it. This is subject to criticism and analysis of course.

You know I'm not asking if it's possible to effect any lasting change that benefits the workers as a whole solely through the ballot box. Of course it's a load of shit but there is in fact some tactics in theory that can be applied. Marx, Engels, Lenin, and others never said otherwise. The stance that some take on this is to reject any tactical openings that might exist for political work within the electoral framework as reactionary, counter-revolutionary, and the work of liberals. Ideology can go so far left in rejecting everything as to render it utterly irrelevant and totally disconnected from the every day struggles on the ground. Proselytizing and droning on endlessly about the complicity of the Democratic Party and Liberals does not in any way advance a full leftist program of "what is to be done." Of course... using the term leftist as a generic as you say presents another whole set of obstacles as you can readily see by the differences. I'm not disagreeing with you on that in the least.

More to say but as always a block sets in when putting it to words.

I don't mean to come off like a dick or a nitpicker but I think if this conversation were to continue, then it should probably have it's own thread. Just to clean up this Castro thread, ya know?

In the natural sciences, strange and backwards as it may seem, the distinction between materialism and idealism is much more blurred than in social science (notice I say 'blurred', leaving open the exception for obscurantism on both counts). We would first have to talk about positivism (there was some serious research on this in the SU of which I have access to only a small sampling). Anaxarxchos apparently thought even Lenin missed the boat on the topic of positivism (he and I never discussed it in depth) but I will defend the honor of Lenin -- with the understanding that positivism is ubiquitous in bourgeoisie thinking/scholarship (and has everything to do with "Empirio-Criticism" obviously).

PS I am half joking about Lenin's "honor". He doesn't need defense counsel from the likes of me..

PSS Let me add that I think all brands of idealism eventually dovetail together into Solipsism (where it directly intersects with egoism).

Woosh...way over my level on that Kid. No idea why I dropped that in there. Love to read on the quantum physics stuff but the idea of parallel universes ain't much consolation to anybody when they can't put food on the table:D

I don't mean to come off like a dick or a nitpicker but I think if this conversation were to continue, then it should probably have it's own thread. Just to clean up this Castro thread, ya know?

I've been thinking the same thing for a while, but I decided to roll with it for a little while just because I figure Fidel wouldn't be one to shut down critical discussion even if it is misplaced.

Marxism/Leninism has pretty much been liquidated over here... for good or bad... depending on political ideology. I don't think that's a point that has little relevance to the struggle and can be pushed to the back burner like it doesn't exist. It's one of the points I'm trying to make and nobody here or elsewhere seems to want to admit it or hear it. This is subject to criticism and analysis of course.

You know I'm not asking if it's possible to effect any lasting change that benefits the workers as a whole solely through the ballot box. Of course it's a load of shit but there is in fact some tactics in theory that can be applied. Marx, Engels, Lenin, and others never said otherwise. The stance that some take on this is to reject any tactical openings that might exist for political work within the electoral framework as reactionary, counter-revolutionary, and the work of liberals. Ideology can go so far left in rejecting everything as to render it utterly irrelevant and totally disconnected from the every day struggles on the ground. Proselytizing and droning on endlessly about the complicity of the Democratic Party and Liberals does not in any way advance a full leftist program of "what is to be done." Of course... using the term leftist as a generic as you say presents another whole set of obstacles as you can readily see by the differences. I'm not disagreeing with you on that in the least.

More to say but as always a block sets in when putting it to words.

What say we take this discussion to another thread and you start by asking a concrete question since I get the impression you're tiptoeing around something.

Woosh...way over my level on that Kid. No idea why I dropped that in there. Love to read on the quantum physics stuff but the idea of parallel universes ain't much consolation to anybody when they can't put food on the table:D

Here's some Feuerbach for you that is a propos in more than one way:


Does this mean then that we must deal with questions of food and drink when examining the problem of the ideality or reality of the world?—exclaims the indignant idealist. How vile! What an offence against good manners soundly to trounce materialism in the scientific sense from the chair of philosophy and the pulpit of theology, only to practice materialism with all one’s heart and soul in the rudest form at the table d’hôte

I don't mean to come off like a dick or a nitpicker but I think if this conversation were to continue, then it should probably have it's own thread. Just to clean up this Castro thread, ya know?

You're right maybe continue it in the thread you brought back from the archives. I'm not calling for a cease and desist in leftist analysis and criticism of liberalism and the Democratic Party by the way :D If I'm able to put some thought together I will offer them up.

What say we take this discussion to another thread and you start by asking a concrete question since I get the impression you're tiptoeing around something.

Sure...

Not really my business BP. I've always been an outsider here looking in as a reader. TA simply mentioned that there was power struggle here on direction a few years ago and he was locked out as administration. I didn't say he was locked out of the forum. TA has always been a staunch ally despite any differences me and him might have on tactics and ideology. He's pissed on his treatment here and I can't say as I blame him if this inquisition on which side I'm on is any indication. I will defend that cat under all circumstances. Sure, I'm a belligerent asshole but TA surely isn't despite any disagreements you all had on direction. That's about all I'm gonna say because it really is none of my damn business.

You are a professional liar.

Cuckoo For Cocoa Puffs

Can't make the connection. I will say a few things though in regards to that mess. Putin is a ruling class capitalist scumbag regardless of any wacky conspiracy theories. Who exactly is denying that they tried to off Castro numerous times ? Beyond that...the Green Party is your bag...not mine. I guess Amaju Baraka ain't a communist after all Dhal, eh ? Weren't you plugging voting Cynthia McKinney some time ago as part of the struggle ? LMFAO Further beyond that I put very little stock in much of what comes out of Counterpunch. There are few decent writers that somehow coexist in that cesspool of Neo-Nazi anti-semite racist scum but it ain't many. Perhaps Paul Craig Roberts and that Nazi prick passing as a socialist John Wight is your bag Dhal but it ain't mine. Even further beyond that... BAR offers some good critique but they been in the shit hole for the Green Party frauds for ages. Anything else you want to know Professor Dhalgren ?


Could you list for us ten sites that you frequently use? I know it's a big ask- but don't lie.

Kemal Okuyan- Bringing back the 20th century

Bringing back the 20th century…
By Kemal Okuyan* / Source: soL International.
December 14, 2016.

‘The 20th century is over now’ was the headline of Hurriyet after the death of Fidel Castro. This journal had stirred in me a particular feeling of disgust since my early youth; it is a kind of official journal, the strong voice of the dominant ideology, always great and wealthy, and steadyingly the flagship of the fight against communism.

Hurriyet, independent from its owner, is the representative of the intelligence, for whatever remains in the idiocratic system to be called so, of the capitalist class.

The headline of ‘the 20th century is over now’, without doubt, should be considered as a hideous ideological assault, including the intimidation of ‘now you’re screwed’, against those who cannot accept today’s world. However, this inferiority, this respectlessnes does not annihilate the intelligence inherent in the headline.

‘The 20th century is over now’ reveals the doctrine of the international reactionism that marked the last four decades. Wiping out the century with all its consequences was the fundamental motto of the monopolies since 1980s; they’ve never abandoned it.

What was so special with the 20th century?

The 20th century did not only consist of the two massive wars that the imperialism deemed proper to the humanity and the sanguinary dictatorships. There was the Socialist October Revolution of 1917, there were independence movements that did not need US or EU flags or protectorate, which turned their faces to left, there was an immense resistance against obscurantism and tyranny, there were wide areas in which the principle imperialist countries did not rule the roost, there were struggle, creativity, hope and determination of the great humanity.

Hurriyet is the journal of a mentality that detests all these. It is an operation center that is intimate with headquarters that deplores saying ‘We brought everyone to knees, except Cuba.’ It is quite normal that they give such reactions to the death of Castro, because they are right up to an extent. Fidel was a legendary the leader of a people who brought them down a peg or two.
The leader took leave by saying ‘My people does not need legends’, but the socialist Cuba is over there. In this respect the headline of Hurriyet is also a declaration of war: Continuing devastation until annihilating all the consequences and traces of the 20th century!

You fools! It is your system that is being devastated.

You could not get rid of crises, wars and irremediableness in a period in which the working class retreated the most at the international scale, which has an influential struggle history for more than one and a half century, that is to say, in a period which did not actually threaten your vile system.

That the 20th century had been over…

The history will, of course, flow forward; there is no way back but the traces, consequences, and lessons of the leaps forward of the humanity in the past cannot be annihilated.

We cannot go back to the 20th century but the 20th century will come back.

Since they want to close down the case of the 20th century as soon as possible, there is ever so much there. We will analyze that in this respect and when the 20th century comes back once again under different conditions, we will study well our lesson in order not to do errors.

What can be immediately said?

The revolutions are not tactical but strategic processes. A strategy that is not revolutionary, cannot take root even though it evolves into a revolutionary tactic during an instant of crisis. The success of the Bolsheviks in 1917, its background aside, is the product of the strategic approach that Lenin had insistently developed since 1915. It has been understood that in order to bring a revolutionary strategy to maturity, not strength but the will for strengthening is necessary.

At the weak periods of the 20th century working class movement, there are numerous examples when revolutionary strategies were thrown away for more ‘realistic’ strategies. As I stated, in 1915 the political balance of powers were not in favor of Bolsheviks; on the contrary, if one were ‘wise’, he would have to accommodate himself to circumstances.

The fundamental reason behind the defeat of the German Revolution in 1921, 1923 and 1924 was that a political subject that tenaciously developed a revolutionary strategy in 1915 or before had not emerged. When the politics started to boil, when the most revolutionary, the most developed elements of the working class movement took a ‘revolutionary’ stance, they looked askew. They could not.

In the aftermath, for example in 1934, 1936, 1945, 1974, for numerous times, historical junctions appeared. In several places in Europe, the fundamentals of the capitalism were cracking; the communist movement had not even tried to place a revolutionary tactic onto a non-revolutionary strategy. It was stated that the balance of powers was to the detriment of the working class, however, in some examples this was questionable. Some justifications can, without doubt, be put forward to say that the conditions were unfavorable for the power of the working class in the Austria of 1934, the France of 1936, the Italy and the France of 1945; however, the contrary is also valid. In these periods, a revolutionary subject could well have overthrown the capitalist system.

Such strategy did not exist.

A revolutionary strategy is not a set of foolish moves, quest for adventure or fetishizing ‘radical’ methods of struggle. Starting from this point of view, in the Vienna of 1934, in the France and the Italy of 1945, there were ‘revolutionary’ working class movements. Republikanischer Schutzbund was the self-armed force of the working class in Austria, police was not strong enough; military forces that attacked with heavy armor could barely capture working class neighborhoods. The social democrat workers were struggling against fascism, the social democrat party leadership was inviting them ‘to show firmness’, as for revolutionary communists, they were so weak.

At the end of the war, in Italy and in France, the communists were the major, the most prestigious, the most organized power and they were completely armed. The conditions were ineligible, really?

What was missing was a revolutionary strategy rooted in the past and reaching the present. Saying ‘Now is the time to be revolutionary’, it doesn’t work that way; it is not possible to transform into a revolutionary force after being part of any kind of unprincipled politics in order to strengthen and change the balances. Because, even though you go through a ‘revolutionary’ transformation in your mind, the social segments that you appealed cannot keep pace with it, the bourgeois relations in your saddlebag threaten you, you cannot look forward while trying not to loose them.

All these are present in the history of the 20th century.

Social democracy, as well.

We always talk about the betrayal of the social democracy. Ok, but it just took place once. The social democratic parties transformed from working class to bourgeois parties at the beginning of the 20th century. The betrayal is there. There is no betrayal in 1934, 1936, and 1945.

The betrayal over there (if you want let’s not call it betrayal, the mistake) should be sought in the behavior of those who think that they can change the balances in favor of the working class by collaborating with social democrats.

Are the conditions ineligible? Ok then; do not embark on an adventure, hold firmly, do not let the bourgeoisie off the hook, do not be a part of bourgeoisie governments, strengthen the independent line of the working class, stamp out any kind of dreams and illusions about the capitalist system. Wait until the conditions become more eligible, more precisely, do not wait for it but help it be so.
There are several lessons.

If we do not study our lesson well, Hurriyet will caption even more headlines and get on our nerves.

At least we should know that they are so angry! All of them. As I said, they are in such a mood in their best years. They know that once the humanity comes across the moments of 1934, 1936, 1945, 1974; they know that there will not be anyone who talks about ‘ineligible conditions’.

As for Fidel…

He had studied his lesson well; he gave the lesson of their lives to tyrants, exploiters…

How?

Everyone knows that, at the beginning, Fidel was not a communist, that he did not target a socialist revolution. But they think that Fidel was soooo ‘large’.

Fidel, along with Lenin, is a genius of alliances in the 20th century. Both of them were great revolutionaries and they never connected their own revolutionary strategies with other projects, in this sense, they always put their political movements into center. Fidel, since the beginning, never saw himself as a part of chains of alliances. His allies, even at his ‘weakest’ moment, were the ones who accepted Fidel and the will of the 26th of July Movement.

Hurriyet did not caption that headline for nothing…

The 20th century was not for nothing. You will see.

* First Secretary of the CC of the Communist Party, Turkey (KP), soL columnist.

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2016/12/kemal-okuyan-bringing-back-20th-century.html

Boy howdy, there is a communist.


We cannot go back to the 20th century but the 20th century will come back.

You are a professional liar.

Take it up with TA asshole. I only know what he mentioned you gaslighting prick.

Take it up with TA asshole. I only know what he mentioned you gaslighting prick.

Geez Chlams, the things we find out about ya on the internets...

http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Fart-Lighting.jpg

Fidel, You Are The People

by TITO MEZA

Fidel, who came down from the Sierra Maestra
accompanied by the song of the goldfinches
with your warrior’s gun on your shoulder.

To plant the seeds of love was always your day’s work.
You light up every corner of
your island, surrounded by palm trees,
like a star.

You came down from the Sierra,
and were each of your warriors.
You were the discriminated black man,
you were the exploited worker,
you were the hard pressed student,
you were the people.

You came down from the Sierra victorious
The flag of the revolution
blazed in Latin America.

You came down from the Sierra
with your warriors erect with courage
planting seeds of love in every one of your people.

You were Lumumba in Africa,
you were Farabundo in El Salvador,
you were Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam.

Fidel you were the people,
you lived so that they could live
The excluded poor of America.

You were the excluded blacks of Harlem,
the exploited miners of Appalachia,
you were love and revolution.

Fidel, who came down from the Sierra,
commander, a blacksmith forging the new man.
You light up like a star
The path of liberty of our Latin America!

http://rayolightnewsletter.blogspot.com/2017/01/rol-usa-newsletter-100-great-october.html

To honour Fidel Castro means to continue his work of fighting imperialism and building socialism

http://www.invent-the-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/fidel-crowd-920x653.jpg

Posted by Carlos Martinez on Saturday, January 21, 2017

Fidel Castro Alejandro Ruz will be forever remembered as the pre-eminent leader of the Cuban Revolution; its chief strategist and charismatic comandante; a deeply principled, courageous, compassionate and intelligent human being; a guerrilla and a statesman; a relentless fighter against exploitation, oppression and injustice.

But we should be careful not to treat him as some kind of museum relic or historical curiosity. One can study the life of Genghis Khan for the sake of general interest, without expecting to harvest lessons with direct application to modern political life; however, Fidel operated in the current political era: the era of the transition from capitalism to socialism. Cuba was the first country in the western hemisphere to have a socialist revolution and to construct a new type of society. Cuba is the only country outside Southeast Asia to have kept its socialist system intact through the reverses of 1989-91. It has been, and remains, steadfast; a beacon of hope for progressive people worldwide; an example of how an oppressed people can break their chains and build a dignified life, even in the face of blockade and destabilisation orchestrated by the world’s foremost imperialist power – just the other side of the Straits of Florida.

The purpose of this article is to explore Fidel’s political legacy and highlight the aspects that are most relevant to continuing the project that he dedicated himself to: defeating capitalism and imperialism, and constructing in its place a new, socialist world based on the principles of solidarity, respect, equality and peace.

An unswerving revolutionary
In Highgate Cemetery, London, around 134 years ago, Frederick Engels described Karl Marx as being “before all else a revolutionist”, whose “real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat … Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival.”

One could say something very similar about Fidel Castro: that he was an unswerving revolutionary; that he dedicated his long life to the pursuit of socialist revolution, to the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism, to the cause of freedom and national self-determination. He too fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival.

Capturing power in Cuba

http://www.invent-the-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/15250705_10154106164540950_5351735307546115495_o1-300x300.jpg

The very existence of the Cuban socialism provides ample proof as to Fidel’s persistence, courage, imagination and strategic vision in pursuit of revolution. Nineteen-fifties Cuba was by no means an obvious place for socialism to blossom, given its geographic and cultural proximity to the US, the McCarthyite anti-communism that was prevalent at the time, and the enormous volumes of water separating it from any other socialist country. There was no revolutionary ‘model’ to follow: the Cuban Revolution didn’t develop directly out of the industrial centres like the October Revolution did; it didn’t grow out of a protracted people’s war like the Chinese Revolution; it didn’t take advantage of a post-war power vacuum such as had existed in Vietnam, Korea and Eastern/Central Europe. To even see an opening for revolution in Cuba at that time required great originality.

A theme that runs through Fidel’s political life is that he had the knowledge and creativity to identify opportunities that few others would see, and the strength, courage, vision and skill to sieze those opportunities. Cuba’s Communist Party (then called the Popular Socialist Party) also saw the revolutionary potential of the moment, but it had no tangible plan for the capture of power. Fidel and his small group of guerrillas were unique in understanding that, in order to take advantage of the objective element (economic and political crisis, along with widespread popular discontent), it was necessary to apply the subjective element (in this case: conducting armed struggle in order to weaken the Batista regime to breaking point, whilst simultaneously providing a rallying point for the masses). Blas Roca, who was head of the PSP (and who would later become one of Fidel’s most trusted comrades), reflects on this question:

“We [the PSP] rightly foresaw, and greatly looked forward to, the prospect that in response to conditions created by the tyranny, the masses would organise and eventually engage in armed struggle or popular insurrection. But for a long time we failed to take any practical steps to hasten that prospect, because we believed that these struggles, including a prolonged general strike, would culminate in armed insurrection quite spontaneously. Hence, we did not prepare, did not organise or train armed detachments… That was our mistake. Fidel Castro’s historical merit is that he prepared, trained, and assembled the fighting elements needed to begin and carry on armed struggle as a means of destroying the tyranny.” (KS Karol, Guerrillas in Power)

Bay of Pigs

Fidel’s relentless pursuit of revolution was further evidenced during the Bay of Pigs invasion. In April 1961, only two years after the establishment of the revolutionary state, the CIA coordinated a large-scale military invasion of Cuba by exiles and mercenaries, backed by US Air Force bombers and transported by US Navy ships, with the objective of overthrowing Castro’s government. It is almost unimaginable that a small, isolated, newly-established state would be able to defend itself against the world’s most powerful military entity, but the Cuban government under Fidel’s leadership had anticipated this attack and was prepared for it.

The entire population was mobilised and trained; millions of people were under arms. The Cuban Air Force, although small, had been drilled in preparation for just this kind of invasion. Fidel personally coordinated the defence, which within 48 hours was able to capture the leaders of the invasion, sink a supply ship and achieve air superiority. Faced with defeat on the ground, embarrassment at the United Nations, and the threat of Soviet involvement on the side of Cuba (“The Soviet Union will render the Cuban people and their government all necessary help to repel an armed attack”), US President John F Kennedy was forced to withdraw support for the invasion, which promptly crumbled.

Survival in a post-Soviet world

The survival of Cuban socialism beyond the ‘end of history‘ era of the early 1990s is another extraordinary achievement that few people anticipated; another testament to the revolutionary spirit of the Cuban people and leadership. Cuba’s economy had been deeply integrated into the socialist world, with over 85% of its foreign trade being conducted through the CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, also known as Comecon, comprising the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Mongolia, Poland and Hungary). The CMEA was disbanded in 1991. Of its member states, only Cuba and Vietnam resisted counter-revolution. Both faced major economic crises.

At this moment, Fidel and the leadership of the Cuban Communist Party could quite easily (and even understandably) have converted themselves into social democrats. They could have followed the path laid down by Gorbachev and abandoned their commitment to working class rule, to social justice, to political independence, to internationalism. They could have availed themselves of an IMF ‘bailout’, and before long they would have been accepted into the imperialist fold. Perhaps a few European heads of government might even have attended Fidel’s funeral (in the event, Alexis Tsipras of Greece was the only one). In the absence of a Cuban Yeltsin, the US would have been more than happy to work with a Cuban Gorbachev.

But Fidel understood from fairly early on that Gorbachev’s path was the road to ruin, commenting that “Perestroika is another man’s wife; I don’t want to get involved.” In his well-known and exceptionally powerful speech on 7 December 1989 in honour of the Cubans that gave their lives in the struggle to save Angola, Fidel made a clear denunciation of the Soviet Union’s programme of dismantling working class power, and made it plain that a parallel process would not be taking place in Cuba.

“In Cuba, we are engaged in a process of rectification. No revolution or truly socialist rectification is possible without a strong, disciplined, respected party. Such a process cannot be advanced by slandering socialism, destroying its values, casting slurs on the party, demoralising its vanguard, abandoning the party’s guiding role, eliminating social discipline and sowing chaos and anarchy everywhere. This may foster a counterrevolution, but not revolutionary changes.”

Continuing, he firmly re-stated Cuba’s commitment to socialism and willingness to be the global standard-bearer of the communist cause if necessary:

“We owe everything we are today to the revolution and to socialism. If Cuba were ever to return to capitalism, our independence and sovereignty would be lost forever; we would be an extension of Miami, a mere appendage of US imperialism; and the repugnant prediction that a US president made in the 19th century — when that country was considering the annexation of Cuba — that our island would fall into its hands like a ripe fruit, would prove true…

“We Cuban Communists and the millions of our people’s revolutionary soldiers will carry out the role assigned to us in history, not only as the first socialist state in the western hemisphere but also as staunch front-line defenders of the noble cause of all the destitute, exploited people in the world. We have never aspired to having custody of the banners and principles which the revolutionary movement has defended throughout its heroic and inspiring history. However, if fate were to decree that, one day, we would be among the last defenders of socialism in a world in which US imperialism had realised Hitler’s dreams of world domination, we would defend this bulwark to the last drop of our blood.”

When it became clear that Cuba wasn’t going to ride the wave of counter-revolution, the US decided to make things even more difficult by ramping up the economic blockade of the island. With the clouds of destitution and collapse looming ominously, the survival of Cuban socialism required incredible sacrifices and a creative overhaul of the national economy. Eighty percent of imports disappeared pretty much overnight, and many important goods were simply no longer available; the loss of fuel imports in particular meant that industry and transport were paralysed. Belts had to be tightened significantly in terms of food consumption and housing distribution; there was a renewed emphasis on tourism as a means of generating foreign exchange; small agricultural cooperatives and urban gardens sprang up with the government’s encouragement; car use was massively reduced (partly through the purchase of 1.2 million low-cost bicycles from China).

People had to get used to getting by with less, and the increase in foreign tourism brought complex new economic and social problems; however, the revolution survived. Socialism was preserved, Cuban independence was not put on the market, and nobody starved – even if many felt hunger pains for the first time. This survival would clearly not have been possible were it not for the level of revolutionary mobilisation of the Cuban people; if they did not feel passionately about defending the gains of the preceding three decades; if they weren’t willing to engage their energy and creative ingenuity for the sake of overcoming obstacles that must have appeared close to insurmountable. In this, they again had Fidel as their example and leader.

Yes, it is possible

Speaking at Fidel’s funeral, Raúl Castro gave an insightful and moving summary of his brother’s unique qualities; his blend of courage, creativity, foresight, knowledge, military/political acumen, energy, and ability to inspire.

“Fidel showed us that yes, it was possible to reach the coast of Cuba in the Granma yacht; that yes, it was possible to resist the enemy, hunger, rain and cold, and organise a revolutionary army in the Sierra Maestra; … that yes, it was possible to defeat, with the support of the entire people, the tyranny of Batista, backed by US imperialism… that yes, it was possible to defeat in 72 hours the mercenary invasion of Playa Girón and at the same time, continue the campaign to eradicate illiteracy in one year…

“That yes, it was possible to proclaim the socialist character of the Revolution 90 miles from the empire, and when its warships advanced toward Cuba, following the brigade of mercenary troops; that yes, it was possible to resolutely uphold the inalienable principles of our sovereignty, without fear of the threat of nuclear aggression by the United States in those days of the October 1962 missile crisis.

“That yes, it was possible to offer solidarity assistance to other sister peoples struggling against colonial oppression, external aggression and racism. That yes, it was possible to defeat the racist South Africans, saving Angola’s territorial integrity, forcing Namibia’s independence and delivering a harsh blow to the apartheid regime.

“That yes, it was possible to turn Cuba into a medical power, reduce infant mortality first, to the lowest rate in the Third World, then as compared with other rich countries; because at least on this continent our rate of infant mortality of children under one year of age is lower than Canada’s and the United States’, and at the same time, significantly increase the life expectancy of our population.

“That yes, it was possible to transform Cuba into a great scientific hub, advance in the modern and decisive fields of genetic engineering and biotechnology; insert ourselves within the fortress of international pharmaceuticals; develop tourism, despite the U.S. blockade; build causeways in the sea to make Cuba increasingly more attractive, obtaining greater monetary income from our natural charms.

“That yes, it is possible to resist, survive, and develop without renouncing our principles or the achievements won by socialism in a unipolar world dominated by the transnationals which emerged after the fall of the socialist camp in Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

“Fidel’s enduring lesson is that yes it is possible, that humans are able to overcome the harshest conditions as long as their willingness to triumph does not falter, they accurately assess every situation, and do not renounce their just and noble principles.”

An outstanding Marxist-Leninist
“Marxism taught me what society was. I was like a blindfolded man in a forest, who doesn’t even know where north or south is. If you don’t eventually come to truly understand the history of the class struggle, or at least have a clear idea that society is divided between the rich and the poor, and that some people subjugate and exploit other people, you’re lost in a forest, not knowing anything.” (Fidel Castro and Ignacio Ramonet: My Life – A Spoken Autobiography)

At a time when it’s not particularly fashionable to be a Marxist, a communist, it’s worth remembering that Fidel was exactly that. Some have tried to cast him as more of a Cuban nationalist or a stereotypical Latin American caudillo, but Fidel was of the consistent belief that “The future of mankind is the future of socialism and communism”; that “Marx was the greatest economic and political thinker of all times”.

The Cuban Revolution was, from the beginning, a socialist revolution; a process aimed at expropriating the capitalist class, foreign monopolies and landlords, and establishing working class rule. Fidel had become convinced of the correctness of Marxism-Leninism while at university in the late 1940s. “Toward the end of my university studies, I was no longer a utopian communist but rather an atypical communist who was acting independently. I based myself on a realistic analysis of our country’s situation… We were convinced Marxists and socialists… we had already read almost a whole library of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and other theoreticians.” (Speech at the inauguration of President Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, cited in the Fidel Castro Reader)

However, due to the widespread acceptance of McCarthyite propaganda, the terms ‘socialism’ and ‘Marxism’ weren’t often used until 1961. Fidel explains:

“Those were times of brutal anticommunism, the final years of McCarthyism, when by every possible means our powerful and imperial neighbour had tried to sow in the minds of our noble people all kinds of lies and prejudices. I would often meet an ordinary citizen and ask them a number of questions: whether they believed we should undertake land reform; whether it would be fair for families to own the homes for which at times they paid almost half their salaries. Also, if they believed that the people should own all the banks in order to use those resources to finance the development of the country. Whether those big factories – most of them foreign-owned – should belong to, and produce for, the people… things like that. I would ask 10, 15 similar questions and they would agree absolutely: ‘Yes, that would be great.’ In essence, if all those big stores and all those profitable businesses that now only enrich their privileged owners belonged to the people, and were used to enrich the people, would you agree? ‘Yes, yes,’ they would answer immediately. So, then I asked them: ‘Would you agree with socialism?’ Answer: ‘Socialism? No, no, no, not with socialism.’ Let alone communism… There was so much prejudice that this was an even more frightening word.” (ibid)

After three years of intense revolutionary activity following the capture of power – ending illiteracy, implementing land reform, setting up popular democratic structures, defending the revolution from invasion and destabilisation – the leadership decided to declare its ideological stance. By this point, the revolution had proven itself through actual socialist construction, and US ideological propaganda had lost much of its impact on the Cuban people. In a speech on 2 December 1961, broadcast on TV and radio, Fidel announced: “I am a Marxist-Leninist, and I shall be a Marxist-Leninist to the end of my life.”

Reflecting a few years later on McCarthyism and the saturation of anti-communism throughout the capitalist world, Fidel pointed out:

“The reactionary classes have always used every method to condemn and slander new ideas. Thus, all the paper and all the resources at their disposal are not sufficient to slander communist ideas; to slander the desire for a society in which human beings no longer exploit one another, but become real brothers and sisters; the dream of a society in which all human beings are truly equal in fact and in law – not simply in a constitutional clause as in some bourgeois constitutions which say that all men are born free and equal. Can all individuals be considered to be born free and equal in a society of exploiters and exploited, a society of rich and poor – where one child is born in a slum, in a humble cradle, and another child is born in a cradle of gold? How can it be said that these people have the same opportunities in life? The ancient dream of humankind – a dream that is possible today – of a society without exploiters or exploited, has aroused the hatred and rancor of all exploiters…

“The word ‘communist’ is not an insult but rather an honor for us… Within 100 years, there will be no greater glory, nothing more natural and rational, than to be called a communist. We are on the road toward a communist society. And if the imperialists don’t like it, they can lump it. From now on, gentlemen of UPI and AP, understand that when you call us ‘communists,’ you are giving us the greatest compliment you can give.” (Speech at the first central committee meeting of the newly-formed Communist Party of Cuba, 3 October 1965, cited in the Fidel Castro Reader)

Against dogmatism and revisionism

The twin curses of revisionism and dogmatism have clung to the left-wing movement with impressive tenacity over the years. ‘Revisionism’ means, essentially, stripping Marxism of its revolutionary objectives; reducing it to a slow reformism that doesn’t recognise the need to defeat the capitalist class. ‘Dogmatism’ means treating the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin (plus, variously, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao or whoever) as biblical sources of timeless and absolute truth, with universal application in all times and places; favouring the application of formulas and learned phrases over serious analysis of concrete conditions; and rejecting all forms of strategic compromise.

The Cuban Revolution came about at a time when the Soviet Union was elaborating an increasingly revisionist theory around its particular strategic needs (to peacefully rebuild and avoid further war), and the People’s Republic of China was reacting to this with an anti-revisionism which before long morphed into a rather dogmatic and unrealistic assessment of the global balance of forces. These differences fed into the Sino-Soviet split, which was to prove painfully destructive to the communist cause.

Fidel understood the potential danger that the Sino-Soviet split posed to the socialist camp and to progressive forces around the world; meanwhile he saw the impact of both revisionism and dogmatism within the Latin American left, and wanted to show that there was a different path.

“Due to the heterogeneity of this contemporary world, with different countries confronting dissimilar situations and most unequal levels of material, technical and cultural development, Marxism cannot be like a church, like a religious doctrine, with its Pope and ecumenical council. It is a revolutionary and dialectical doctrine, not a religious doctrine. It is a guide for revolutionary action, not a dogma. It is anti-Marxist to try to encapsulate Marxism in a sort of catechism. This diversity will inevitably lead to different interpretations… Marxism is a doctrine of revolutionaries, written by revolutionaries, developed by other revolutionaries, for revolutionaries. We will demonstrate our confidence in ourselves and our confidence in our ability to continue to develop our revolutionary path…

“We believe that revolutionary thought must take a new course; that we must leave behind old vices and sectarian positions of all kinds, including the positions of those who believe they have a monopoly on the revolution or on revolutionary theory. Poor theory! How it has suffered in these processes. Poor theory! How it has been abused, and is still being abused! All these years have taught us to meditate more and analyse better. We no longer accept any truths as ‘self-evident’. ‘Self-evident’ truths are a part of bourgeois philosophy. A whole series of old clichés should be abolished. Marxist, revolutionary political literature itself should be renewed, because if you simply repeat clichés, phraseology and verbiage that have been repeated for 35 years, you don’t win anyone over.” (Speech on 3 October 1965, op cit)

As discussed above, the Cubans didn’t try to model their revolution on anything that had come before. They didn’t attempt to apply some sort of Marxist template for building socialism; rather they combined their wide-ranging political and historical understanding with a deep analysis of prevailing conditions. The ideas with which they inspired the Cuban people were grounded in Marxism-Leninism but were also specifically Cuban. Fidel more than anyone understood the need to give Cuban socialism its own national flavour, which he successfully did by connecting the revolution with the Cuban (and wider Latin American) struggle for independence – tapping into an existing reverence for independence heroes such as José Martí and Antonio Maceo – and also the Cuban resistance movements against dictatorship and injustice in the 1930s and 40s.

In the first decade or so of the Cuban Revolution, it could perhaps be argued that, within the Latin American left, Cuba wanted to replace dogmatic adherence to the Soviet or Chinese models with dogmatic adherence to the Cuban model. The means by which the 26th of July movement captured power were promoted, and Cuba gave its support to rural guerrilla groups across the continent (“The only place where we didn’t try to promote revolution was Mexico”, Fidel noted), heavily criticising those leftist organisations that didn’t embrace guerrilla struggle.

The defeat of these attempts at revolution forced the Cubans to re-evaluate. In Cuba, Fidel and his comrades had benefitted from the element of surprise. By the time guerrilla struggles were launched elsewhere in Latin America, this element of surprise was gone, and the insurgents found that the CIA and its local allies were able to gain the upper hand through the use of advanced surveillance technology, air reconnaissance, psyops, propaganda, fostering disunity, and so on.

http://www.invent-the-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/fidel-allende-300x199.jpg

The victory of Salvador Allende in the Chilean presidential election of September 1970 represented the first time that an openly socialist government had come to power by constitutional means. Fidel was sufficiently inspired by, and curious about, Allende’s project that he toured Chile over the course of 25 days in late 1971 (a highly unusual amount of time for a head of state to spend visiting another country, especially given it was Fidel’s first trip to the South American mainland since 1959). As a result, he was able to make a serious study of the forces operating for and against the process. Speaking a couple of years later, in the wake of the Pinochet coup that brought the Popular Unity project to a tragic end, he sums up the Cuban leadership’s open mind regarding Allende’s Chilean path to socialism:

“President Allende and the Chilean revolutionary process awakened great interest and solidarity throughout the world. For the first time in history, a new experience was developed in Chile: the attempt to bring about the revolution by peaceful means, by legal means. And he was given the understanding and support of all the world in his effort – not only of the international Communist movement, but of very different political inclinations as well. We may say that that effort was appreciated even by those who weren’t Marxist-Leninists.

“And our party and people – in spite of the fact that we had made the revolution by other means – and all the other revolutionary peoples in the world supported him. We didn’t hesitate a minute, because we understood that there was a possibility in Chile of winning an electoral victory, in spite of all the resources of imperialism and the ruling classes, in spite of all the adverse circumstances. We didn’t hesitate in 1970 to publicly state our understanding and our support of the efforts which the Chilean left was making to win the elections that year.”

http://www.invent-the-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/maurice-fidel-daniel-1-300x180.jpg

The end of the 1970s brought socialist forces to power in both Grenada and Nicaragua. The Grenadian revolutionaries, led by the brilliant and charismatic Maurice Bishop, came to power in a bloodless coup; meanwhile the Sandinistas in Nicaragua came to power on the basis of a guerrilla struggle that would have looked relatively familiar to their Cuban comrades. By now recognising the immense variety and specificity of revolutionary processes, Cuba gave an extraordinary level of fraternal support to Chile, Grenada and Nicaragua, whilst also giving some pertinent advice: that, in a regional context of near-total US domination, no revolutionary process can survive unless it protects itself with firm unity and militant self-defence (one can find a haunting tribute to this message in the last photo of Allende, facing Pinochet’s fascist CIA-backed coup on 11 September 1973, holding the AK-47 given to him personally by Fidel).

These experiences, in addition to the degeneration and demise of the Soviet Union, the unprecedented technological/military changes that have taken place in recent decades, plus the emergence of a raft of progressive governments in Latin America, have led the Cubans to a continually more advanced understanding of revolution and the different means of pursuing it. Ricardo Alarcón, President of the National Assembly of People’s Power from 1993 to 2013, sums up this learning well:

“What characterises Latin America at the present moment is the fact that a number of countries, each in its own way, are constructing their own versions of socialism. For a long while now, one of the fundamental errors of socialist and revolutionary movements has been the belief that a socialist model exists. In reality, we should not be talking about socialism, but rather about socialisms in the plural. There is no socialism that is similar to another. As Mariátegui said, socialism is a ‘heroic creation'”.

The link between 20th and 21st century socialism

The history of “actually existing socialism” thus far is sometimes considered in terms of two more-or-less distinct phases. The more recent one was famously labelled by its chief protagonist, Hugo Chávez, as “socialism of the 21st century” or “21st century socialism” (these constructions are the same in Spanish: socialismo del siglo 21); for the sake of a simple demarcation, the period starting with the October Revolution (1917) and ending with the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991) is generally called “20th century socialism”.

Other than the incremental difference in the number of full centuries since the birth of Jesus, the conceptual contrast between the two phases is not entirely well-defined. However, if we define 21st century socialism on the basis of its history thus far, its characteristics seem to include: capturing (some) power via parliamentary elections; empowering workers and oppressed groups through social programmes, education, local democratic structures; moving towards a redistributive economic model whilst avoiding an all-out attack on capitalist economic power. Socialism of the 21st century has a clear, urgent focus on tackling neoliberalism, environmental destruction, and justice for indigenous, African and LBGTQ+ communities – problems that are more pressing and better understood than they were a few decades ago. In summary, it constitutes a pragmatic and creative approach to defending the needs of the oppressed in the modern era, in a context where more thorough revolutionary transformations (dismantling the capitalist state, expropriating the capitalist class, establishing a monopoly on power by the poor) aren’t realistically possible for the time being.

The status of Cuba – along with China, Vietnam, DPR Korea and Laos – in this distinction of “20th century socialism” and “21st century socialism” is a subject that deserves more attention. In terms of Fidel’s legacy as a Marxist-Leninist thinker and revolutionary, it’s worth noting that his influence spans both phases, and is a key link between them.

Fidel Castro at no point disavowed 20th century socialism. Not once did he imply that building a workers’ state (a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, to use Marx’s phrase for it) had been the wrong thing to do. He strongly believed that the European socialist countries had made a terrible, historic mistake in abandoning the socialist path and embracing capitalism. In a forceful speech given in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, in 1996, he said:

“There are many people in [the USSR and the former socialist countries in Europe] who vacillated, but who now are thinking, meditating. They see the disorder, lack of discipline and chaos, and they are perceiving that capitalism has no future. Only the countries which are persisting in socialism – in spite of the enormous difficulties resulting from us being left almost alone – using our intelligence, using our hearts, using our creative spirit, are capable of introducing innovations which will not only save socialism, but will improve it, and one day will bring it to a definitive triumph.

“Because of this, today, in these times, we can say: the future – and this can be said with more conviction than ever before – is one of socialism. Capitalism is in crisis, it does not have solutions to any of the world’s problems; only peoples such as those of Vietnam, Cuba and other countries, who did not abandon the principles of Marxism-Leninism, or of popular democratic government, or of the leadership of the Communist Party, are now forging ahead and achieving results not experienced by any other country in the world.”

http://www.invent-the-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/fidel-chavez-300x213.jpg

Nonetheless, when a radical wave hit Latin America – with the election of, among others, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela (1999), Lula in Brazil (2002), Evo Morales in Bolivia (2005), Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua (2006) and Rafael Correa in Ecuador (2006) – Fidel embraced it with open arms, understanding that it represented an unprecedented step forward for the peoples of the continent and towards the Latin/Caribbean integration that Cuba had long pushed for. He understood that, with the US focus directed towards the Middle East, and with a certain strength in numbers, it was possible for this kind of project to succeed where Allende’s government had been defeated.

Speaking at the inauguration ceremony of Hugo Chávez (to whom he was a longstanding friend and mentor), Fidel highlighted the immense significance of the election of a socialist in Venezuela: “Opportunities have often been lost, but you could not be forgiven if you lose this one.”

All the left-wing governments that have emerged in Latin America over the last 17 years have had enormous respect for Cuba and have sought the wisdom and guidance of its leadership. Like millions of people across the continent, they understand the extraordinary efforts Cuba has made to build and defend its revolution; to create the best education and healthcare systems in the Americas; to wipe out malnutrition and illiteracy; to make huge strides in eliminating racism, sexism and homophobia; to meaningfully tackle inequality; to send internationalist missions around the world; to establish Cuba as a centre of scientific innovation and environmental protection; and to achieve all this in the face of permanent hostility, threats and destabilisation coming from the US. No other country in Latin America can claim anywhere near such a level of success.

Not one of the left-wing governments in Latin America has sought to distance itself from Cuba on account of it not being ‘democratic'; they understand very well that it is far more democratic than the countries that slander it as a dictatorship (in terms of a government representing the will of its people, Cuba might well be the most democratic country in the world).

Through the strong bonds progressive Latin America has formed with Cuba – as well asnwith China – a clear thread of continuity has been established between 20th and 21st century socialism. The key differences are not ideological as such; rather they represent strategic differences corresponding to changed circumstances. Socialism of the 21st century will have a brighter future if, rather than rejecting the experiences of the socialist world so far, it considers itself the continuation of that project and leverages its vast experience. The most advanced contingents of 21st century socialism – specifically the PSUV (Socialist Unity Party of Venezuela), MAS (the Movement to Socialism in Bolivia), the FSLN (Sandinista Liberation Front of Nicaragua) and FMLN (Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front in El Salvador) – clearly do this. This is a valuable aspect of Fidel Castro’s legacy: understanding that the transition from capitalism to socialism is a single, global, multi-generational project with diverse problems, phases and strategies.

The consummate internationalist
“For the Cuban people internationalism is not merely a word but something that we have seen practised to the benefit of large sections of humankind.” (Nelson Mandela, Cuba, 26 July 1991)

“Being internationalists is paying our debt to humanity. Those who are incapable of fighting for others will never be capable of fighting for themselves. And the heroism shown by our forces, by our people in other lands, faraway lands, must also serve to let the imperialists know what awaits them if one day they force us to fight on this land here.” (Fidel Castro, 1989, cited in Cuba and Angola: Fighting for Africa’s Freedom and Our Own)

Fidel Castro thought and operated on a global scale. He understood from the beginning that unity is strength; that socialist and anti-colonial states could not survive except through coordination and mutual support. He therefore pushed the Cuban Revolution to become the extraordinary example of revolutionary internationalism that it is.

http://www.invent-the-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/fidel-chavez-300x213.jpg

His thinking was shaped early on by the extensive support given to Cuba by the Soviet Union, without which the Cuban Revolution simply would not have been able to hold out against the military, economic and political attacks of its neighbour to the north. Raúl Castro emphasises this point: “We must not forget another deep motivation [for our internationalism]. Cuba itself had already lived through the beautiful experience of the solidarity of other peoples, especially the people of the Soviet Union, who extended a friendly hand at crucial moments for the survival of the Cuban Revolution. The solidarity, support, and fraternal collaboration that the consistent practice of internationalism brought us at decisive moments created a sincere feeling, a consciousness of our debt to other peoples who might find themselves in similar circumstances.”

Cuban internationalism has become legendary, and has converted a small Caribbean island of 11 million people into one of the most respected countries on the planet. Speaking in relation to Cuba’s decisive contribution to the defeat of South African apartheid, the liberation of Namibia and the survival of Angola, Nelson Mandela commented: “The Cuban internationalists have made a contribution to African independence, freedom and justice unparalleled for its principled and selfless character… We in Africa are used to being victims of countries wanting to carve up our territory or subvert our sovereignty. It is unparalleled in African history to have another people rise to the defence of one of us.”

Aside from its support for Angola, Cuba also sent troops, advisers and health workers to support the liberation movements and revolutionary states in Guinea Bissau, Algeria, Guinea, Congo, Ethiopia, Western Sahara and South Yemen. Training and supplies were given to the heroic liberation movements in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Mozambique and elsewhere. Hundreds of Cuban tank commanders came to Syria’s aid during the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Cuba gave abundant support to the revolutionary governments in Grenada (1979-83), Nicaragua (1979-90), Chile (1970-73) and to numerous liberation struggles around the South American continent.

http://www.invent-the-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/fidel-vietnam-300x200.jpg

It should be mentioned that Fidel didn’t delegate internationalism to others – he led by example. Indeed, he was the only foreign leader to visit the liberated zones of South Vietnam during the war. There were periods during the height of the struggle for Angola (1987-88) when Fidel devoted most of his time to giving strategic and tactical leadership to that fight; such was his dedication to the cause of ending colonialism and apartheid in Africa.

Havana has provided a home to many revolutionary exiles from the US, including Assata Shakur and Robert F Williams. Cuba has given unprecedented levels of medical support to West Africa, Haiti, Pakistan and many other places. At its Latin American School of Medicine it provides free or subsidised medical training for hundreds of African, Caribbean and Latin American students every year – even a handful of US students from poor families attend the school, on the condition that, on returning to the US, they use their training in the service of their communities. Fidel has been a consistent friend to the cause of Irish unity and self-determination.

As noted above, Cuba has been an inspiration for the wave of progressive governments in Latin America and has been central to the project of developing regional unity. The Second Declaration of Havana, 1962 captured the spirit of Latin American collective struggle long before it became an actual possibility: “No nation in Latin America is weak – because each forms part of a family of 200 million brothers and sisters, who suffer the same miseries, who harbour the same sentiments, who have the same enemy, who dream about the same better future and who count on the solidarity of all honest men and women throughout the world.”

Cuba has been, and remains, a vocal supporter of small countries struggling to maintain their independence and freedom in the face of imperialist pressure. That has included siding with several countries that have been more-or-less abandoned by the fashion-conscious western left, such as Syria, Libya, DPR Korea, Algeria, Zimbabwe and Belarus.

Fidel also recognised the importance of multipolarity as an important emerging trend in world politics, writing in one of his last essays that “the deep alliance of the peoples of the Russian Federation and China based on advanced science, strong army and the brave soldiers is capable of ensuring the survival of mankind”. He understood that, in a context where the US is desperately trying to maintain the uncontested hegemony it won after the fall of the Soviet Union, the establishment of alternative, non-imperialist world powers is a very promising development, creating a much more favourable space for other countries to follow a political and economic path that suits their own needs.

Man of the people
“The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history.” (Mao Zedong)

Fidel had an extraordinary level of faith in the people, an insistence on people-centred government, and a profound understanding that the masses are the true makers of history. The revolution he led remains unsurpassed in its construction of a socialist morality that privileges social justice, fairness, equality, solidarity and participation.

Cuba is often maligned as a dictatorship, but such a label is hard to square with its record in practice of building socialist democracy. One of the first acts of the revolutionary government was to establish brigades of students willing to go out into the countryside in order to teach literacy to peasants who had been deprived even a basic education. Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly on 26 September 1960, Fidel described some of the first actions of his government:

“The revolution discovered over 10,000 teachers without a classroom, without work, and it immediately gave them jobs, because there were also half a million children who needed schools… What was yesterday a land without hope, a land of misery, a land of illiteracy, is gradually becoming one of the most enlightened, advanced and developed nations of this continent. The revolutionary government, in just 20 months, has created 10,000 new schools. In this brief period of time, we have doubled the number of rural schools that had been established in 50 years, and Cuba today is the first country of the Americas that has met all its educational needs, having teachers in even the most remote corners of the mountains. In this brief period of time, the revolutionary government has built 25,000 houses in the countryside and the urban areas… Cuba will be the first country in the Americas that, after a few months, will be able to say it does not have a single illiterate person in the country.”

A ruthless, exploitative dictatorship has no need to provide education to people that have never had education. Growing sugar cane for export does not demand a familiarity with the works of José Martí, Cervantes and so on. The only motivation of the Cuban government in setting up such a programme was to improve the lives of ordinary people, and to empower them to participate more actively in running their society, in making history. Cuba continues to have an education system that is the envy of the world – and which is free at every level.

A ruthless, exploitative dictatorship will exacerbate and leverage racial and gender divisions in order to keep people divided and ruled. And yet the Cuban government has made remarkable progress in tackling discrimination and inequality, and promoting unity. As Isaac Saney writes in his excellent book ‘Cuba – A Revolution in Motion': “It can be argued that Cuba has done more than any other country to dismantle institutionalised racism and generate racial harmony.”

http://www.invent-the-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/fidel-malcolm-300x217.jpg

From the beginning, Fidel saw racism as a major obstacle to the revolution; he considered that a better society could only built with “a united revolutionary people, whose consciousness is constantly developing and whose unity is indestructible” (speech given on the centenary of Cuba’s first declaration of independence, 10 October 1968). Racism was systemic in pre-revolutionary Cuba, with a system of racial segregation in place that would have brought a contented smile to the faces of the architects of South African apartheid. Fidel appreciated that, even with the defeat of the reactionary classes that benefited from racism, it wouldn’t simply die out of its own accord. In a speech on 21 March 1959 – just a couple of months after the capture of power – he made a profound point:

“In all fairness, I must say that it is not only the aristocracy who practise discrimination. There are very humble people who also discriminate. There are workers who hold the same prejudices as any wealthy person, and this is what is most absurd and sad and should compel people to meditate on the problem. Why do we not tackle this problem radically and with love, not in a spirit of division and hate? Why not educate and destroy the prejudice of centuries, the prejudice handed down to us from such an odious institution as slavery?”

Displaying an outstanding humanity and depth of historical understanding, Fidel also connected the struggle against racism in Cuba with the centuries-old colonial domination of Africa, and in turn with the global struggle against colonialism, imperialism and apartheid. At a mass rally of over a million people in Havana in December 1975, where he explains the reasons for Cuba’s solidarity with Angola, he affirmed:

“African blood flows freely through our veins. Many of our ancestors came from Africa to this land. As slaves they struggled a great deal. They fought as members of the Liberating Army of Cuba. We’re brothers and sisters of the people of Africa and we’re ready to fight on their behalf.

“Racial discrimination existed in our country. Is there anyone who doesn’t know this, who doesn’t remember it? Many public parks had separate walks for blacks and for whites. Is there anyone who doesn’t recall that African descendants were barred from many places, from recreation centres and schools? Is there anyone who has forgotten that racial discrimination was prevalent in all aspects of work and study?

“And today, who are the representatives, the symbols of the most hateful and inhuman form of racial discrimination? The South African fascists and racists. And Yankee imperialism, without scruples of any kind, has launched South African mercenary troops in an attempt to crush Angola’s independence and is now outraged by our help to Angola, our support for Africa and our defence of Africa.

“In keeping with the duties rooted in our principles, our ideology, our convictions and our very own blood, we shall defend Angola and Africa! And when we say defend, we mean it in the strict sense of the word. And when we say struggle, we mean it also in the strict sense of the word. Let the South African racists and the Yankee imperialists be warned. We are part of the world revolutionary movement, and in Africa’s struggle against racists and imperialists, we’ll stand, without any hesitation, side by side with the peoples of Africa.”

http://www.invent-the-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/fidel-supporter-200x300.jpg

What has been built in Cuba – through education, through struggle against discrimination, through the establishment of political structures such as the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution – is a genuine people’s democracy; a government that relies on mass participation and that derives its legitimacy entirely through its efforts to represent the interests of the people.

Cuba doesn’t conform to the western liberal concept of democracy, for the simple reason that it has developed a political structure that is better suited to the people’s needs; which is in fact more democratic. In western parliamentary democracy, the masses have the right to say what they think (a right that is usually respected), and the government has the right to completely ignore them (a right that is almost always respected). For example, the recent constitutional changes and associated economic reforms in Cuba were shaped through a process of debate and consultation lasting four years and involving practically the entire population. This was a huge exercise in democracy that stands in stark contrast to the way in which austerity has been rolled out in Europe.

In Cuba there is only one political party – the Cuban Communist Party – but this reflects the fact that this party represents the needs of the ruling classes in Cuban society: the working class and peasantry. And within that party there is a massive variety of opinions on every matter under the sun. The only political question on which unanimity is expected is that of moving forward with socialism, rather than capitulating to imperialist pressure and returning to capitalism. What reasonable person would argue with that? Cuba returning to capitalism would be like France returning to feudalism, South Africa returning to apartheid, the US returning to slavery. As ever, Fidel puts it well:

“Within the revolution, everything; against the revolution, nothing. Against the revolution, nothing, because the revolution also has its rights, and the first right of the revolution is the right to exist, and no one can oppose the revolution’s right to exist. Inasmuch as the revolution embodies the interests of the people, inasmuch as the revolution symbolises the interests of the whole nation, no one can justly claim a right to oppose it.”

Living up to Fidel’s legacy
As Nicaraguan revolutionary Tomás Borge said about his comrade Carlos Fonseca, Fidel is “among the dead that never die.” His life as a revolutionary, a Marxist-Leninist, an internationalist, an outstanding and compassionate builder of a new society, now becomes the collective property of the progressive millions of the world: the anti-imperialists, the socialists, the communists. The only condition of ownership is that we use it to help us move humankind further along the path towards a world without war, oppression, discrimination, exploitation, domination and prejudice; a world that protects the earth, which restores community, and which creates conditions for every single human being – of this and future generations – to be able to enjoy a dignified, fulfilling, healthy, interesting and happy life.

http://www.invent-the-future.org/2017/01/to-honour-fidel-castro-means-to-continue-his-work-of-fighting-imperialism-and-building-socialism/


Perhaps the best testimonial to Fidel I've seen.

Viva Fidel! His was one of the greatest voices for human reason, human dignity, and common equality the world has ever known.

José Martí and Fidel Castro: Two Lifetimes Connected by the Same Revolution
By: Luis Toledo Sande on February 10, 2017

http://resumen-english.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Cuba-Marti-Fidel-204x300.jpg
Photo: Roberto Chile
Had both Cuban leaders not followed that rule, they would have fallen into a vacuum that sterilizes thought and action; they would have waited and seen if the metropolis of the world provided them with the necessary answers to interpret and confront the grave challenges they faced instead of solving them with creativity. These challenges were not only from Cuba—they also pertained to the rest of Latin America, from North American and even the rest of the planet. Both leaders created a guide against cultural colonialism—no matter where it came from.A voracious reader like José Martí, Fidel Castro could very well have written the words the former wrote about himself: ‘Napoleon was born on a carpet that depicted the European war. I must have been born on a pile of books’. In another manuscript, Martí made another confession that’s equally applicable to Fidel, ‘the book that interests me the most is the book of life, which is the hardest one to read, and the one that must be consulted the most in politics—which is nothing more than the art of guaranteeing humankind the full exercise of its faculties in a pleasing existence”.

The way to accurately assess the importance Martí had for Fidel—who called him ‘the most brilliant and universal Cuban politician’ and the ‘eternal guide of our people’— is not to seek similarities in their personalities, and even less to merely compare their written word. Because, as they knew, ideas are important, but their most important aspect is how they inform and change reality.

This explains why, when he was prosecuted for leading the revolution, Fidel declared Martí the intellectual author of the liberation of Cuba he carried out on July 26, 1953, and therefore, of all the revolutionary stage that exists until today. This was more than just quoting, it was a continuation of the purposes of the national hero.

Inherited goals

Fidel’s revolution sought to accomplish Martí’s project for the country. Fidel avidly read Martí’s writings during his time in jail, underlining and annotating them profusely.

The regime that Fidel attempted to overthrew in 1953 was a tool of the US imperial power, one that Martí had already stopped in its plans to take control over Cuba and Puerto Rico to dominate the entire American continent.

Twenty years later, in 1973, Fidel said: “Martí gave us his ardent patriotism, his passionate love for freedom, dignity and decency, his rejection for despotism and his unlimited faith in the people. In his revolutionary preaching was the moral basis and historic legitimacy of our armed action. That’s why we say he was the intellectual author of July 26 [1953].” And on the path that Martí had signaled the Cuban Socialist Republic followed, guided by Fidel and by a Constitution presided by Martí’s will: ‘May the first law of the Republic be the respect of Cubans to the unconditional dignity of man’.

Words, ideas, action

Martí had a conviction he expressed until the very day before he fell in combat, in a letter to his Mexican friend Manuel Mercado: it was urgent to prevent the expansionist plans of the United States, and he was going to act against them, as he told Mercado: ‘Everything I did to this day, and everything I will do, is to that end,’ although in practice he was fighting the Spanish army.

This global strategy was also followed by Fidel, who, in Sierra Maestra, reacted to the destruction of a peasant’s house by a US bomb dropped from a plane. Then, the rebel leader made a confession to a comrade, Celia Sánchez, and it wasn’t just an emotional outlet but a political program: once the tyrant was defeated, he would fight against imperialism.

He eradicated the misery that most of the Cuban people lived in, and created the conditions for educational development and cultural flourishing that Martí enshrined: ‘To be educated is the only way to be free’. This notion of education was inseparable from reading, but also required independent thought.

The famous phrase Fidel pronounced in his defense, ‘history will absolve me’, references the speech Martí pronounced on February 17, 1982, known as the Tampa and Cayo Hueso Prayer. With conviction, he referred to the work towards unity that would lead him to create the Cuban Revolutionary Party: ‘history won’t declare us guilty!’.

The memory of the heart

That’s how organically Fidel embraced Martí. In Spanish, the etymology of the verb ‘to remember’ (recordar) comes from ‘what’s brought back to the heart’, and in other languages, ‘to memorize’ is ‘to know by heart’. That’s how Fidel embraced Martí’s ideas.

Both had the humbleness that characterizes the great. Martí used to say: ‘A man in and of himself is nothing, and what he is, he is thanks to his people. The privileged gifts that Nature gives to some of its children are worth nothing if they aren’t shared with the people, but if they are, they will be exalted by it, like the flowers on the top of a mountain.’

The people can only deposit its energy and trust on those who have the strength to carry it. This relationship between the individual and the masses, between leader and people, explains why Martí remained alive in the memory of Cubans and why Fidel will remain there as well.

Both were living examples of that which Martí wrote to Henríquez and Caravajal, ‘one must give respect and a human and kind nature to sacrifice’.

http://bohemia.cu/opinion/2017/01/jose-marti-y-el-abrazo-de-fidel-castro/

Source: Bohemia, English translation by The Dawn

http://resumen-english.org/2017/02/jose-marti-and-fidel-castro-two-lifetimes-connected-by-the-same-revolution/

Fidel, Political Power and the New Culture of Communication
Posted by ALEXANDRA VALIENTE on FEBRUARY 23, 2017
By Arnold August

https://i0.wp.com/www.telesurtv.net/__export/1487878168413/sites/telesur/img/opinion/2017/02/23/fidel_castro_cuba_communication.jpg_1718483346.jpg

Cuban revolutionary leader and former President Fidel Castro died in Havana, Cuba, Nov. 25, 2016.
Among his many other achievements, Fidel Castro’s accomplishments as the constructor of the new Cuban society include: overthrowing capitalism in favour of socialism and its related principles of equality and solidarity; defeating U.S. neo-colonialist domination to attain sovereignty, independence and dignity; upholding human rights in the areas of health, education, culture and sport; respecting racial equality, gender equality, food and housing for all; and defending freedom of speech and the press, the latter being one of the domains in which Fidel’s example still has much to teach us, and creating a civilized social/political atmosphere without violence. The basis of these exploits, which did not exist before 1959, is the political power of the people resulting from the Revolution that quashed the U.S.-backed state.
As early as 1953, the conquest of a new revolutionary people’s power was at the forefront of Fidel’s mind. This unshakeable goal was combined with the spirit of self-sacrifice that characterized his entire political life. Through defeats and victories from 1953 to 1956 until 1959, his every thought and action were inspired by this overriding guiding objective. It was indelibly combined with key creative tactics that were designed to convert the aspiration to conquer people’s power through armed revolution into a reality. This was the focus of Fidel’s passion.
The current new society bequeathed to the Cuban people finds its origins in the liberated areas during the wars of 1868 and 1895, the latter reaching new levels of organization under the leadership of the Revolutionary Party of Cuba and José Martí. Thus, the seeds of new political power were sowed in the second half of the 19th century, to be resuscitated and updated by Fidel in compliance with the new conditions. Local political power forged in the Sierra Maestra’s liberated areas in 1957–58 was embedded as a virtual state within the neo-colonial dominated state. The July 26 Movement and the Rebel Army were founded and developed by Fidel and his comrades. They grew as the seeds of the Communist Party of Cuba and the Armed Forces respectively. These institutions constitute two ramparts in the maintenance and development of the people’s power, in combination with Cuba’s socialist culture as the shield.
In the course of this epic victorious march and in the ensuing decades, Fidel contributed toward a new feature of the culture of enacting politics within the Cuban Revolution. He was a communicator par excellence, a key component to conquer and improve political power. Thus, his thought and action, among other aspects of his legacy, constitute a new culture of communication between the leader and his people. Let’s look at five examples of how Fidel’s culture of enacting politics was fuelled by the new culture of communication, both of which mutually propelled each other.
First, there was the 1953 writing and distribution of “History Will Absolve Me.” One may ask how it is possible to speak of the communication talents of a leader representing the people’s quest for political power, when he was imprisoned in solitary confinement, far from the masses. However, despite these extreme restrictions, he managed to communicate secretly with other jailed combatants, with some inmates serving time for common crimes and even with guards and prison employees. Before and after his defence, this was his extremely limited world.
Despite being limited to this underground communication system only and combined with the few books he was able to muster, he prepared his defence by memory. It was reported that he wrote and edited in his cell day and night, committing every word to memory until the moment he was brought to court. Only a person entirely devoted to solving Cuba’s problems through a revolution to open the path for people’s power could have maximized such scant communication tools at his disposal.
After delivering his defence from memory, he returned to his cell to find that his written statement had vanished. He set about rewriting it from memory. With close clandestine connections inside and outside the prison walls, he further expanded his communication with the people. Fidel smuggled out his defence piece by piece, using ingenious methods, such as using lemon juice for invisible ink to write on tiny bits of paper. By the time they reached their destination in Havana, the papers inscribed with invisible ink passed through prison security, but, as planned, they then dried up and could be read in Havana.
In Havana, Melba Hernández and Haydee Santamaria, the two women who had participated in the Moncada attack, were among a handful of people in charge of assembling the pieces of paper like a jigsaw puzzle and then printing the text in pamphlet form. Fidel initially instructed his limited world, consisting mainly of these two women, to produce 100,000 copies of his defence. He wrote to Melba and Haydee on June 18, 1954: “Without propaganda there is no mass movement, and without a mass movement, no revolution is possible.” Fidel was no doubt inspired by this interaction with his two comrades, who once again, like in Moncada, were putting their lives on the line under the Batista dictatorship. They themselves, in turn, were galvanized by Fidel’s thinking and heroic resistance in prison. And thus the lemons growing from Cuba’s fertile soil returned to fertilize the revolutionary movement through Fidel’s makeshift pen.
A second illustration is Fidel’s unique communication skill in defending people’s power. On January 8, 1959, this time in front of an immense crowd in Havana, in contrast to the extreme limitations of his solitary cell, Fidel said, “There is immense joy. However, there is still much to be done. Let us not fool ourselves into believing that the future will be easy; perhaps everything will be more difficult in the future.” No doubt the leader was inspired by the jubilant people. However, he was also making use of his unparalleled perspicacity in front of overjoyed supporters, realizing that he had to convey to them, and the national TV audience, caution and vigilance for the coming months and years. Fidel and the people converged into one political and ideological entity by means of his dexterity to communicate. It is difficult to say whether that classic statement spontaneously emerged out of the Havana political atmosphere of the time, given his extraordinary gift to feel the pulse of his people, or whether Fidel had already thought it through. In any case, he said what had to be said.
Either way, there are many other memorable moments in which his communication was indeed spontaneous, leaving in its wake a permanent imprint on the Cuban political landscape. This brings us to our third illustration, which occurred on September 28, 1960, where Fidel spoke in Havana in front of a mass gathering. The transcript reads the way many Cubans still remember it today, either through their own participation or by that unequalled Cuban revolutionary collective memory, through family and friends. I quote from the transcript this first portion in parentheses:
“(Sounds of the explosion of a firecracker) Fidel says, ‘A bomb?’ (People shouting: ‘Block them! We will win!’) (People sing the national anthem and shout, ‘¡Viva Cuba! ¡Viva la Revolución!’)”
The transcript continues:
(Someone from the public speaks with Dr. Castro) (Sounds of a second explosion)
Fidel goes on:
“Do not underestimate the imperialist enemy.”
Out of this dramatic U.S.-backed threat in the heart of Havana, the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution (CDRs) spontaneously emerged in the neighbourhoods and then further developed with the assistance of the Cuban revolutionary leadership. The need for this new type of mass organization was one of life and death for the Cuban Revolution. At the time, in 1961, their formation proved to be indispensable in defending Cuba against U.S.-supported and financed incursions and terrorist acts designed to subvert revolutionary political power. The CDRs, a fruit of the Fidel-and-the-people dynamic, also contributed substantially to governing at the national and local levels, especially from 1959 to 1976, when the political system was institutionalized and the new Constitution approved. The CDRs continued its work after 1976 in many other ways.
In sum, Che captured the essence of this unsurpassed leader-and-people communication. The guerrilla wrote, “At the big public mass meetings, one can observe something like the dialogue of two tuning forks whose vibrations interact, producing new ones in the speaker.”
The fourth illustration draws on a presentation by Fidel on November 25, 2005 to students and professors at the University of Havana on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of his entry there as student. While a student at the University, Fidel dealt in detail with problems confronting Cuba, such as the need to save electricity and oppose corruption. The talk was punctuated with applause and laughter, depending on the point being made. Reading through the transcript again, it provides an almost visual record, such is the vivid interaction of the leader with students and professors. About two-thirds of the way into the talk, he concluded with what was likely an instinctive statement based on perhaps the look on the concerned faces of the students:
“This country can self-destruct; this Revolution can destroy itself, but they can never destroy us; we can destroy ourselves, and it would be our fault.”
Once again, the defence and the further development of people’s power were at the centre of Fidel’s message. After this statement, the interaction between the audience and Fidel accelerated. Che also summarized Fidel’s relationship with the people in this way:
“Fidel and the mass begin to vibrate together in a dialogue of growing intensity until they reach the climax in an abrupt conclusion.”
More than 11 years after the University of Havana talk, corruption is still a problem. However, despite this and other problems, the Revolution based on the people in power is undefeated. The maturity and steadfast nature of the vast majority of Cuban youth may be one of the reasons for its enduring nature.
There are innumerable similar examples. One that comes to mind is February 4, 1962, when more than 1 million Cubans gathered in Plaza de la Revolución following the call of the Revolutionary Government to constitute the Second People’s National General Assembly. Last week was the 55th anniversary of this occasion when Fidel Castro had read the declaration and galvanized the people by both its content and his extraordinary flair for communication to consciously vote in favour of it. In fact, this historical moment inspired me to use a photo of this show-of-hands vote as the cover of my 1999 book on democracy in Cuba.
The fifth example is Fidel’s March 27, 2016 article “Brother Obama.” At first glance, as in the initial example of the 1953 Moncada defence, one may ask how an article written by the retired President in relatively fragile health can be illustrative of the leader–people dynamic by means of active communication between the two to defend the Revolution? While it was no longer possible for him to address and exchange with large crowds, aside from a few exceptions since 2008, he found a way through journalism, to which he had been attracted for many decades. During and right after the Obama visit, a lively debate erupted in the Cuban press and among the people regarding the approach taken to some of Obama’s speeches. It was far from unanimous. “Brother Obama” was written in the context of these controversies. Fidel knew, despite the condition of his health, what was happening in Cuba, and thus his most auspicious article struck a chord with society. It rippled like a wave through the political conversations taking place in Cuba and indeed internationally.
He began his “Brother Obama” address with the following:
“The kings of Spain brought us the conquistadores and masters.” It impacted many inside and outside Cuba, as Obama could not be naively appraised. There is a history of colonialism, neo-colonialism and imperialism from which Obama cannot be detached. However, one of the best and focused of Fidel’s charges was yet to come. He referred to Obama’s startling assertion, quoted by Fidel: “It is time, now, to forget the past, leave the past behind, let us look to the future together, a future of hope.” Fidel felt obliged to answer:
“I suppose all of us were at risk of a heart attack upon hearing these words from the President of the United States.”
Fidel, the revolutionary journalist, courageously wrote what many Cubans, and friends of Cuba, were thinking and writing in their respective ways. It was as if Fidel had somehow inhabited our minds. His timely intervention served as an enormous stimulus and fortification of the Cuban socialist cultural shield. This is held aloft by the vast majority of Cubans to protect people’s political power, independence and dignity and, with this, all the economic, social and cultural achievements of the Revolution.
This is but one of many examples that epitomizes Fidel’s uncanny ability to maintain his dialogue with Cubans through the pen. From the use of lemon juice as indelible ink in 1953 to employing appropriate instruments of writing in 2016, there existed one common thread: Fidel’s concern for the people’s needs of the time expressed by synthesizing them into his ever evolving Marxist-Leninist and Martiano thought to guide action with the goal of safeguarding political power as the foundation of the Cuban Revolution. Thus, in the course of history, Melba and Haydee became millions.
Throughout Fidel’s political life, he contributed to this new culture of communication without historical parallel, given its unique style and long duration, from 1953 to 2016. It is now part of the Cuban Revolution’s patrimony available to every Cuban to exercise on his or her own. But Fidel set the bar very high. Thus, it is not possible to replicate his example, because Fidel is Fidel. However, his legacy as a communicator is the model for leaders at all levels and for revolutionaries in general.
Fidel’s legacy is also part of the world heritage to guide writers and journalists in our countries, such as Canada, to maintain intimate dialectical communication with the needs and concerns of the peoples we are writing about and for.

https://i1.wp.com/www.telesurtv.net/export/sites/telesur/img/news/2017/02/23/arnold_august-panel_2.jpg_231334169.jpg

This article is the English version of the Spanish-language presentation given as part of the panel titled “Fidel, Builder of the New Society” at the “Fidel, Politics, and Culture Symposium” held Feb. 10–11, 2017 during the Havana International Book Fair

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/fidel-political-power-and-the-new-culture-of-communication/

Fidel Castro and the apologists of capitalism

By Nikos Mottas:
Translated abstract of a speech given in honor of Comandante Fidel Castro Ruz; Greece, 28.4.2017*.


The death of Fidel Castro last November unfolded, both in Greece as well as internationally, an orchestrated attack against the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution and socialist Cuba. A patchwork of anticommunism, from the far-right to the edge of social democracy, didn't lose the opportunity to slander the cuban revolutionary, either by attributing to him various characterizations (e.g dictator, controversial personality, etc) or by reproducing proven lies about his supposed fabulous wealth and personal life.

They tried to vilify Fidel with numerous slanders.... That he was a dictator who installed a repressing establishment, that socialism was proved- as some claimed- a 'chimera' which gave birth to authoritarianism, lack of democracy and freedom.

Of course, the slanderers of Fidel got their response from the people of Cuba who, by hundreds of thousands filled the squares and the streets throughout the country, from Havana to Santiago, with tears in their eyes in order to pay their respects to the revolutionary and communist leader.

However, a question arises: What was the reason behind this attack against Castro and why did they consume so much ink in order to vilify Cuba?

The answer is simple. What disturbs the slanderers of Fidel Castro- and thats why they attack so fiercely- is what the Cuban Revolution herself symbolizes: This is the capability of the people, of the working class, to fight for a society free from the capitalist shackles and man's exploitation by man.

Behind any slander against “dictator Castro” hides the agonizing effort of the bourgeoisie and her praetorians to obscure and distort the achievements of Socialism in Cuba, so that no conclusions can be drawn from the struggle of the Cuban people.

The example of the Cuban Revolution shows that the people who will walk towards Socialism, even beginning from a very low level of productive forces development, can achieve great things regarding the working people-popular needs.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Mg1BQ8qaHBA/WQxsqjYHgxI/AAAAAAAACpo/tMnlVxXvWAAnY0u3iLr063ZV73tsa-6IACLcB/s640/Cuba%2BRevolucion%2BFidel%2B.jpg

It is evident that the great achievements of the Cuban Revolution in a series of social life's sectors annoy the apologists of capitalist barbarity. It annoys them, for example, the fact that Fidel's revolutionary government took over a country- colony of the USA- with a very low level of productive forces and steadily transformed her, with the invaluable and crucial economic contribution of the Soviet Union, in a state with very high quality, accessible to all people, public services of Healthcare, Social Welfare, Education, Culture, Sports.

They (apologists of capitalism) are annoyed by the fact that the socialist construction in this small island of the Caribbean, managed in a very short time to almost completely eradicate illiteracy which was dominant in pre-revolutionary Cuba. They are annoyed, of course, because the small Cuba of 11 million inhabitants became a protagonist in internationalist aid and solidarity towards people who were fighting and fight against imperialist barbarity- from south America to Angola.

Exactly because the example of Cuba disturbs them, they decided to turn white into black, to vilify Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution.

However, they silence the truth.

They deliberately silence the fact that in Cuba the right to Social Security is for all the people, for the entire population, while on the same time, in the neighboring superpower- the capitalist “paradise” of the USA- dozens of millions of people have no Social Security coverage.

They deliberately silence the fact that in Cuba there is not even one homeless man or woman, while on the same time the large cities of the European Union and the United States have been transformed into “camps” of homeless people.

They deliberately silence the fact that the Cuban National Health System- free and accessible for the entire population- has been characterized by UNESCO as an “example” for the whole world. You see, contrary to the capitalist world where Healthcare has become a commodity and issue to speculation, in small Cuba it remains public good.

They deliberately silence the fact that Fidel's Cuba managed to decrease child mortality from 42% to 4%, while it is the only Latin American country without child malnutrition.

They deliberately silence that Cuba has one of the lowest illiteracy rates in the world, with the 13% of the annual state budget allocated for the improvement of the public Education System; a number which is double and triple from the respective of the governments in the USA and the EU.


While they silence all the above, Fidel's slanderers and the anticommunists of every nature have the audacity to speak about “lack of democracy in Cuba”. Of course, we know very well about the kind of “democracy” and “freedom” the apologists of capitalism care.

It is the “freedom” in exploitation, the “freedom” of a minority to exploit the work of the majority, the “freedom” in the frantic race of capitalist profit and competitiveness that flattens lives, rights and needs for the majority of the people. It is the “freedom” that limits in capitalist ownership in the means of production which is the regarded as “sacred” and the bourgeois states protect in every possible way. The same “freedom” which leads the struggle for the share of markets and territories that creates military conflicts and imperialist interventions. It is the “freedom” and “democracy” which stop before the entrance of industries and corporations.

Indeed, this kind of “freedom” was trampled by Fidel's socialist Cuba- like in the other socialist countries of the 20th century- because that consists a prerequisite for the working people, for those who produce the wealth, to take the power in their hands and to free themselves from the shackes of exploitation.

One thing is therefore evident: The fact that just a few kilometres south of the shores of the imperialist superpower, with a genocidal, criminal blockade that lasts for 55 years, the small island of socialist Cuba has managed not only to stand upright but to progress and achieve great conquests for the workers-people's needs. These are conquests which in capitalism are unthinkable.

The apologists of capitalism will never forgive Comandante Fidel Castro and Cuba the fact that they didn't bend, they didn't make a step backwards, even when the counterrevolutionary overthrows in the beginning of the 1990s in the USSR and the socialist countries of eastern Europe were dramatically changing the correlation of forces worldwide.

In spite of the various apologists of the capitalist system, Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolutionaries have been vindicated by History.

Comandante Fidel's historic legacy, the capability of the people to assert their liberation from the shackles of the exploitative system haunts - and will haunt forever- the praetorians of bourgeois ideology.

[...]

Indeed, being a Revolutionary in practice and not in words, Fidel, alongside his comrades, along with the Cuban people, proved that the only superpower are the people who resist, who fight against capitalist barbarity, who pave the way to socialist perspective, for a society without exploitation of man by man.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-V7zflodiBGI/WQxwrWhynWI/AAAAAAAACqI/050N6STeZE4PjmKacLKBPuSoHXa3ENdRACLcB/s640/Fidel%2Bportraits%2Bfunera.jpg

* Political event in honor of Fidel Castro Ruz in Thessaloniki, Greece, organised by the Greek-Cuban Association of Friendship and Solidarity and the Greek Committee for International Détente and Peace.

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/05/fidel-castro-and-apologists-of.html

Excellent piece!

Excellent piece!

Ya ever wonder if Mr Mottas is the 'Nikos' of our acquaintance? Of course there's more 'Nikos' in Greece than there is 'Bobs' around here.