Future of the Cuban Revolution

Snert wrote:

Quote:

How can you ignore Uncle Sam when he and his torture gulags at Guantanamo represent the largest threat to human rights on the island of Cuba?

 

Fidel, I'm not saying you have to ignore Uncle Sam. I'm saying that finger pointing at Uncle Sam in order to take attention away from genuine problems with Cuba is dishonest. It's distraction. I'm not sure what you just don't seem to get about that.

 

That doesn't prevent discussing the U.S. for context, but once that context is provided, one would assume it would then be part of the discussion of Cuba... not a new discussion about the evils of the U.S. [b]instead[/b] of discussing Cuba.

 

I know you really, really, really don't ever, ever, ever want to criticize Cuba, but sometimes it's not unreasonable to. It kind of looks a bit fishy when supporters are unable to ever concede that Cuba has problems, or to be obsessive about always pointing out that whatever problem Cuba may have is either the direct fault of the U.S., or else the U.S. has the same problem, only worse.

 

It's hard not to notice that even in this little side discussion, you want to discuss the evils of the U.S. instead. You're making my point for me.

To be fair, Snert, Fidel is not the only Babbler who does this. As you say, "Look, a distraction!" is a pretty common mode of discussion here. You're trying to stay on topic: when people sense that they have no rational leg to stand on, they try to change the subject.

ygtbk wrote:

To be fair, Snert, Fidel is not the only Babbler who does this. As you say, "Look, a distraction!" is a pretty common mode of discussion here. You're trying to stay on topic: when people sense that they have no rational leg to stand on, they try to change the subject.

Seems like you are ascribing intent to people posts.  That is always a dangerous thing to do IMO. I know that in another thread about BC politics you threw in a post about Ont. provincial politics that seemed to have no relevance to the discussion. Personally I didn't ascribe any intent to derail in your post, just a normal occurrence on babble.  Maybe people just post to post and sometimes what they post is not really on topic but in their minds it was when they posted it. I know I've even posted comments in the wrong thread and had people ascribe bizarre motives to a simple mistake.

George Victor wrote:

To be fair, ygtbk, Fidel's concern for Uncle Sam is legendary. 

Perhaps you could use another example (Snert was earlier wondering at trippie's wanderings, I believe),  and at the same time carry forward a discussion that has indeed wobbled from "future of the Cuban revolution..."

Good idea. I think that the long-term effect of the Cuban Missle crisis was to make the U.S. extremely wary (some would say paranoid) of Cuba. I don't think that there will be good relations between Cuba and the U.S. until Cuba has definitively renounced communism.

M. Spector wrote:

Why not? The United States has "good relations" with China, which has never definitively renounced communism.

When's the USA going to definitively renounce capitalism? That's the real question we should be asking. 

Cuba's geographically closer. Launch window and all that. As to when the U.S. will renounce capitalism, your guess is as good as mine.

M. Spector wrote:

So, Cuba's a greater military threat to the USA than China is? Interesting theory - NOT!

I said I thought they were wary (or paranoid). I didn't say I thought they were being totally rational. Sheesh.

ygtbk wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Why not? The United States has "good relations" with China, which has never definitively renounced communism.

When's the USA going to definitively renounce capitalism? That's the real question we should be asking.

Cuba's geographically closer. Launch window and all that. As to when the U.S. will renounce capitalism, your guess is as good as mine.

I don't know about capitalism, but globalization of capitalism as it stands now is a lie. The American way of life,  as it was centrally planned by US State Dept and US Military planners in the early 1950s, is unsustainable given the realities of peak oil and dwindling world energy supplies from fossil fuels. The American dream of bringing urban conveniences to country living is turning out to be a  environmental oxymoron. We are literally running out of natural gas and cheap fossil fuels in helping that country to prop-up the American dream. Americans will have to choose between electing increasingly crazier politicians who promise them the world in order to maintain their way of life, or they can choose wisely. It looks as if they are choosing the former with recent elections of Republican politicians who will likely expand the blood for oil war agenda into the few Muslim countries left that are not under control of western oil companies and western world neocolonizers.

ygtbk wrote:

I said I thought they were wary (or paranoid). I didn't say I thought they were being totally rational. Sheesh.

Yes, the US Military dictatorship was formed in 1947 with the signing of the National Security Act. Millions of Americans don't trust their own government anymore.

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17307]Spying on the lives of Americans: A Multibillion Dollar Bonanza for the Telecoms[/url] America's endless & highly profitable, "War on Terror."

The East German STASI was a small and inefficient operation by comparison

Post # 43

You are living in a daydream if you think the working class of Cuba decided to through themselves into further economic turmoil. People form Cuba are not free, they risk their live to escape on makeshift rafts.

 
The government decides everything for them.

Well, if Raul's going to make the place more capitalist, would it do any harm to allow, at the same time, the formation of independent left groups in Cuba as well, groups that might actually be able to come up with socialist alternatives to the false choice of the command economy or following the Chinese path to market Stalinism?

I can't see how glasnost would harm anything at this point.  Cuba's revolution has never actually benefited from restrictions on political discussion.

There are a lot of good things in the Cuban revolution, but the fixation with preventing open public discussion of what the country should do has never been one of them.

The Revolution needs fresh air and freedom from fear.

When trying to understand what happened in Cuba, you can not live with blinders on. There was never a Socialist revolution in Cuba, it was a nationalist revolution. Just because Castro, the self imposed leader of Cuba, has a very good understanding of Marxist principles, does not mean that he implemented those ideas. Which he didn't.

  There is no working democracy in Cuba, all decisions are formed by the government lead bureaucracy.

 
   No one is counting the USA out of the equation. They are a major factor in the history and future of Cuba. That is why Castro has become such a failure. He thought that he could lead a nationalist revolution, form a government under his interpretation of Marxism and bring prosperity to Cubans. And, as with all other revolutions of the time, lead buy socialist minded people, their biggest mistakes were nationalist tendencies, the underestimation of the bourgeoisie with capitalist ideology.

 
Cuba today is not a workers paradise. It's a workers hell hole.

Trippie, if you want to see real human rights sewers up close, buy a plane ticket to El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras or even Haiti, a failed nation state under the direct economic tutelage of the USA for decades just 55 miles from Cuba. A real basket case is Haiti, and that's what the fascists want Cuba to look like sans the Castros.

trippie wrote:

Let me state my opinoin more clear.. I don't blame what happend in Cuba on America, I blame Castro for his underestimation of World politics.

The American mid=term election clearly shows that in their democracy the billionaire crooks make all the decisions.  I suppose that is Castro's fault as well. I don't want anyone making all the central economic decisions but if I have to choose between a government that has a structure for input and hedge fund managers making all the decisions while poisoning the political well then I choose Cuba as the lesser of two evils. Not a great model but compared to most countries in the world from America to China their citizens have as much freedom.

Trippie you compare Cuba to your view of perfection not the actual alternative models in the world. It could be better but it is not as bad as Puerto Rico or Haiti the other two countries in the region with the most "western capitalist" influence over the last 60 years and places where their citizens have zero input into decisions.

Roberteh wrote:

In my youth, I was more inspired by the National Sandinista Revolution than the Cuban. For I have always found his regime grey and stagnant. Where he lost all credibility was when he made Socialism a dynastic affair - which was evident from the very beginning. I have long come to understanding that for real change to happen, it must come from below - not above. Sadly, most Caudillos never recognize this. Nationalism is not the answer to world's social problems...it might contain them for a while but only an open ended struggle on the social space...that is local and supranational will we ever achieve the world we want to see.

Agreed and make no mistake I think that Cuba is far from a workers paradise.  I just think that calling it a police state when you look at the countries within 200 miles of the island is an overblown use of the term.  Its like calling Canada fascist.  Somewhat accurate but overblown.

I have a poster from FACS on my wall.  A historic anomaly since it was a tenth anniversary celebration that I received about the time the evil empire retook control.  

1979-1989 Diez anos de cooperacion con la Solidariadd Internacional.

Some people's ideas of freedom are simply a throwback to  bourgeoise youth doing their own thing in the 60s.  Their idea of freedom would be offended by any collectivist project...let alone one at the national level. And they will never endeavour to visit Cuba to attempt to ferret out the truth.  

Ken Burch wrote:

Actually, the Revolution was in power until 1990.  It wasn't until then that the U.S. succeeded in getting enough Nicaraguans to surrender by having the embargo starve them and the Contras massacre them.

They made a deal with the Contras back then, the Nicaraguan contras and not Olly North's mercenaries for hire from as far away as Peru, that they would be rewarded with land and set them up in good government jobs, wealthy rancheros etc. It didn't materialize for a lot of them, and Chamorro lost a lot of support. And Lacayo turned out to be another disappointing neoliberal stooge who absconded with millions of the country's finances.

No snark intended.  My point was simply that, if the Sandinistas weren't voted out until February 25, 1990(and I still remember the Monday morning after that vote as one of the most singularly depressing days of my life)that a poster celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Revolution that was issued while the Revolution was still in power (and at a time when the party of the Revolution had every reason to assume it would be re-elected in a landslide)was not, in fact, a historic anomaly.

They didn't KNOW the end was near when the poster was printed.

Or else, if it was printed after the people were forced to vote to end the Revolution, it was still a valid tribute, since the Revolution had in fact stayed in power for ten years.

I wasn't slamming you or anything.  Sorry.

Maybe Cuban leaders read Rabble?... they seem to have heard you guys.

Cuba announces date for important party congress

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101109/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_party_congress

Quote:

Cuba will hold a long-delayed, and much-anticipated, Communist Party Congress next April and leaders will use the meeting to chart a new economic future for the island, President Raul Castro announced Monday.

The congress, which last took place in 1997, is traditionally used to announce major policy changes. It is supposed to be held every five years, but has been delayed repeatedly as Cuba grappled with a change in leadership and a deep economic crisis.

Yes, the "Not too much" was intended .  For Cuba, those deposits off Brazil  would invite immediate invasion by Uncle Sam. 

You think they may have heard us, eh BDC?     Well, when I finally get to vacation there, I can remind them about the source of their reforms.  Should be good for conversation over a cuba libra or two, at least. (mas despacio, por favor )

Castro should have followed the Swiss. At least that would have been closer to Socialism then what they have now.

trippie wrote:

Castro should have followed the Swiss. At least that would have been closer to Socialism then what they have now.

Cuba's banks weren't full of money stolen from Holocaust victims by the Third Reich, so "following the Swiss" wasn't an option.

"Castro is a failure and has done more harm to the idea of Socialism then good."

For a materialist to pronounce about the "idea" of socialism, and not what it has meant for the Cuban people, is about as empty a rhetorical stance as you'll find, anywhere.

What bad things has he done to the people of Cuba, trippie? Spare us your fogbound "idea of socialism", just for a mo.

Swiss, Sweden, same Social Democrat bullshit, but at least Castro could have held the Americans off better with that model..

You now what the number one requiremnt of Socialism is?

Rational thinking....

The only rational thought one needs about Cuba is to understand that it is a failure. Even Castro has come to the conclusion that his economic ideaas are not working. Stop living in a dream world.

Look Im not defending America.

I blame Castro for the problems in Cuba.It was his revolution and he has controlled the government all this time.

His ideas have lead to the disasters. Socialism can not be formed in one country. He went up against the USA and lost. He sided with Stalin and lost. And the Cuban people have had to bare the brount of it.

I have never been to Cuba, I don't need to go there to understand that the place is not a paradise.Ive had freinds go there, Iv'e heard enough stories, I've listen to many different opinions and observations of the place. I've come to my conclusions. your opinion is just one of the many.

They are not running a Socialist economy there. It's a control economy. People can not spontanously form ideas there. People steel from the government and sell the items out back doors.

I don't like Social Democracies, It's a half way step that keeps the bourgeoisie in control. It's had a 100+ history to prove itself. It has not made the world a better place. Maybe for a few poeple, but their gains are constantly picked away.

You're not defending Uncle Sam just avoiding discussing him a lot in order to focus on Cuba. But if you're not going to talk about what a shithole Cuba was under the US-backed mafia regime for years a years, even though they they enjoyed full trade between Cuba and the mainland, then how can we make any reasonable comparisons?

What should Cuba look like today as far you're concerned, Trippie?

What would Newfoundland or PEI look like after not being able to export or sell anything to the mainland for 50 years?

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13886]An American attorney from Washington visits Cuba for the first time[/url]  Philip Fornaci reflects on his visit to Cuba in recent years

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/Capture-28.gif[/IMG] 

Viva La Revolución