It’s not fashionable these days for a writer to support Castro’s Cuba. Communism, after all, is supposed to be dead, a failed experiment that was roundly defeated, when the Soviet Union disintegrated 17-odd years ago, by the oh-so-superior capitalism and its apparent corollary, democracy.
Let me say right now that I am sceptical, and deeply so, of those who denigrate Castro’s Cuba, especially those of us in The Bahamas who do so. In most cases the arguments offered to display the inferiority of the Cuban revolution are not arguments at all, but knee-jerk condemnations that ignore the success of the revolution. They usually refer to material goods, or else they assume that the only possible way that Castro should have retained power for half a century is through the total subjugation of the Cuban people.
The truth, however, is far more complex. It usually is. Cuba’s revolution was, its critics notwithstanding, very much a popular one, as Russia’s was in the beginning. If its popularity has faded within and without, that fact has as much to do with the reaction of the capitalist world around Cuba, which is hostile to it, as it does within Cuba. I’m not saying that the revolution is perfect. I am saying, though, that it isn’t, as some would suggest, the worst thing that could ever have happened to the Cuban people in Cuba (though it may well have been the worst thing that happened to the exiles who still survive). Castro and his supporters overthrew a dictator who was in every way as bad as Castro’s detractors claim he was, or more; but that fact is rarely shared. It’s convenient for people who are comfortable, or who (perhaps uncomfortably, if they think about it, for them) benefit from the suffering of others to resist revolution; it keeps them feeling safe, it keeps them from changing too much, it keeps them from questioning the corrosion that comes with greed.
In many ways the Cuban revolution parallels Haiti’s, which succeeded 155 years earlier, and the success of each revolution depended as much in many ways on the reactions of the countries beyond as it did on the will of the people within the nation. Haiti’s revolution ended in abject poverty and long-term chaos for that nation — not because of some inherent flaw in the idea of freedom for slaves and descendants of Africa, but because of the intolerable demands placed on the nation by the slave-owning countries around it. Cuba’s is sliding into poverty, but despite the best efforts of the Cuban exiles in Miami, and despite the fondest wishes of those who believe Communism is an unworkable system, chaos has not yet begun.
But on New Year’s Day, the Cuban revolution turned 50. The future of the revolution looks bleak. I doubt very seriously that Raul Castro will be able to stem the tide of global capitalism that has already affected his country, and which is changing even Communist China from within. But before we celebrate, before we extol the fundamental glories of “democracy” and capitalism, let us remember that there are riches that go beyond the material. It’s not surprising that we don’t remember; our nation is particularly hollow in that regard. But success cannot be measured only in material goods, or in the protection or the advancement only of the privileged and the rich.
All that said. I want to salute the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution, and refer you to this article from Caribbean Beat. Viva Cuba Libre, for however long it has left.
It was to be a New Year’s Eve party with a difference. Fulgencio Batista, dictator of Cuba, traditionally invited his most trusted generals and political allies to his Havana home, near the military base of Camp Columbia, each December 31. There, among drinks, canapés and cigars, he would shake their hands, offer a small gift, and ensure that his circle of confidants and cronies remained loyal. He had been running Cuba since 1933, sometimes as army chief, sometimes as “elected” president, and he knew how to spot a potential usurper.
The gathering on New Year’s Eve 1959 was smaller and more subdued than usual. Batista’s power was visibly ebbing away, as guerrilla groups closed in on Havana and other major cities. Batista boasted that the Cuban army had routed the guerrilla forces at Santa Clara, but few believed him.
And, crucially, the US Ambassador had visited Batista on December 11 and told him that the Eisenhower administration could no longer prop him up. It was perhaps only a matter of time before the forces of Fidel Castro, after three long years of fighting, would be at the gates of the capital itself.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 17 comments }
You know I can’t resist this one Nico.
Absolutely Batista was as mean and nasty as Castro became and still is from what I read.
The “Revolution” was popular because of Castro promising to:
A.) “I will lead the country to economic and cultural progress without sacrificing individual freedoms.
B.) “There is little room in Cuba for communist ideas.”
C.) Cuban rebels didn’t preach class war.
D.) Promise to restore the Constitution of 1940
E.) The promise of free elections
That’s a revolution worth supporting.
The questions today are:
Where is the individual freedom?
Are there Communist ideas in Cuba?
Isn’t class warfare Castro’s motto.
Did he restore the 1940 Constitution?
And do they have free elections?
You see Capitalism is not what so called progressives portray it as today.
Capitalism is an economic system that values individual freedom, property rights and the rule of law – not the rule of the master as in Cuba. Not to mention, hard work, saving, family, ethics and more.
Regretfully, there are bad people in any economic system.
Finally, having visited Havana, I much prefer The Bahamas. And you know what, I don’t see many people emigrating to Cuba.
That’s enough for now.
Rick.
See this link: http://www.weblogbahamas.com/blog_bahamas/2008/12/norman-girvan-caribbean-scholar-in-praise-of-castro.html
Thanks, Rick. The conversation will in likelihood continue.
Hi Nicolette,
I like to be agreeable but on this one, I have to side with Rick. I don’t know as much as I’d like about Cuba and how content people are. I like to take people at face value but when I get a chance to see Cubans discoursing on TV, (they are noticeably rare occasions) I find myself asking: Are these people praising Cuba without fear of reprisal? Their answers have that feeling of being scripted. What would happen if they spoke out? How would their lives be changed? Perhaps they are being sincere but their robotic dialogue seems in contrast to the few Cubans I have actually met. When Cubans are truly free to speak freely (ie: they are out of the country and their families too) what they say has surprised me. They tell me about the cruel nature of government revenge. Some way or another, they are made to suffer—and their families and children too.
To be fair, not everything about communism is bad—Pope Jean Paul II made that clear when the Berlin Wall came down. For example, there is much to be said for how they care for the poor, how they educate and give people jobs. Capitalism seems indefensible on these points, especially when you are down-and-out and no one will lift a finger to help you. But it’s more accurate to blame that on the human heart and its frequent lack of charity.
My major beef about communism, however, is the oppression of worship. And that goes for Cuba as well. How many pour souls have been lost since that revolution? Speaking of unfashionable subjects, religion is one of the most unfashionable subjects in Cuba. In huge swathes of the population, it’s almost as if God doesn’t exist. I don’t want to sound a zealot but, to me, it seems as obvious as Descartes’ reasoning that, if a soul lives for eternity, a system of governance that allows worship is infinitely preferable to one that does not—despite its many faults. Suffering on earth for 70 years is but a blinking of an eye. We’re talking about eternity here—and that’s infinite.
At its core, no matter how much it speaks of earthly justice and equality, communism is a materialist-based philosophy. Take spirituality out of peoples’ lives and that’s what you get. (I’m reminded that Vladimir Iliych, whose best known alias is “Lenin”, had this to say: “Not a million excrements, not a million pestilences, not a million defilements—none of these are so much to be feared as the most refined, the most subtle, the most invisible idea of God. God is the enemy of communism”. Enough said—for all who follow his teachings.
Ironically, the best form of communism (or “living together”) yet devised by man is the Benedictine Monastery: full of humility, lovingness, and service to one another—and to God. The special love shown by the Bahamian people for God is one of the reasons I love this country and its people. But, true, we are losing that,ever so surely, under assault from Hollywood, pop culture and the pursuit of “fun”.
Still, most of us are luckier by half than the Cubans—we have God and eternity to look forward to. He’s the only thing that can satisfy the human soul. It was designed by Him that way. Sadly, you might not know it until you die.
Cheers
Bob
Thanks, Bob, for a balanced response, and for admitting what is clear to me and which is too rarely admitted — that Cuba and many communist regimes are better than many capitalist ones at “how they care for the poor, how they educate”. This is certainly true of Castro’s Cuba (though many would say that he has made the entire country poor, I would argue that he didn’t do that without the explicit activity of the USA, which parallels the creation of the Haitian economic disaster by the imperialists of its day).
I tend to be sceptical of the question of freedom of speech and its absolute link to communism. There is a difference between communism and totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is not exclusive to the communist politico-economic model. Capitalism — even “democracy” — does not guarantee freedom of speech. In The Bahamas of most of the twentieth century, our capitalist ideals have not prevented free speaking from being punished either economically (pre 1967) and politically (post 1967). Even today, under a regime that prides itself on establishing the freedom of the airwaves, too few Bahamians, particularly those who are not independently wealthy, will speak their minds as they would like. We cannot blame that on communism at all.
I am not a communist. However, I am fundamentally an admirer of Castro’s Cuba because Castro achieved what the rest of this region, with all its variable riches, cannot even imagine achieving: a sense of self in a post-colonial world, a justifiable sense of pride in that self, and an understanding of the place of oneself in history — all of which are rare in the post-slave societies of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Finally, as a Christian, I remain unmoved by “the special love by the Bahamian people for God”. I hear about it all the time but I don’t see it practised. In fact, I see our addiction to “God” as so much hypocrisy and fear; our national character is so often small, judgemental, petty and cruel that I hardly ever recognize the face of Jesus in it at all. From my experience, in which many self-proclaimed Bahamian Christians would rather curse than love, Benedictine ideals — humility? lovingness? service? — are as foreign to our country in practice as Castro’s communism is. Perhaps more so.
Thanks for stopping by.
Dear Bob and Nico:
I wonder if either of you have been to Cuba?
It is one thing to praise Castro for the way they care for the poor and eductae people, it’s another to see the reality on the ground.
Why don’t all those who think more should be done for the poor here act more like Sir Durward Knowles and put there money or their time toward those causes?
I think much more can be accomplished that way than government taking your money and pouring it into the abyss of waste, lack of accountability, and more importantly lack of results.
I’ve been to Cuba, Rick.
Don’t assume that we’re looking for the same things, or that we measure success by the same yardstick. I don’t think we do.
For me, poverty comes in many different forms. Money does not solve the majority of them. In The Bahamas, it can be argued that money has made our social and educational poverty worse. Our obsession with everything material has not done us many favours, in my opinion.
I’m not even going to address your position on government, because I (a) don’t know what bits of government you think are necessary and what bits are not, and (b) have observed that you are quick to invoke government and law when it comes to the protection of private property, and so am fundamentally confused about your apparent anarchism.
I know we agree on the fact that there’s a lot of government waste etc. But I would be interested to know what level of government you think is necessary to the smooth functioning of society. Until we understand each other in other areas, further discussion will be fruitless.
You’re changing the discussion Nico and you’ve chosen not to respond to Castro’s promises, but I’ll provide more detail for you later tonight or over the weekend.
Dear Nico:
You ask: “But I would be interested to know what level of government you think is necessary to the smooth functioning of society.”
One crucial aspect of government is facilitating the rule of law. It is very important that you are able to do what you wish without doing harm to anyone else.
Family, learning, honesty and hard work are aspects of life that I think are crucial in a society.
Certainly government should not represent 40% of GDP. It should be half that.
Like most things, results are better if things are managed closer to the people – the subsidiarity principle.
It’s no different with help for the poor etc.
Those things take commitment to the individual, not the spending of money, which is the yardstick most governments tend to use as a measurement of its success.
Hope this helps clarify my position a bit for you.
Rick, thanks for the clarification. It helps.
Regarding the main discussion, I wasn’t aware that I was changing the discussion; I was responding to your second comment, not the first. I can’t speak for Castro or for his promises; I haven’t done enough research across biases to make an informed decision. My sources (which are clearly more Marxist than yours) regard Castro’s regime as having, and continuing to have, popular support, though in the last two decades (the period since the collapse of the Soviet Union) economic and social fatigue has set in. Yours (which are anti-communist) regard Castro as an oppressive dictator whose regime is maintained only by force. I suspect the reality is somewhere in the middle.
Not to belabour this Nico but how would you feel with a Bahamas Defence Force Officer policing your neighbourhood and listening in on your conversations as the Defence of the Revolution Guards do in Cuba?
How would you like to have to get a permit to go to Grand Bahama or Cat Island as people have to do if the wish to visit the other towns/cities in Cuba?
I’m sorry, but I can’t see how “progressives” like you ignore these basic fundamental rights? Except if it’s a dictator on teh right of course.
When are we going to agree that it’s no longer left or right, it’s right or wrong public and economic policy?
I really appreciate your article. As I finished reading, a few thoughts came to mind.
Cuba exposes the erroneous belief that material wealth is the sole marker of growth or success. I often wondered how, for example, Alice Walker would advocate that black Cubans under Castro appeared to be content as they maintained lives that allowed them to provide for their daily needs. e.g. organic farming. On the other hand, I would hear a few stories from some of my Bahamian relatives who after their visits to Cuba would often comment on the poor and miserable living conditions of black Cubans. The only way that I make sense of these two distinct accounts is to understand the lens of “success” that each probably wore while in Cuba. Walker as an author practices Buddhism and reflects on the constant injustices faced by people of the world, whereas the relatives are possibly informed by the belief that happiness is based on striving for material abundance.
Your post, regardless of the arguments in the comments above, leads me to think about the rampant materialism and the current global economic crisis faced by some of the capitalist nations. Cuba’s sustainable way of life has evaded chaos and achieved a growth that albeit impossible to measure from a materialistic stance, has maintained an observable level of order, survival, and strength. Thanks!
“Material wealth is the sole marker of growth or success” is no doubt an erroneous belief, however, Capitalism has brought more comfort to the average citizen than any other system I have read about or seen, and people like Castro deny their people of the opportunity to a better life while enjoying all the finer things life has to offer.
I’m reminded of the Kings and Queens of those dark days in the past.
When I read people like Alice Walker, I’m reminded of Tibor Machan and Paul Hollander and so many others like them that have left these tyrannical regimes for countries where they can at least pursue their own path and not the one dictated by the state.
I don’t see these “progressives” giving up their electricity for 12 hours a day or more, or living off of government rations or waiting on the government to give them housing, the ability to travel when they please nor their right to free speech etc.
Don’t you see the irony?
If it were just about late twentieth-century basics I wouldn’t quibble. But I think the argument is disingenuous. The reason the majority of Cubans have access to electrical supplies, and are not relegated to living in unwired homes, is the result of the revolution. The reason they have frequent powercuts is the result of the embargo. The same thing goes for food production, etc, and rationing. It’s arguable that an island that was settled and developed exclusively to grow a cash crop to supply a European country with wealth is not well-situated to be wholly self-sustainable in a globalizing world; and when the Soviet Union was meeting Cuba’s external needs the revolution was far more robust.
Where I would diverge from the Cuban revolution is in the arena of being free to dissent. There we agree. But I would still argue that it’s a favourite tool of capitalists to conflate communism with its totalitarian manifestations alone, ignoring the numerous socialist adaptations that have coexisted with democracy — Canada, Scandinavia, France, Labour Britain, and (just for fun) the first-generation PLP Bahamas all come to mind.
The subject isn’t anywhere as cut and dried as you make it out to be.
A few thoughts….
Comfort: Depends on your definition of it.
Citizen Rights:
In an earlier post you asked whether one would like to have the defense force officer listen in on conversations. How you would like it if you noticed a suspicious person eyeing your property. You call the police to report the incident, and you live in a nice neighborhood, and the police never arrive? This happened to a friend of mine in the Bahamas, who lives in an extremely nice neighborhood, called the police panicked at the acts of a suspicious person eyeing her property and the police never arrived. I was at a dinner party and the majority of young Bahamians gathered agreed that this was common practice and suggested that it was common knowledge that the police only arrive if you report something more serious like murder. This happened in a democratic, capitalist, “comfortable” place. I use this example to suggest that there are issues for citizen protection and rights in Cuba but that they potentially exist in many government systems and not just under Castro. I’m guessing we could go back and forth on the ills of Cuban society and the serious issues faced by democratic capitalist ones. I’m also guessing that using simple examples for our specific stance would be rather unproductive if we continued to do so.
Progressives:
You seem to blanket all progressives into thinking that they believe certain things and don’t practice them. I don’t know how you come up with this. Yet I think the progressive “lens” is interested in seeking out a bit more nuance (which I think you describe as irony) in understanding governmental systems, comfort, and the like.
Ms. Walker is American, and I am not sure of which tyrannical regime she left. While I do agree that in some ways she appears to have a strong interest in a global citizenship and not just one that is defined by the nation state, she actually uses her global citizenship to advocate for change for all nations, one that is based on harmony, equality, and sustainable living.
See Alice Walker’s letter to President Clinton in 1996 relating to Cuba and Fidel. http://www.cubasolidarity.net/awalker.html
Also, for those damn progressives: http://judithlevine.com/, http://100milediet.org/book,
http://www.simplelivinginstitute.org
Observable Success: I return to my initial interest in Nicolette’s view that there is something to be said for Cuba’s success in maintaining some observable level of stability. Think of their healthcare: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5232628.stm, and education: http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/the_exchange/cuba.shtml
With Obama’s administration, it will be interesting to see what will happen to Cuba if the U.S. embargo is lifted and families are able to travel. His “progressive” stance on Cuba will alter our discussions for years to come.
Dear Nico:
But we are in the 21st Century now, not the 20th and the people of Cuba deserve better in my not so humble opinion. Or they at least deserve the right to choose.
The embargo is an easy target, and I do not support it. But the embargo is not the sole reason for Cuba’s decline. The main contributor to Cuba’s failure of its people is the economic system. And this is not subject to debate. The facts from around the world speak for themselves.
The so called revolution was robust because Russia was pumping loans and goods into Cuba. Cuba could not repay when Russia had it’s own economic issues which caused a big rift between the two countries at one point. In fact, Russia has had to write them off previously and I read recently in discussions with Cuba about recouping some of their money.
Until Cuba changes it’s economic system, as many countries around the world have found success doing, there is little hope.
Cuban’s have to be allowed to create wealth so they can at least enjoy better living standards. The State does not create wealth.
As you know, I’m not prepared to make excuses for Castro or The Bahamas government failures.
I am certainly not suggesting that everything is “cut and dried”, there are nuances to life. I’m certainly glad I was born here rather than in Cuba, that’s for sure.
Dear Nic Nac:
I thought your post was from Nico or I might not have answered an anonymous post.
However, since we are into it, from what you said we can assume you would be happy with the Bush wire tapping for example?
I prefer to live with some relative freedom and take my chances on calling the police should I need them, rather than having them live in my backyard.
I also prefer having the opportunity to own my own property that I can sell and buy whenever I choose. Cuban’s do not have that choice. If they don’t do right, in the opinion of the regime, they just might not have a house.
I guess you support the stealing of the private property that Castro lead when he took over?
There is no perfect system, but from what I have read and seen, Capitalism leads the pack. Warts and all. And frankly most stories related to me of Bahamian’s going to Cuba is that they go to enjoy the “pleasures” of Cuba – namely the women. Something else the revolution was going to do away with – Prostitution. Remember?
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that Alice Walker emigrated to the US. I was trying to imply that she should emigrate to Cuba if it was all peaches and cream as you imply. I meant though, that Tibor Machan and Paul Hollander left countries that did not allow the freedoms we enjoy.
My view of progressives does fit your analysis and that is my experience. They know what’s best for everyone. I just want everyone to have the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms I do. I do not want to direct their lives. And it’s okay if they want to live as they currently do in Cuba. I don’t think the status quo would remain in Cuba if the people had the opportunity to change it.
Thanks for sharing your links. And since we are sharing links, I have a couple for you:
Fidel Batista: http://www.nassauinstitute.org/articles/article355.php
Bad Cuban Medicine: http://www.nassauinstitute.org/articles/article354.php
Cuba’s Cruel Joke: http://www.nassauinstitute.org/articles/article420.php
Finally, the embargo should be lifted as should Castro’s oppression of his people.
Hi all, I don’t really want to join the debate about Cuba – filled with good and bad. What I do want to comment on Rick is your comment:
“You see Capitalism is not what so called progressives portray it as today.
Capitalism is an economic system that values individual freedom, property rights and the rule of law – not the rule of the master as in Cuba. Not to mention, hard work, saving, family, ethics and more.”
Capitalism is an economic system as you rightly state. As such it values the free exchange of goods, services, and capital. All of those other values you ascribe to capitalism are only important insofar as they facilitate free exchange. Family bonds, ethical behavior, and to some extent saving, can tend to hinder said free exchange and hence can tend to hinder growth. We have just experienced an impressive period of growth fuelled by unethical behavior and credit spending.
Moreover it is a mistake to equate capitalism with an political system. As the examples of China, Singapore, South Korea illustrate, capitalism can flourish in political systems that have no regard for individual freedoms. Even given all that, 18 months ago I still would have said some sort of regulated market economy is still the best way to go. Now i’m not so sure!
You are right though, the first responsibility of Government in any system is the rule of law. Without that, no economic or social system can be successful.
Thanks Mr. Bethel:
How much of this unethical behaviour would you attribute to the huge growth in money supply?
Money that has to be loaned out when it is bought up by banks.
How about the winks and nods to let people borrow money, even if they don’t qualify?
Did that contribute to the problem we face today?
Based on your comment, I think we agree on more than we disagree on however.
Rick
Comments on this entry are closed.