Re: [Marxism] Raul Castro proves no lightweight in leading Cuba

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joaquin?s article encouraged me to lay out my own differences with the
article Walter submitted (and I will get into my possible differences with
the statement he seemed to praise as measures that would be popular.  I
think it depends. 

My problem starts with the headline.  I recommend that when Walter is
quoting  from articles he reprints including their headlines, he should put
the quotes in quotes.  I know that, concerning headlines, this is not common
practice in the list. But I think the suggestion that Walter has discovered
to his surprise that Raul is not a lightweight is a little disorienting. 

But who on this list (well, certainly not me or Walter or Joaquin) ever
though Raul was a lightweight.  I have not been only recently disabused of
that illusion and, I suspect, neither has world imperialism.

Basically, the article is an attempt to adapt the image of Raul to the fact
that Fidel did not die as hoped, and as seems to have been possible at one
period, depending on whether the multiple surgeries worked or not. 

When it seemed like Fidel would die, the emphasis was on the  horror of a
Raul regime, his image as a hard Stalinist, militarist, bureaucrat ? another
Fidel, only more purely evil and nasty. This has been Raul?s bourgeois media
image for a long time, and among all too mny left radicals as well. 

Now it seems only Fidel stands in the way of  Raul?s determination to
restore capitalism in Cuba ? or at least get the process going.  Like
everybody else in the world except crazy Fidel, the article clearly
indicates,  he knows that only capitalism  works but he can?t act decisively
on this obvious fact until Fidel dies.  So ?progress? is on hold until Fidel
dies naturally, the US kills him, or Raul takes it into his head to remove
the only obstacle.  (I mean, who could blame him?) 

Now many Cuban exiles are ?disappointed? with Raul letting Fidel hold him
back.  Go, Raul!  Do what must be done!  Put something in Fidel?s rice and
beans and rational economic policies and resultant freedom will reign
supreme! 

Frankly, I think the talk about sharp differences between Fidel and Raul is
pretty much Kremlinology of the worst kind, which is Cuba style
Kremlinology.  I doubt that there are any fundamental differences between
the brothers on economic policy.  I think both, for instance, are impressed
by the rapid gains in economic development that China made by allowing much
more leeway for capitalist operations domestic and foreign.  But I see no
sign that they are willing to sacrifice the Cuban working class and
peasantry and their social interests to this.  And I see no signs of
difference over Cuba?s internationalist policies and deeds. 

 Frankly, I think the article Walter cited is basically hype. Trying to
paint Raul as the ?white  hope? in Cuba in order to keep anti-Castro hopes
alive in Miami and also in Washington. And maybe hoping that Raul will buy
the subtle offer of backing against Fidel ? lots of luck! 

The fact that the article in flattering Raul (rather clumsily) as ?not a
lightweight? is counterposing him to crazy Fidel who still believes
socialism has a future, deserves to be noted, and I am noting it. 

The real stance is highlighted by Condoleeza Rice?s insistence that the US
will ?not tolerate? at transition in leadership from Fidel to Raul.  They
have known both of them for 50 years now, and they know them quite well.

Walter quoted: 

"Rumors are circulating that Raul will parcel out state land to
farmers, allow Cubans to open more small business, stay at tourist
hotels, acquire cell phones and freely buy and sell their cars and
homes."
 
And Walter commented:
?If this one paragraph alone were to prove to be true, Raul would
gain immense popularity in Cuba. These are issues of both great
practical importance and symbolic significances to Cubans today.?
 
This sounds like an across-the-board unreserved endorsement. I am sure that
Walter?s ear for Cuban sentiments is pretty sound.  But I think with all
such measures (excepting cell phones, which I tend from afar to favor
permitting period, even though I have never successfully used one).
 
For instance, parceling out land.  It seems to me that this question is
posed by the decline of sugar as the monocrop, a condition created and
devastated by the imperialist world market.  But more important here is to
understand parceling out.  I am opposed to ending the effective
nationalization of the land.  That is, I am opposed to ?parceling out? land
in a way that permits buying and selling, the transfer of land for debt or
anything of that kind (likewise for people?s houses, by the way). I am
opposed to privatizing land in the current sense, turning it into alienable
private property. And I also question doing this with the homes people live
in, except perhaps when they leave them for another.  But not because they
can no longer afford the one they have.  You get my drift?
 
A subtle question is raised  by opening up the tourist industry to Cubans?
If this is only to Cubans who can afford the prices charged by the big
hotels, restaurants, etc.  If you open them up on the kind of terms that
Cubans customarily get for vacations, the imperialist and other capitalist
firms in the industry will start pulling out.  So is the tourist trade to
become a playground for the Cuban rich.
 
Another concern I have is the effect on the ethical and moral standards of
the revolution, the extension in a more institutionalized way, as seems to
me to be possible, of the sex market to include a broad privileged strata in
Cuba or even broader masses of Cuban men in particular.  This raises
questions of a lowering of the image of women in the society, and the
further legitimization of some truly savage forms of sexual oppression,
which Cuba fights but cannot simply declare abolished.
 
I believe more capitalism is coming to Cuba in all probability,and my
tendency at present is to think this is not only probable but necessary.  I
am not sure there is any FUNDAMENTAL difference on this among the Cuban
central leadership. I see no evidence to support the Fidel v. Raul media
hype. It seems to me that this is a fact of life stemming from the
incapacity of the anticapitalist revolution to untilize all the resources
and productivity potential of the country on a noncapitalist basis.  
 
But we must see this, as I believe Fidel and Raul both will tend to do, in a
class-struggle, not a class-collaborationist spirit. Like the NEP and other
measures which were necessary and even progressive in their time, this opens
up new class struggle challenges and opportunities, not a new capitalist
road of development to replace the socialist one, which is necessary but,
especially in the underdeveloped world, inadequate for all too many tasks at
present.
 
Now I want to take up a couple of Joaquin?s responses to Walter. In general
he makes very valid general political and historical points about the
Mao-Nixon meeting today in a way that I think can feed ultraleft
assumptions.
 
Walter stated: 
Here's a wild and crazy notion: Raul welcoming George W. Bush to Havana.
Can you imagine any such a notion? Actually, it's an idea which can't be
completely excluded.
 
Walter recommends a Circles Robinson article which, in characteristic
radical-liberal terms, compares a possible Bush visit to Cuba with Nixon?s
trip to China in 1969, and suggests that Bush could improve his historical
image by following Nixon?s example.  Of course, in doing so, they prettify
the trip which was about trading an opening to China for Mao?s help against
Vietnam and also the Soviet Union.  Of course, as Joaquin concedes in
passing, the Circles Robinson ?people were not suggesting that Castro would
put Iraq or Venezuela on the bargaining table, but reaching for an example
that would appeal to the millions who think more or less like them ? quite
possibly in fact a majority of the population at present.
 
Joaquin replies to this approach:
 
?The blockade has not "failed." The blockade is not about "success" or
"failure." It is the conscious, legitimate, logical and continuing
expression of the most heartfelt reaction of a vampire system against a
revolutionary example that, were it to spread, would drive a stake through
its heart. The cruel, savage blockade is not a mere policy of imperialism
but the most heartfelt expression of its very soul.
 
Imperialism's terms of reference for what constitutes "success" and
"failure" in relation to its Cuba policies have absolutely nothing to do
with a righteous identification with the Cuban Revolution or even a true
defense of the right of the Cuban people to run their own affairs as they
see fit.
 
Joaquin leaves the strong impression that there is no imperialist argument
that the blockade has failed, but simply NGOs and other middle class liberal
types.  This is false.  A lot of very class-conscious imperialists,
politicians, and others think that the blockade has failed to help the
imperialist cause.  We should remember that at the beginning, after all, the
rulers very much believed that together with its military plans, the
blockade would soon demoralize and break the spirit of the Cubans.
 
It seems to me that in rightly trying to convey the depth of the US ruling
class commitment over 47 years to the blockade strategy for isolating,
breaking, and ultimately occupying Cuba, he tends to take the blockade out
of politics and strategy entirely and into the realm of emotional necessity
and deeply held religious belief for the imperialists.  As long as the
imperialist soul exists, so must the blockade. It is one thing to argue that
the Cuban community is not primarily responsible for the maintenance of the
blockade.  It is quite another thing to assume that the blockade exists
outside imperialist tactics and strategy and simply expresses how they FEEL
about Cuba.
 
Has the blockade failed to achieve it purposes? You bet it has.  Have the
imperialists noticed it?  Yes indeed.  Does it bother them?  Absolutely.
Will it last until the ?imperialist soul? has disappeared from the North
American continent, which may take a couple years or maybe even more?  We
don?t know.  But should we be trying to end it before that happens?
Absolutely.  This is a revolutionary duty.
 
Joaquin suggests ? or seems to me to suggest -- that the United States being
what it is, the Cubans have to relate to and seek unity with forces like the
Circles Robinson around the blockade and so on, but that we who do our
political work in the United States shouldn?t seek unity with them around
the blockade.  We should simply denounce them with arm-waving stem-winding
about the revolutionary character of Cuba ? all of it true enough, if a tad
general and abstract.
 
I think that?s wrong, and that we want people who hold such views or adopt
them tactically to appeal to liberals or whatever to be part of the fight
with us.  We can express our disagreements, but I think ON THE ISSUE OF THE
BLOCKADE, it is correct to differentiate between those who support it and
those who oppose it.
 
On the specific issue of a possible Bush visit to Cuba, Joaquin declares:
?To even suggest that Cuba might be
willing to play a similar role [to Mao in China --FF] in greeting such a
?positive? step by Bush is
an unmitigated slander, not just against Fidel and Raúl, but against the
Cuban Revolution and the Cuban Nation.?
 
Even though the data Joaquin presents on Nixon in China is correct, I think
the positive point here is overwhelmed by the implications that are probably
not correct.  I don?t know that Fidel or Raul have ever refused to talk to
Bush about anything except purely Cuban internal matters.  I see no evidence
that they would not regard a Bush desire to visit Cuba as ?positive? even in
his present lame-duck, low-support condition.  I think they might even risk
alienating a few friends in the Democratic Party (most would handle it) by
responding positively to such a historic step by a US President.  
 
Remember, Joaquin is raising here not whether Bush would decide to seek to
visit Cuba, but is taking up the issue of whether the Cuban government and
nation would see anything ?positive?in this.  I think they would, although I
think such a move by Bush is very unlikely.  
 
For one thing, the Republicans would be completely finished in Florida and
New Jersey if Bush did his (the Cuban vote does affect Cuba policy on this
quite SECONDARY level, and, more importantly, I think how he views himself
historically is determined by his success or failure in attaining the goals
of US imperialism or advancing toward them, and he will look at Cuba in this
light just as Nixon looked at China.
 
Frankly, as long as he is still pursuing the war in Iraq as the US position
deteriorates, I don?t see how visiting Cuba would do accomplish anything for
Bush and the Republicans  but give Hilary Clinton a chance to denounce them
in the Orange Bowl.
Fred Feldman
 
 
 
 

 
 




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism