So farewell, Castro

32 comments from readers

Stated Newman
21 February 2008 at 10:13

Isabel Hilton's peice is succint and highlights very important points. Castro and his followers, including the undeservedly lionised Che, cracked down on and marginalised the other elements who took part in the Cuban revolution, such as the independent trade unionists. They claimed sole credit for the revolution's success and thus sole legitimacy to rule. Though not as bad as the bureaucratic elite of the USSR there has been little or no effective political freedom in Cuba.

Nonetheless having travelled and lived in Latin America and the Caribbean I must admit that the living conditions and access to education of Cubans before and after the 'special period' (when Soviet aid dried up and real hardship was felt) are on the whole much better than that of the majority in comparable countries, like Jamaica, or many Latin American countries.

The entirely counter-productive US embargo only helped Castro justify the lack of political freedoms by creating a sense of siege in Cuba. If the US could stop acting like a bully towards the island then reformists might be able to push for greater political freedoms while still retaining the positive elements of the economic system.

Prasantb
21 February 2008 at 15:18

B Prasant, Kolkata,India

It was the summer of 2003. I was in Cuba as part of my almost ritualistic bi-annual visit to the country and to the people I love and feel comfortable with, utterly. I may have my roots firmly planted in Communist Kolkata, but the great wave of freedom that sweeps the tiny alligator-shape green island floating defiantly within less-than-striking distance of a hateful and utterly aggressive neighbour, has always made me nostalgic about Cuba the moment I would board the Air Cubana flight and depart from la Habana.

Even then when Fidel was fit as a fiddle, especially after having stopped his 10-cohiba cigars-a-day routine, there was informal talk about who after el Commandante? The answer inevitably was ninguno, no one. That was true. Who could physically replace that giant of a revolutionary, that living legacy of what Cuba is today, that large and too visible symbol of hope of the developing countries of el Caribe, of Central America, of Latin America, of Africa, and of beyond the realm el Español?

But then, the young and old, lolling around somewhere near the city promenade, in lieu of a mid-day siesta that they would forego in my honour (and they would, especially after a well-judged drink or three, half-the-time regard me as one of them, giving me a strange shiver of pride) would engage themselves in what we in Kolkata call an adda, an unrestrained, continuous, and chaotically happy exchange of whatever and on whomever we would have our fancy at that moment, between chews of the wadded tabac, and slugs of the local variety of Cuba rum that would never be served, ever, at, say, Hotel Panamericano, and the issues of ‘after Fidel who, and what,’ would present themselves in the form my political and journalistic curiosity.

Let me say here that these men and women, the boys and girls, with whom I had such good happy times every day of my stay in the city, were havanistas, simple townsfolk, some of them members of the neighbourhood committees, most being just Cubans, energetic, happy, occasionally a trifle laid-back, always on the verge of breaking out into songs the lyrics of which would find no place in the genteel ambience of the rich in Florida, but all were or had ambitions to become members of the Cuban Communist Party.

Ciertamente, Fidel would retire one day, someday. Nobody talks about the natural death of a hero, now does one, anywhere? Compañero, I would be assured, with hard blows on my aching back for emphasis, it is not an issue with us, do you comprende? But if you insist with your ‘intellectual’ curiosity (I delete with mucho regret the ringing expletives that they would add to qualify me as an ‘intellectual’ to them), let us assure you what we think about the whole affair. Cuba would replace him. Fidel’s legacy would replace him. His compañeros whom he has nursed carefully over long, arduous years, particularly through the special period would replace him.

That simple response, straightforward in its honesty, I thought was as close to a logical response to my intellectual query as possible. Faces floated across my recall. Roberto Robaina, the then foreign minister, Carlos Lage, the then health minister, Felipe Perez Roque, Fidel’s the then confidential assistant, Ricardo Alarcón, a political veteran – all in their late thirties or early forties then, and yet holding top positions in the central committee and occupying key governmental posts.

Strangely, Raúl Castro’s name was such an automatic if short-term choice (Raúl is but three year’s younger than Fidel) that it never entered my somewhat muddled (try being non-muddled after a chew or five of the Cuban tabac, and a glass or six of the Cuban rum of very fresh vintage) mind.

Since then a whole host of other young Cuban comrades are ready to take over from Fidel and then perhaps in course of time from Raul. The words of Roberto Robaina who spoke excellent English, was a bit of a dandy, and an extremely media savia leader, and with whom I had developed a closeness of a kind, still ring in my ears. ‘Friend, we do not need Fidel, we need a large number of Fidels to replace that giant of an inspiring Communist whose height touches the sky.’

The next tier of leaders is ready. So are the Communist Party of Cuba and its large number of well-populated mass organisations, and so are the Cuban people, people including my rum-drinking, tabac-chewing, Havana aficionados. The imperialists and the terrorists do not need yet to sleep easy—not for a very, very long time, perhaps.

Cassandra.says
21 February 2008 at 17:39

Fidel, press conference, 2001

"There have never been death squads in our country, nor a single missing person, nor a single political assassination, nor a single victim of torture. . . . You may travel around the country, ask the people, look for a single piece of evidence, try to find a single case where the Revolutionary government has ordered or tolerated such an action. "

Since Fidel made this statement, I have challenged the exiles on the Net who promulgate their own Mythic Cuba to disprove it. Note how low the bar is. They only have to come up with a single case, which would still leave Cuba with the best human rights record in the hemisphere.

So far they have failed. The long list "murders" by Castro they cite include Bay of Pigs casualties, legalized abortions, people whose cancers were diagnosed while they were in custody, people who drowned in the Straits of Georgia ... one assumes that if they had a better case to make, they would make it.

Similarly, a plea to the UN HRC ostensibly penned by a prisoner cited these brutal prison conditions: the food was lousy, the drain was blocked in the laundry room, and there were so many staff members with peasant backgrounds it was impossible to avoid talking to one.

I get the impression that your side of the pond has swallowed whole the disinformation about Cuba promulgated by the "exile" community. Just remember what the Iraqi exiles were able to do with U.S. financial support and try to imagine an exile community that finances the U.S. government rather than vice versa.

Go see for yourselves.

Manuel A. Tellechea
21 February 2008 at 23:59

If Hitler had retired as Führer before 1939, what would the reaction of the Western media have been to his decision? Not much different, we suppose, to their reaction to Castro's "retirement" as Cuba's president-for-life. An effort would have been made to create "balance" in a record that overwhelmingly tilted morally and materially to one side: the solution of mass unemployment would be weighed against the material losses of Krystalnacht; the revitalization of Germany's economy would offset the annexation of the Sudetenland; incentives for new mothers would compensate for the sterilization of mental and physical "defectives." And what would balance Hitler's predations on human liberty and humanity iself? The promised Volkswagons? The Autobahn? The 1936 Olympics? Guns? Butter? The German "New Man?"

At least those who tried to exculpate or justify Hitler in the 1930s were not unopposed in their propaganda. There was a formidable press dedicated to denouncing Herr Hitler's crimes as then known. Unfortunately, it was the same press that extolled Stalin's crimes and ceased to condemn Hitler's when the two briefly became allies.

It was, in short, a time of partisan morality, reprehensible, certainly, but not more so than the present era of moral relativism. The media now recoils at condemning tyrants for their crimes as if their own objectivity were judged by their subjectivity to them. When forced to mention those crimes the media characterize them as allegations made by the tyrant's detractors. But their so-called achievements are never identified as the allegations of their apologists.

In Castro's case it is the infant mortality and literacy rates which are the counterweights used in his favor (though Cuba ranked higher in those areas in respect to other countries in 1958 than it does in 2008). There is one thing about Castro that should be highlighted above all else but which is never even mentioned. It is his place as the Western Hemisphere's most notorious mass murderer. Even if all that his supporters allege on his behalf were true, even if the Cuban people had prospered rather than been brought to ruin under his rule, even if human rights and Rule of Law had been respected rather than trampled underfoot every day of the last 49 years, none of it should matter or excuse the fact that Fidel Castro's name was writ large on history's pages with the blood of his countrymen.

On another blog I once demonstrated that Castro had killed more Cubans proportionately than Hitler killed Germans.¶ Many found this comparison objectionable as if to affirm one thing were to deny the other. And yet the facts are what they are. Having ruled four times as long as Hitler, and though he murdered on a smaller canvas, Castro has nonetheless managed to surpass the greatest incarnation of evil that humanity has ever known (there have been greater, of course, Stalin and Mao, for example, but their evil is apparently beyond the comprehension or condemnation of most Westerners).

Only when, as in Hitler's case, it becomes in bad taste even to suggest that there was anything that Castro did for his people that might excuse his bloodlust, then, and only then, will the apologias stop and the mea culpas begin. Obviously, after nearly 50 years, that point has not been reached yet.

The media and the world will get another chance to get it right when Fidel Castro dies.

[¶ According to the census of June 1933, the Jewish population of Germany consisted of 505,000 people. Jews represented less than 1 percent of the total German population of 67 million. Approximately 300,000 German Jews managed to escape before the Holocaust. Of the remaining 205,000, 170,000 were killed in the Holocaust. (Source: The Holocaust Encyclopedia).

The Cuban Archive Project has identified and documented 102,000 Cubans killed by Castro (and this number, of course, is always growing).

Hitler killed 170,000 German Jews relative to a total German population of 67 million in 1933 (when he took over). Castro has killed 102,000 Cubans out of a total population of 6.6 million (when he took over in 1959).

Proportionally, Castro has killed 7 times more Cubans than Hitler did German Jews. Even if we relate Castro’s killings to the current Cuban population (11 million), he has still killed 4 times as many Cubans than Hitler killed German Jews.

Moreover, if all the European Jews killed by Hitler (6 million) in all countries to which he extended the Holocaust are taken as a percentage of the total population of Europe, Castro has still killed more Cubans per capita than Hitler killed Jews.

As bad as Hitler? No, worse.]

http://reviewofcuban-americanblogs.blogspot.com

Cassandra.says
22 February 2008 at 01:19

The criminals "documented" (no documents referenced except their own) by the Cuban Archive Project could have lived by staying in the U.S. and getting a job instead of invading Cuba, lynching student teachers, bombing hotels, etc.

Kennedy was voiced concerns about the "disposal problem" he was faced with -- he was hoping Cuba would keep the gusanos he sent over there. No such luck. They survived to infect a second generation with their fables about Cuba, a generation unable to go see for themselves.

No innocents died at the wall in Cuba.

antileft
22 February 2008 at 08:15

Hey Cassandra- do you think that fidel was in power for 49 years out of the kindness of his heart, or just because hes a selfish old dictator?

antileft
22 February 2008 at 09:47

"The criminals "documented" (no documents referenced except their own) by the Cuban Archive Project could have lived by staying in the U.S."

You could say the same thing about German Jews.

"They survived to infect a second generation with their fables about Cuba, a generation unable to go see for themselves."

And cubans are allowed to leave? Come on now- if they were, they wouldnt keep dying trying to escape now, would they?

Manuel A. Tellechea
22 February 2008 at 14:08

Cassadra:

Everybody who died "before the wall" was innocent since none was accorded due process or even the semblance of due process by Castro and his henchmen.

If you give no credence to the Cuban Archive Project which collects the names of Castro's victims, perhaps you should peruse the "Gaceta de la República" where Castro published the decrees ordering the deaths of his victims.

Before the Revolution, there was no death penalty in Cuba. That's why Castro surrendered to Batista after the failed attack on the Moncada barracks in 1953. He knew that Cuba had an independent judiciary that would guarantee his life and assure a fair trial under the Rule of Law.

When he was amnestied by Batista after serving only 21 months of a 15-year sentence, Castro and his comrades were free to leave for Mexico, where they recommenced their revolution.

Not only are Cubans today not allowed to leave the island without an "exit visa," they must also acquire a license from the regime to move from one province to another, one city to another or even across the street. They must also inform the police when they have a guest staying in their homes. Under Castro, all Cubans are under "house arrest."

Manuel A. Tellechea
22 February 2008 at 14:13

Prasantb:

Where is your friend Robaina today?

antileft
22 February 2008 at 14:18

Manuel- your knowledge is superb. I love reading your posts- keep typing.

Manuel A. Tellechea
22 February 2008 at 16:31

antileft:

Thanks. I appreciate your kind words. You will find more than 600 articles on Castro and Cuba at my blog:

http://reviewofcuban-americanblogs.blogspot.com

Manuel A. Tellechea
22 February 2008 at 16:34

Is Castro's So-Called "Resignation" A Ruse?

Hold the presses, stop the videocameras! The Great Deceiver may have fooled us again.

Is Fidel Castro really retiring for good and always from all the posts which he has bestowed on himself in a life rich with such "distinctions?"

On Tuesday, Castro declared that he would not seek the office of president of the council of State and would relinquish his post as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He presented his resignation in an article published in Granma. This made perfect sense since there is no person or organism in Cuba authorized to receive his resignation except Fidel Castro himself. He is, after all, the State. Having accepted his own resignation and reiterated his irrevocable determination not to convince himself to reconsider his decision nor allow anyone else to dissuade him ["I will neither aspire to nor accept, I repeat, I will neither aspire to nor accept the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief"], he communicated the news to all and sundry in his occasional column formerly known as "Reflections of the Comandante" and henceworth to be known as "Reflections of Citizen Fidel." This news took most by surprise but satisfied few. In truth, it was not the news that most hoped to hear and had long anticipated since his late illness. Perhaps that was the reason that it was taken at face value. Maybe it shouldn't have been.

Castro's resignation did not mention the position which he has held the longest and which has traditionally been the most important in a Communist state. Castro nowhere relinquishes his duties as First Secretary of the Cuban Communist Party. Yet when he transferred power provisionally to Raúl Castro on August 1, 2006, he listed that office first among those which he was delegating to Raúl:

"1) I delegate provisionally my duties as first secretary of the Central Committee of the Cuban Communist Party to the second secretary, comrade Raúl Castro Ruz.

"2) I delegate provisionally my duties as commander-in-chief of the heroic Revolutionary Armed Forces to the aforementioned comrade, Army Gen. Raúl Castro Ruz.

"3) I delegate provisionally my duties as president of the Council of State and of the government of the republic of Cuba to the first vice president, comrade Raúl Castro Ruz."

It would be hard to believe that Fidel's failure to mention his most important self-appointed post in his letter of resignation could be a careless omission on his part. It is as if the Queen of England had abdicated her titles as Defender of the Faith and Head of the British Commonwealth but forgotten to include her queenly title.

Fidel ended his last "Reflection" with the admonition that "this is not good-bye." Perhaps we should take him at his word, though nothing is more wrought with folly.

Cassandra.says
23 February 2008 at 02:44

Antileft posts:

"The criminals "documented" (no documents referenced except their own) by the Cuban Archive Project could have lived by staying in the U.S."

You could say the same thing about German Jews.

=======

This is the real post:

The criminals "documented" (no documents referenced except their own) by the Cuban Archive Project could have lived by staying in the U.S. and getting a job instead of invading Cuba, lynching student teachers, bombing hotels, etc.

Sleazy, huh?

Most of Manuel's and Antileft's posts are not sleazy, they are a mix of canned lies and dementia.

Go and see.

BTW, there have been three (3) executions in Cuba (of career criminal hijackers) in the 21st century.

There were 600 in the year of the Triumph of the Revolution, members of BRAC, police "interrogators" and the ilk. In the subsequent few years there were executions of the part of the Bay of Pigs force that had been infiltrated into the Escambrays in advance of the invasion and abandoned there when the landing force surrendered.

Many people who were convicted of terrorism, including assassination attempts against Fidel, are alive and well and at liberty, having served their sentences.

antileft
23 February 2008 at 09:20

No, theres nothing sleazy about it at all- I cut out the end because it wasnt needed. And you havent answered my first question, have you? Let me ask again:

"Hey Cassandra- do you think that fidel was in power for 49 years out of the kindness of his heart, or just because hes a selfish old dictator?"

Go on- give it a shot, you dictator-supporting hypocrit.

Cassandra.says
23 February 2008 at 21:00

I think Fidel was in power for 49 years because the Cuban people shared his vision of an independent nation of healthy, educated, cultured, humane and integrated people with pride and dignity, respected throughout the world.

I think he has largely realized that vision.

When the World Bank cites Cuba as a model for the world to follow to achieve the stated goals of the Bank which it admits none of its clients has done ...

When the president of the Swedish Psychiatric Association cites Cuban psychiatric hospitals as models for the world ...

When WWF cites Cuba's sustainable development as a model for the world ...

When Cuba's restoration of Havana is cited by UN-Habitat as a model for the world ...

When Rolihlahla Mandela thanks Cuba for defeating the forces of oppression in South Africa ...

When Cuban prisons receive the Unesco "Friend of the Mother and Child" award ...

When the U.N. sets a target for reforestation in the entire planet and Cuba's reforestation project meets 15% of the world's target ...

When one million (and counting) blind people have their sight restored by Cuban doctors ...

When a small black boy wins a break-dancing contest on the streets, is awarded a ballet scholarship and becomes the world's most acclaimed dancer -- if it had happened in Harlem the headlines would read "Only in America" but it happened in Havana ...

When a country goes from mass hunger, disease, homelessness to full employment and the total elimination of abject proverty ...

I wouldn't describe it as the "kindness of his heart" -- but I might say the nobility of his character.

antileft
24 February 2008 at 06:33

"I think Fidel was in power for 49 years because the Cuban people shared his vision of an independent nation of healthy, educated, cultured, humane and integrated people with pride and dignity, respected throughout the world."

and

"I wouldn't describe it as the "kindness of his heart" -- but I might say the nobility of his character."

Oh come on Cassandra, that's exactly the same excuse dictators always use- "well, the people want me to stick around, so Im going to stay for 49 years..." Pinoshit himself probably said the same thing. See, this is the thing about the left- you ask most lefties what they think of pinoshit, and theyll say "selfish dictator", you ask most right wingers and theyll say "selfish dictator", but you ask a left winger about Castro- and ooooh hes no dictator!!! Hes different! Why can't you just give the obvious, moderate and reasonable answer "Castro is a selfish dictator and he should have stood down a long time ago but I like the system hes made." There's nothing wrong with that! Of course, it ignores the blatant failings of the communist system, but I could understand. Cant you see how just saying what fidel says in this case makes all the rest of your arguements (which are also what fidel says) sound like a load of crap? Being a mouthpiece of a regime is never a good thing- there are very few which havent done bad things. Why should any of us buy anything you have to say when you cant even say what is completely obvious to the rest of us "fidel is a selfish dictator and he should have stepped down long ago". Go on, try saying it. It'll make the rest of what you say sound plausable.

radius
24 February 2008 at 13:34

Dictators are usually appointed to rule the state in the interests of a minority class. It happens in an emergency, when it is the only way that class can maintain its vested interests. Dictators are also usually vested with absolute power and authority, and are not restricted by a constitution or laws.

None of this fits with Fidel Castro. He was a 'dictator' only in the sense that he ruled in the interests of working people and against those of the tiny elite class that is increasingly able (via media manufacturing of consent, consumerism etc) to manage their interests in capitalist countries without resorting to dictators.

antileft
24 February 2008 at 13:42

Oh come on radius! Dont be so naive. He was a dictator FULL STOP. There's no need to add to that. You cant rule a country for 49 years without being a dictator! What a load of crap! Honestly, this is why the left has declined so much- every reasonable, moderate person who might consider communism can see fidel is a dictator- but you all deny it!!! Why cant you just say hes a dictator but you like what hes done? You make your arguement flimsy and idiotic. No one wants to be ruled by the same guy for 49 years! Even if you like what he did. Thatcher supporters say she went on too long- she lasted 11 long years. Blair lasted 10 or so. Most people are sick of their leader after a decade- even the most talented ones. There is NO leader that the people have freely chosen to rule over them that has lasted for more than, say, 20 years (unless Im missing one or 2). Fidel managed over 4 times thatcher by being a dictator. Get over it or youll convince no one. And quit being so bloody naive- it was 49 years for christs sake- you dont run a country for that long when people actually have a choice.

Cassandra.says
24 February 2008 at 20:22

Cant you see how just saying what fidel says in this case makes all the rest of your arguements (which are also what fidel says) sound like a load of crap?

=========

What FIDEL says??

You claim Fidel writes the speeches of the president of the World Bank, WWF, the president of the Swedish Psychiatric Association, UNESCO, and Nelson Mandela?

Radius, you and I are dated. We refer to traditional definitions of dictatorship -- rule without the consent of the people outside a framework of constitution and laws.

Antileft belongs to a generation with the attention span of a gnat who thinks it's self-evident that people will get bored by the same old (bearded) face and vote for novelty.

I suspect antileft hasn't been through a war. One political constant is the reluctance of people to change governments in the middle of a war, and the U.S. war against Cuba has also gone on for 49 years.

antileft
25 February 2008 at 06:50

"Radius, you and I are dated. We refer to traditional definitions of dictatorship -- rule without the consent of the people outside a framework of constitution and laws."

It's not about being dated! Communists have always ignored the fact that the leaders they support are dictators. And this is what Im saying- by trying to deny it, you make yourself sound ridiculous!! "outside a framework of constitution and laws..." Come on now! What kind of a democracy has a law which bans people from criticising it's leader? or bans members of the press from telling statistics which make the country look bad? Everyone knows hes a dictator!!! Get over it! Just admit it, and back his system. It would sound more honest.#

This is simply black and white thinking. Cuba=good, America=bad, dictator=bad. Therefor Castro=not dictator. It doesnt work like that! People who can't see shades of grey always end up following an extreme- which is exactly what youre doing. Why cant you communists just say "well, I agree that Castro is a dictator... But the things I like are..."

You know, its a shame you had to lie your ass off trying to make out that fidel wasnt a dictator- because maybe you could have convinced someone eh? Now you just look like a hypocrit.

antileft
25 February 2008 at 08:43

Cassandra, just to continue with what I was saying above. You have some statistics- we can all appreciate that. You obviously have some knowledge on the subject and want to convince people. But the thing is this- you arent going to convince anyone when you deny the blatant problems with the system youre supporting that everyone knows about. When you say things like "I wouldn't describe it as the "kindness of his heart" -- but I might say the nobility of his character." to discribe the reason for someone being in power for 49 years, you make it sound as though you are incapable of critical thinking on this subject. You know, it is possible for a dictator to be in charge of a system that we can learn from. It's no good simplifying everything in your head and thinking that the only way to support cuba is to make it sound like a democracy. If only you had said "Cuba is a dictatorship and needs democratic reforms, but I like the way the services/economy works..." Then we could have left the subject of dictatorship there. But the path you chose sounds as though you arent interested in the facts- but are instead interested in which side the facts are on. It shows a lack of critical thinking. It sounds as though you have an opinion and have found some facts to back it up- instead of forming your opinions around the facts. This is why- when you then go on to quote statistics, it makes it seem so much less plausable. No one is going to believe what you say when the first thing you say is just complete nonsense. It's a shame. You can see the problem, right? Youve dug yourself into a hole and from there, you the whole thing is just a pointless joke. You shouldve been more honest from the start. Next time, admit to the failings in the system- and then move onto the things that you like about it.

Cybertiger
25 February 2008 at 12:49

"If only you had said "Cuba is a dictatorship and needs democratic reforms ..."

In my opinion, the US is a democracy in need of a good dictatorship. I don't think this democracy thing is all it's cracked up to be - look at the US , the land with the freedom to dictate a regime of rape and pillage around the world. I think the 'Great Democracy' needs a dictator to crack a few stupid democratic heads together.

Cybertiger
25 February 2008 at 13:18

"In my opinion, the US is a democracy in need of a good dictatorship."

I should add that it could be argued that the US is currently an elective dictatorship - with a dictator elected by a bad electorate.

antileft
25 February 2008 at 14:13

Oh shut up cybertiger-no one's talking about america-black and white thinking. Go to yahoo chat.

Pencils
25 February 2008 at 20:26

Well said Cassandra. I came late to this thread and you've already made the case so well, I feel no need to add much. That Manuel guy is one of the well-funded propagandists who abound on the net. When he and his like (and, unfortunately, a lot of the self-styled left) talk about the lack of a free press and tv in Cuba, what they mean is a press and tv owned entirely by Manuel's paymasters, pumping out such bilge to persuade enough of the Cubans that they could be better off, if they threw the rest to the wolves, to let the mafia back in and end education, healthcare, housing and food. If they're not starving, it's not working - welcome to 'freedom and democracy'.

I never read Antileft's posts. If you've read one, you've read them all. He basically opposes any restrictions on the rich, because the idea of poor people getting hurt makes him feel happier about his own miserable lot.

Cassandra.says
27 February 2008 at 23:43

Antileft, have we met?

I do indeed have MBs of statistics, but I haven't posted them HERE. So how do you know?

Who would the Cuban people have preferred to lead them, do you suggest?

How many terms do you think George Washington could have served if he'd wanted to stand for election again?

He preferred to have a life. Just a selfish old regular citizen.

antileft
28 February 2008 at 04:48

No we havent met. I could tell you know your statistics by your posts.

"Who would the Cuban people have preferred to lead them, do you suggest?!"

Of course, the system is hardly geared up to showing voters different choices and allowing candidates to compete for power by pleasing those voters, so we can never know. Of course, the best choice probably wouldnt be "the guy who's been running the place for the last 49 years". I doubt theyd have picked him every 4/5 years for that long. It doesnt happen anywhere else. And besides- it isnt enough to say "they wouldve voted for me, so we dont need an election". The people have to be asked and a serious debate has to be had. But we ll never know who theyd vote for because Castro has never allowed himself to be removed (until now, because of his health).

The second question, really is an example of what Im talking about with your answer. I never said I supported George Washington, or that America has, or had the perfect system. Actually, I dont even think it has a particularly good system, when compared to some Western European countries- I just like parts of it. You may have assumed I did with the same previous assumption- "its america vs Cuba, black vs white, and I cant say that Cuba is a dictatorship or Ill be saying Cuba is bad and America is good." Which is flawed logic used by a lot of New Statesman readers. Yes, it is possible to think that both Bush and Castro are complete assholes, and to think that America and Cuba are a complete mess. On the subject of George Washington, if he had stayed in power for 49 years, I would have sounded a little silly saying that he wasnt a dictator.

antileft
28 February 2008 at 06:46

Also to add to that, I want to talk about this comment:

"I suspect antileft hasn't been through a war. One political constant is the reluctance of people to change governments in the middle of a war, and the U.S. war against Cuba has also gone on for 49 years."

Youre right, I havent been through a war (Ive lived in Colombia and Venezuela though, which is pretty near to being at war sometimes), but one thing which is clear- having a democracy, along with genuine democratic institutions, and a clean, regular, legitimate and democratic transfer of power with a free press makes countries stronger, not weaker. Allowing the people to renew their acceptance of the system, and allowing power to pass from one person to the next (ideally to someone who's best suited to the job- not just someone who has the most similar blood to the last guy) greatly enhances that system's ability to survive through shocks such as the assassination of a president or an economic meltdown. It also makes your system a lot more influencial to people on the outside, which is important if you want places like the EU to give the country a decent trade deal. It's just a shame that Castro doesn't allow it. Oh well, it's his own system which suffers as a result.

Cassandra.says
28 February 2008 at 23:35

I don't believe any country that met your definition of democratic would have survived a loss of 80% of its trade. They can't move quickly and boldly in a crisis. That's why they take over the management of the economy and create a grand coalition when they are faced with a war.

Cassandra.says
28 February 2008 at 23:43

Cybertigger:

With your novel definition of dictatorship as being longevity in office, the U.S. Congress must really ring your bells.

Senator Byrd must be the dictator of the world by now, with Teddy Kennedy waiting in the wings.

antileft
29 February 2008 at 08:05

Yes but Cassandra, that excuse for staying in power "we re at war and have been for 49 years" may have some element of truth to it- the country does have a struggle on it's hands. However, it is just an excuse. Ill bet pinoshit used the same excuse (only with communists), or Saddam (with Iran), or Burma (with the West/ethnic groups/imperialism), or any other dictator. But it is an excuse, and the left (as well as the right) should call it what it is- a dictatorship. By denying it or saying that it's better than democracy because it "removes the influence of money from democracy" you actually make communism look rather bad. I mean, if that's the case, I say put money into it! It clearly works better! The solution to "too much money in politics" is not "to illiminate money" or "to illiminate elections" or "to illiminate campaigning" but to build genuine democratic institutions.

One thing I do enjoy though is that old argument "the communist country couldnt survive because it couldnt trade"! It always sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me. Ill bet youre against globalisation too eh?

Anyway, no need to reply to that one- I believe this thread is dead. Bye bye.

Cassandra.says
29 February 2008 at 20:19

Easy to test.

Jail Alpha66 and lift the blockade.