Fidel Castro took a repressive path. US imperial arrogance drove him to it.

[Ken Burch]

Remember, the Revolution came to power in 1959, only five years after the US organized a horrifically bloody military coup in Guatemala, and in the aftermath of a long era(one that still hasn't ended) of the US using every means at its disposal to prevent any government in the Americas from governing in the name of the common good of its people.

It would have been preferable, in the "democratic" sense, to have had elections. Unfortunately, Fidel knew that if he staged them, and if he didn't arm his country to the teeth, the US would immediately swoop in to prevent the elections being held and to restore the Batista regime or something as close to it as possible(in all liklihood, in 1961 the US would probably have overthrown an Latin American government elected on the 1960 Democratic platform). Our leaders never accepted that the good things achieved by the Revolution-free education and healthcare-should be preserved. Nor did we accept that the Revolution came to power because the Cuban people had no other method available to them to change their conditions.

It was our leaders' intransigence that drove Cuba to ally itself with the Soviet Union, it was our leaders' relentless attempts to overthrow the Revolution and restore the old order that led their leaders to the conclusion that they must run a closely controlled society. Everything our country did to Cuba was designed to drive it to the choices it made. While those choices were negative, what else could we ever have expected them to do? why SHOULD they have trusted us not to use democratic niceties to restore exploitation and inequality?

The death of Fidel should(but won't) be taken as the sign to end the war against that country. to stop trying to force it back into its old relationship of colonial servitude...to its humiliating past identity as our country's real-life Caribbean equivalent to "Biff's Pleasure Palace"

But it won't. We're going to keep trying to break them, keep trying to destroy all of the good along with the bad, keep trying to erase the last fifty-seven years and restore the Miami Gusanos to swaggering dominance over the majority of the people who didn't leave and didn't want to.

This was never about "democracy". This was never about "freedom" It was about payback.

And this is why most people still living in Cuba probably feel like the world is coming to an end. It should have been better than it was. But as long as our leaders won't allow people to change their conditions for the better, people will choose things like this rather than live with no hope at all.

[JI7]

1. so why didn't they hold the elections after the fall of the soviet union ?

[Ken Burch]

5. 1) By that time, the mindset was already entrenched;

2) The US never stopped trying to destabilize the place;

3) Either Bush the first OR Bill would have sent in the Marines if the elections had any result other than a right-wing landslide.

Look, I wish it hadn't gone like this. But after all the shit our empire had pulled in the Americas, the Cubans had plenty of reasons to distrust us and to see our use of the terms "democracy" and "free elections" as hypocritical bullshit.

What other response could we reasonably have expected?

[Cooley Hurd]

7. Because US Imperialism continues?

[guillaumeb]

26. Of course it does.

It continues under Democratic as well as GOP Presidents.

[Mika]

2. I just got back from a Cuba trip to see some family.

I seriously doubt there's much panic. They've been kinda expecting this for a while.

[Mika]

9. What are you going on about?

I agree with most of your op.
In recognition of that ...

Sorry to be so friendly.

[Ken Burch]

10. Sorry. I misinterpreted your posts.

will self-delete.

[Mika]

11. We're cool.

Been a tough year for so many of us.

Cheers

[Ken Burch]

12. Thanks. n/t.

[JonLP24]

4. The US was only concerned if Cuba was fully privatized

That's why they played up the "bad guy" rhetoric. Anytime the US is railing against a world leader I'd check out a countries economy then it would make perfect sense. "The Shock Doctrine" highlights much of this and there's been so much more since then.

[pangaia]

13. Thank you for this post. 🤗

[DFW]

14. My daughters were just there for two weeks. Rented a car and drove around the whole country

First if all, there was no trace whatsoever of people feeling like "the world coming to an end." On the contrary, they said the people were very friendly, and somewhat upbeat due to the re-opening of diplomatic relations and the hope for an end to the commercial embargo. If there is one thing Republicans hate more than "kommanists," it's passing up a chance to make money. The loosening of regulations permitting some small private enterprise was also appreciated. If there was some apprehension about an invasion sponsored by exiles/descendants thereof, it was kept a secret. Although few people in the countryside speak English or German, one of my daughters' friends was along, and her fluent Italian was enough to communicate.

When I was there, it was as an invited guest of the government, and so I did not have the freedom to move around that my daughters did. Also, it was during the days of Soviet domination, and dominate they did. Castro obviously appreciated the financial boost, but the Russians strutted around like they owned the place, which, in their eyes, they did. In one instance, I even had to interpret back and forth in a situation where some Soviets were yelling at some poor Cuban saleswoman who spoke no Russian and had no idea what they wanted. They spoke no Spanish (I speak both), and they felt it was the Cubans' responsibility to be fluent in Russian. Some of the government people were, of course, but the common people weren't.

I also think the notion that Bill Clinton would have invaded Cuba had an election yielded anything but a rightist government is straight out of Putin's Book of Fairy Tales. Cheney might have (Bush would have had to ask his brother where the country was on the map), and who knows what the hell Trump might do, although his idea of a successful invasion is more likely to be a Trump Tower in Varadero rather than bombing the place to bits.

[malaise]

15. There are elections in Cuba

They are very different from the billion dollar circus in America

[hack89]

16. But not free and open elections.

so tell us what political party runs in direct opposition to socialism/communism? What party runs without permission of the communist party? What individual has run in direct opposition to Castro?

Only kings and dictators rule for 60 years - which was Fidel?

[malaise]

17. Which party is allowed to oppose capitalism in the US?

Just asking

[hack89]

18. Green Party. Communist party. Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Any of the multitude of small parties and individuals that made the ballot in at least one state.

So now show me the equivalent in Cuba. Simple challenge.

[malaise]

19. The Green party and Party for Socialism and Liberation

aren't capitalist parties? Which state had a Communist party running in elections?
I plead ignorance on that one.

[hack89]

20. Stop evading the question

what laws allow either the Democratic or Republican parties veto powers over other political parties? What law gives them the power to vet and approve anyone that wants to run for office?

Cuba is a one party state. It has always been one. And that is democracy to you? Ok.

[malaise]

21. What exactly is Democracy?

Let's discuss that.

I'll be back later

[hack89]

22. Peaceful transition of power between groups with different political and economic ideologies

the test that many young democracies fail. Except Fidel never intended for Cuba to be a democracy.

[Ken Burch]

23. That "test" was something the US kept failing in its relationship with Latin America,

No country that overthrows democratic governments(as the US did over and over again throughout this hemisphere) can ever be entitled to lecture any other country anywhere about "freedom and democracy".

You only believe in democracy if you never try to bring down another country's democratic government.

[hack89]

25. Given Castro's prolific interventions in other countries

Is it safe to assume you don't consider Cuba a democracy either?

[Ken Burch]

24. How about the U.S. Constitution? The Electoral College effectively vetoes alternative parties.

Last edited Sun Nov 27, 2016, 09:09 PM - Edit history (1)

It makes it impossible for other parties to have any real chance in presidential elections.

So do the laws banning fusion voting and mandating the "first-past-the-post" electoral system rather than proportional representation.

Both of these give the status quo a veto over the development of new parties, which is effectively the same thing as giving the Democratic and Republican parties themselves a veto, since the two major parties and the rich are the only beneficiaries of the current political order. That order represents nothing but powerlessness and hopelessness for most of the people who vote for our party.

I say all of that as a person who wants THIS party to renew itself by being the party of everyone who has no say in this society-a group that, if actually given a reason to think it was worth their time to vote, would represent a huge majority for the kind of change this party exists to achieve.

[guillaumeb]

27. None. Capitalism is the underlying framework for the governmental system.

The US Empire reserves to itself alone the right to intervene/interfere anywhere in the world. That intervention includes overthrowing governments and invading countries that dare to oppose the US.

[forjusticethunders]

28. I really think "whataboutism" is one of our worst rhetorical tendencies

Castro did progressive things for his people but he was also a repressive dictator. Was he better than Batista? Of course. Should his positive accomplishments be celebrated? Yes. But we should never forget that he was a repressive dictator. And the fact is, while the threat of the US employing democratic processes to overthrow the Revolution was there, that's what organizing work is for. Fidel was more than capable of organizing democratic resistance to a right-wing power grab while allowing free elections and dissent, he just chose not to.